Arizona Department of Water Resources November 2009 ARIZONA WATER ATLAS Volume 7 Lower 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 7 CONTENTS PREFACE SECTION 7.0 Overview of the Lower Colorado River Planning Area 7.0.1 Geography 7.0.2 Hydrology Groundwater Hydrology Surface Water Hydrology 7.0.3 Climate 7.0.4 Environmental Conditions Vegetation Arizona Water Protection Fund Programs Threatened and Endangered Species National Monuments, Wildlife Refuges and Wilderness Areas Managed Waters 7.0.5 Population Population Growth and Water Use 7.0.6 Water Supply Colorado River Water Central Arizona Project Water  Surface Water Groundwater Effluent Contamination Sites 7.0.7 Cultural Water Demand Tribal Water Demand Municipal Demand  Agricultural Demand Industrial Demand 7.0.8 Water Resource Issues in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area Colorado River Issues Groundwater Transportation Planning and Conservation Issue Surveys 7.0.9 Groundwater Basin Water Resource Characteristics REFERENCES 1 3 5 5 14 19 21 22 26 26 28 31 32 32 35 35 41 42 45 47 47 48 51 53 59 68 70 70 72 73 73 74 78 SECTION 7.1 Water Resource Characteristics of the Butler Valley Basin 7.1.1 Geography of the Butler Valley Basin 7.1.2 Land Ownership in the Butler Valley Basin 7.1.3 Climate of the Butler Valley Basin 7.1.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Butler Valley Basin 7.1.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Springs 87 88 90 92 94 96 1 i Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.1.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Butler Valley Basin 7.1.7 Water Quality of the Butler Valley Basin 7.1.8 Cultural Water Demands in the Butler Valley Basin 7.1.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Butler Valley Basin References and Supplemental Reading SECTION 7.2 Water Resource Characteristics of the Gila Bend Basin 7.2.1 Geography of the Gila Bend Basin 7.2.2 Land Ownership in the Gila Bend Basin 7.2.3 Climate of the Gila Bend Basin 7.2.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Gila Bend Basin 7.2.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Gila Bend Basin 7.2.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Gila Bend Basin 7.2.7 Water Quality of the Gila Bend Basin 7.2.8 Cultural Water Demands in the Gila Bend Basin 7.2.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Gila Bend Basin References and Supplemental Reading SECTION 7.3 Water Resource Characteristics of the Harquahala Basin 7.3.1 Geography of the Harquahala Basin 7.3.2 Land Ownership in the Harquahala Basin 7.3.3 Climate of the Harquahala Basin 7.3.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Harquahala Basin 7.3.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Harquahala Basin 7.3.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Harquahala Basin 7.3.7 Water Quality of the Harquahala Basin 7.3.8 Cultural Water Demands in the Harquahala Basin 7.3.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Harquahala Basin References and Supplemental Reading SECTION 7.4  Water Resource Characteristics of the Lower Gila Basin 7.4.1 Geography of the Lower Gila Basin 7.4.2 Land Ownership in the Lower Gila Basin 7.4.3 Climate of the Lower Gila Basin 7.4.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Lower Gila Basin 7.4.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Lower Gila Basin 7.4.5 Groundwater Conditions of the Lower Gila Basin 7.4.7 Water Quality of the Lower Gila Basin 7.4.8 Cultural Water Demands in the Lower Gila Basin ii 97 102 104 107 109 111 112 114 116 119 124 126 132 137 141 144 147 148 150 152 155 158 159 168 172 175 178 181 182 184 187 190 195 196 206 213 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.4.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Lower Gila Basin References and Supplemental Reading SECTION 7.5 Water Resource Characteristics of the McMullen Valley Basin 7.5.1 Geography of the McMullen Valley Basin 7.5.2 Land Ownership in the McMullen Valley Basin 7.5.3 Climate of the McMullen Valley Basin 7.5.4 Surface Water Conditions in the McMullen Valley Basin 7.5.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the McMullen Valley Basin 7.5.6 Groundwater Conditions of the McMullen Valley Basin 7.5.7 Water Quality of the McMullen Valley Basin 7.5.8 Cultural Water Demands in the McMullen Valley Basin 7.5.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the McMullen Valley Basin References and Supplemental Reading SECTION 7.6 Water Resource Characteristics of the Parker Basin 7.6.1 Geography of the Parker Basin 7.6.2 Land Ownership in the Parker Basin 7.6.3 Climate of the Parker Basin 7.6.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Parker Basin 7.6.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Parker Basin 7.6.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Parker Basin 7.6.7 Water Quality of the Parker Basin 7.6.8 Cultural Water Demands in the Parker Basin 7.6.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Parker Basin References and Supplemental Reading SECTION 7.7 Water Resource Characteristics of the Ranegras Plain Basin 7.7.1 Geography of the Ranegras Plain Basin 7.7.2 Land Ownership in the Ranegras Plain Basin 7.7.3 Climate of the Ranegras Plain Basin 7.7.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Ranegras Plain Basin 7.7.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Ranegras Plain Basin 7.7.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Ranegras Plain Basin 7.7.7 Water Quality of the Ranegras Plain Basin 7.7.8 Cultural Water Demands in the Ranegras Plain Basin 7.7.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Ranegras Plain Basin References and Supplemental Reading 218 221 225 226 228 230 233 236 237 245 249 253 256 259 260 262 265 268 272 274 280 284 288 292 297 298 300 302 304 306 307 313 317 320 322 iii Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 SECTION 7.8 Water Resource Characteristics of the San Simon Wash Basin 7.8.1 Geography of the San Simon Wash Basin 7.8.2 Land Ownership in the San Simon Wash Basin 7.8.3 Climate of the San Simon Wash Basin 7.8.4 Surface Water Conditions in the San Simon Wash Basin 7.8.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the San Simon Wash Basin 7.8.6 Groundwater Conditions of the San Simon Wash Basin 7.8.7 Water Quality Conditions of the San Simon Wash Basin 7.8.8 Cultural Water Demands in the San Simon Wash Basin 7.8.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the San Simon Wash Basin References and Supplemental Reading SECTION 7.9 Water Resource Characteristics of the Tiger Wash Basin 7.9.1 Geography of the Tiger Wash Basin 7.9.2 Land Ownership in the Tiger Wash Basin 7.9.3 Climate of the Tiger Wash Basin 7.9.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Tiger Wash Basin 7.9.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Tiger Wash Basin 7.9.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Tiger Wash Basin 7.9.7 Water Quality of the Tiger Wash Basin 7.9.8 Cultural Water Demands in the Tiger Wash Basin 7.9.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Tiger Wash Basin References and Supplemental Reading SECTION 7.10 Water Resource Characteristics of the Western Mexican Drainage Basin 7.10.1 Geography of the Western Mexican Drainage Basin 7.10.2 Land Ownership in the Western Mexican Drainage Basin 7.10.3 Climate of the Western Mexican Drainage Basin 7.10.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Western Mexican Drainage Basin 7.10.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Western Mexican Drainage Basin 7.10.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Western Mexican Drainage Basin 7.10.7 Water Quality of the Western Mexican Drainage Basin 7.10.8 Cultural Water Demands in the Western Mexican Drainage Basin 7.10.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Western Mexican Drainage Basin References and Supplemental Reading iv 325 326 328 330 333 337 338 342 346 350 351 355 356 358 360 362 365 367 371 373 375 376 379 380 382 384 387 389 391 396 398 400 401 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 SECTION 7.11 Water Resource Characteristics of the Yuma Basin 403 7.11.1 Geography of the Yuma Basin 404 7.11.2 Land Ownership in the Yuma Basin 406 7.11.3 Climate of the Yuma Basin 408 7.11.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Yuma Basin 411 7.11.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Yuma Basin 416 7.11.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Yuma Basin 418 7.11.7 Water Quality of the Yuma Basin 424 7.11.8 Cultural Water Demands in the Yuma Basin 429 7.11.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Yuma Basin 433 References and Supplemental Reading 444 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS APPENDIX A: Arizona Water Protection Fund Projects In the Lower Colorado River Planning Area through Fiscal Year 2008 APPENDIX B: Community Water System Annual Report Data 2006-2007 Submitted Plans Appendix C: Arizona Colorado River Water Use: Present Perfected Right Holders and Priority 1-6 Contractors in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area APPENDIX D: Colorado River Management  APPENDIX E: SURFACE WATER RIGHT AND ADJUDICATION FILINGS 450 455 and 457 461 467 475 v Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 FIGURES Figure 7.0-1 Figure 7.0-2 Figure 7.0-3 Figure 7.0-4 Figure 7.0-5 Figure 7.0-6 Figure 7.0-7 Figure 7.0-8 Figure 7.0-9 Figure 7.0-10 Figure 7.0-11 Figure 7.0-12 Figure 7.0-13 Figure 7.0-15 Figure 7.0-16 Figure 7.0-17 Figure 7.0-18 Figure 7.0-19 Figure 7.0-20 Figure 7.0-21 Figure 7.1-1 Figure 7.1-2 Figure 7.1-3 Figure 7.1-4 Figure 7.1-5 Figure 7.1-6 Figure 7.1-7 Figure 7.1-8 Figure 7.1-9 Figure 7.1-10 Figure 7.2-1 Figure 7.2-2 Figure 7.2-3  Arizona Planning Areas 2 Lower Colorado River Planning Area 3 Physiographic Regions of Arizona 4 Surface Geology of the Lower Colorado River Planning Area 5 Lower Colorado River USGS Watersheds 15 Average monthly precipitation and temperature from 1930-2002 19 Average annual temperature and total annual precipitation for the Lower Colorado River Planning Area from 1930-2002 20 Winter (November - April) precipitation departures from average 1000-1988 - Climate Division 5 21 Lower Colorado River Planning Area Biotic Communities and Ecoregions 23 Riparian Areas in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area 25 MSCP Reaches in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area 28 Wilderness Areas in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area  29 Average Annual Water Supply Utilized in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area, 2001-2005 (in acre-feet) 35 Lower Colorado River Planning Area Registered Wells and Surface Water Diversion Points 44 Lower Colorado River Planning Area Contamination Sites 50 Average Annual Basin Water Demand, 2001-2005 (in acre-feet) 51 Irrigation districts in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area 59 Irrigation Water Supply for the Lower Colorado River Planning Area, 2001-2005 (acre-feet) 61 Agricultural Demand in Selected Basins in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area 1991-2005 (in acre-feet) 61 Yuma area drainage fields and conduit systems 67 Butler Valley Basin Geographic Features 89 Butler Valley Basin Land Ownership 91 Butler Valley Basin Meteorological Stations and Annual Precipitation 93 Butler Valley Basin Surface Water Conditions 95 Butler Valley Basin Groundwater Conditions 99 Butler Valley Basin Hydrographs 100 Butler Valley Basin Well Yields 101 Butler Valley Basin Water Quality Conditions 103 Butler Valley Basin Cultural Water Demands 106 Butler Valley Basin Adequacy Determinations 108 Gila Bend Basin Geographic Features 113 Gila Bend Basin Land Ownership 115 Gila Bend Basin Meteorological Stations and Annual Precipitation 118 vi Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Figure 7.2-4 Figure 7.2-5 Figure 7.2-6 Figure 7.2-7 Figure 7.2-8 Figure 7.2-9 Figure 7.2-10 Figure 7.2-11 Figure 7.3-1 Figure 7.3-2 Figure 7.3-3 Figure 7.3-4 Figure 7.3-5 Figure 7.3-6 Figure 7.3-7 Figure 7.3-8 Figure 7.3-9 Figure 7.3-10 Figure 7.4-1 Figure 7.4-2 Figure 7.4-3 Figure 7.4-4 Figure 7.4-5 Figure 7.4-6 Figure 7.4-7 Figure 7.4-8 Figure 7.4-9 Figure 7.4-10 Figure 7.4-11 Figure 7.5-1 Figure 7.5-2 Figure 7.5-3 Figure 7.5-4 Figure 7.5-5 Figure 7.5-6 Figure 7.5-7 Figure 7.5-8 Figure 7.5-9 Figure 7.5-10 Figure 7.6-1 Gila Bend Basin Surface Water Conditions Gila Bend Basin Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major (>10 gpm) Springs Gila Bend Basin Groundwater Conditions Gila Bend Basin Hydrographs Gila Bend Basin Well Yields Gila Bend Basin Water Quality Conditions Gila Bend Basin Cultural Water Demands Gila Bend Basin Adequacy Determinations Harquahala Basin Geographic Features Harquahala Basin Land Ownership Harquahala Basin Meteorological Stations and Annual Precipitation Harquahala Basin Surface Water Conditions Harquahala Basin Groundwater Conditions Harquahala Basin Hydrographs Harquahala Basin Well Yields Harquahala Basin Water Quality Conditions Harquahala Basin Cultural Water Demand Harquahala Basin Adequacy Determinations Lower Gila Basin Geographic Features Lower Gila Basin Land Ownership Lower Gila Basin Meteorological Stations and Annual Precipitation Lower Gila Basin Surface Water Conditions Lower Gila Basin Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major (>10 gpm) Springs Lower Gila Basin Groundwater Conditions Lower Gila Basin Hydrographs Lower Gila Basin Well Yields Lower Gila Basin Water Quality Conditions Lower Gila Basin Cultural Water Demand Lower Gila Basin Water Adequacy Determinations McMullen Valley Basin Geographic Features McMullen Valley Basin Land Ownership McMullen Valley Basin Meteorological Stations and Annual Precipitation McMullen Valley Basin Surface Water Conditions McMullen Valley Basin Groundwater Conditions McMullen Valley Basin Hydrographs McMullen Valley Basin Well Yields McMullen Valley Basin Water Quality Conditions McMullen Valley Basin Cultural Water Demand McMullen Valley Basin Adequacy Determinations Parker Basin Geographic Features 123 125 128 129 131 136 140 143 149 151 154 157 161 162 167 171 174 177 183 186 189 194 197 200 201 205 212 217 220 227 229 232 235 239 240 244 248 252 255 261 vii Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Figure 7.6-2 Figure 7.6-3 Figure 7.6-4 Figure 7.6-5 Figure 7.6-6 Figure 7.6-7 Figure 7.6-8 Figure 7.6-9 Figure 7.6-10 Figure 7.6-11 Figure 7.7-1 Figure 7.7-2 Figure 7.7-3 Figure 7.7-4 Figure 7.7-5 Figure 7.7-6 Figure 7.7-7 Figure 7.7-8 Figure 7.7-9 Figure 7.7-10 Figure 7.8-1 Figure 7.8-2 Figure 7.8-3 Figure 7.8-4 Figure 7.8-5 Figure 7.8-6 Figure 7.8-7 Figure 7.8-8 Figure 7.9-1 Figure 7.9-2 Figure 7.9-3 Figure 7.9-4 Figure 7.9-5 Figure 7.9-6 Figure 7.9-7 Figure 7.9-8 Figure 7.10-1 Figure 7.10-2 Figure 7.10-3 Parker Basin Land Ownership Parker Basin Meteorological Stations and Annual Precipitation Parker Basin Surface Water Conditions Parker Basin Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major (>10 gpm) Springs Parker Basin Groundwater Conditions Parker Basin Hydrographs Parker Basin Well Yields Parker Basin Water Quality Conditions Parker Basin Cultural Water Demand Parker Basin Adequacy Determinations Ranegras Plain Basin Geographic Features Ranegras Plain Basin Land Ownership Ranegras Plain Basin Meteorological Stations and Annual Precipitation Ranegras Plain Basin Surface Water Conditions Ranegras Plain Basin Groundwater Conditions Ranegras Plain Basin Hydrographs Ranegras Plain Basin Well Yields Ranegras Plain Basin Water Quality Conditions Ranegras Plain Basin Cultural Water Demand Ranegras Plain Basin Adequacy Determinations San Simon Wash Basin Geographic Features San Simon Wash Basin Land Ownership San Simon Wash Basin Meteorological Stations and Annual Precipitation San Simon Wash Basin Surface Water Conditions San Simon Wash Basin Groundwater Conditions San Simon Wash Basin Well Yields San Simon Wash Basin Water Quality Conditions San Simon Wash Basin Cultural Water Demand Tiger Wash Basin Geographic Features Tiger Wash Basin Land Ownership Tiger Wash Basin Meteorological Stations and Annual Precipitation Tiger Wash Basin Surface Water Conditions Tiger Wash Basin Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major (>10 gpm) Springs Tiger Wash Basin Groundwater Conditions Tiger Wash Basin Hydrographs Tiger Wash Basin Water Quality Conditions Western Mexican Drainage Basin Geographic Features Western Mexican Drainage Basin Land Ownership Western Mexican Drainage Basin Meteorological Stations and Annual Precipitation viii 264 267 271 273 276 277 279 283 287 291 299 301 303 305 309 310 312 316 319 321 327 329 332 336 340 341 345 349 357 359 361 364 366 369 370 372 381 383 386 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Figure 7.10-4 Figure 7.10-5 Figure 7.10-6 Figure 7.10-7 Figure 7.10-8 Figure 7.10-9 Figure 7.11-1 Figure 7.11-2 Figure 7.11-3 Figure 7.11-4 Figure 7.11-5 Figure 7.11-6 Figure 7.11-7 Figure 7.11-8 Figure 7.11-9 Figure 7.11-10 Figure 7.11-11 Figure 7.11-12 Figure E-1 Figure E-2 Western Mexican Drainage Basin Surface Water Conditions Western Mexican Drainage Basin Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major (>10 gpm) Springs Western Mexican Drainage Basin Groundwater Conditions Western Mexican Drainage Basin Hydrographs Western Mexican Drainage Basin Well Yields Western Mexican Drainage Basin Water Quality Conditions Yuma Basin Geographic Features Yuma Basin Land Ownership Yuma Basin Meteorological Stations and Annual Precipitation Annual Flows (acre-feet) at Colorado River near Yuma, water years 1904-1964 (Station #9521000)  Yuma Basin Surface Water Conditions Yuma Basin Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major (>10 gpm) Springs Yuma Basin Groundwater Conditions Yuma Basin Hydrographs Yuma Basin Well Yields Yuma Basin Water Quality Conditions Yuma Basin Cultural Water Demand Yuma Basin Adeuqacy Determinations General Stream Adjudications in Arizona Registered Wells and Surface Water Diversion Points in Arizona 388 390 393 394 395 397 405 407 410 412 415 417 420 421 423 428 432 443 478 480 ix Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 TABLES Table 7.0-1 Table 7.0-2 Table 7.0-3 Table 7.0-4 Table 7.0-5 Table 7.0-6 Table 7.0-7 Table 7.0-8 Table 7.0-9 Table 7.0-10 Table 7.0-11 Table 7.0-12 Table 7.0-13 Table 7.0-14 Table 7.0-15 Table 7.0-16 Table 7.0-17 Table 7.0-18 Table 7.1-1 Table 7.1-2 Table 7.1-3 Table 7.1-4 Table 7.1-5 Table 7.1-6 Table 7.2-1 Endangered Species in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area Threatened and endangered species in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area 2000 Census population in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area Communities in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area with a 2000 Census population greater than 1,000 Water adequacy determinations in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area as of 12/2008 Arizona v. California decree accounting of the consumptive use of Colorado River water in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area (in acre-feet/year) Storage facilities in the Harquahala Basin Inventory of surface water right and adjudication filings in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area Contamination sites in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area Lower Colorado River Planning Area average cultural water demand by sector (2001-2005) Average annual municipal water demand in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area, 2001-2005 (in acre-feet) Water providers serving 450 acre-feet or more of water per year in 2006, excluding effluent, in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area Golf courses in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area (c. 2008) Agricultural water demand in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area Agricultural acreage, crop type and irrigation type in selected basins in 2007 Bureau of Reclamation project areas in the Yuma Basin Industrial water demand in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area Water resource issues ranked by survey respondents in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Butler Valley Basin Springs in the Butler Valley Basin Groundwater Data for the Butler Valley Basin Water Quality Exceedences in the Butler Valley Basin Cultural Water Demands in the Butler Valley Basin Adequacy Determinations in the Butler Valley Basin Climate Data for the Gila Bend Basin x 27 30 32 33 34 36 42 43 49 51 53 54 58 60 62 66 68 74 94 96 98 102 105 107 117 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.2-2 Table 7.2-3 Table 7.2-4 Table 7.2-5 Table 7.2-6 Table 7.2-7 Table 7.2-8 Table 7.2-9 Table 7.2-10 Table 7.3-1 Table 7.3-2 Table 7.3-3 Table 7.3-4 Table 7.3-5 Table 7.3-6 Table 7.3-7 Table 7.3-8 Table 7.4-1 Table 7.4-2 Table 7.4-3 Table 7.4-4 Table 7.4-5 Table 7.4-6 Table 7.4-7 Table 7.4-8 Table 7.4-9 Table 7.4-10 Table 7.5-1 Table 7.5-2 Table 7.5-3 Table 7.5-4 Table 7.5-5 Table 7.5-6 Table 7.5-7 Table 7.5-8 Table 7.5-9 Table 7.6-1 Table 7.6-2 Table 7.6-3 Table 7.6-4 Table 7.6-5 Table 7.6-6 Table 7.6-7 Table 7.6-8 Table 7.6-9 Streamflow Data for the Gila Bend Basin Flood ALERT Equipment in the Gila Bend Basin Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Gila Bend Basin Springs in the Gila Bend Basin Groundwater Data for the Gila Bend Basin Water Quality in the Gila Bend Basin Cultural Water Demands in the Gila Bend Basin Effluent Generation in the Gila Bend Basin Adequacy Determinations in the Gila Bend Basin Climate Data for the Harquahala Basin Flood ALERT Equipment in the Harquahala Basin Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Harquahala Basin Springs in the Harquahala Basin Groundwater Data for the Harquahala Basin Water Quality Exceedences in the Harquahala Basin Cultural Water Demands in the Harquahala Basin Adequacy Determinations in the Harquahala Basin Climate Data for the Lower Gila Basin Streamflow Data for the Lower Gila Basin Flood ALERT Equipment in the Lower Gila Basin Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Lower Gila Basin Springs in the Lower Gila Basin Groundwater Data for the Lower Gila Basin Water Quality Exceedences in the Lower Gila Basin Cultural Water Demand in the Lower Gila Basin Effluent Generation in the Lower Gila Basin Adequacy Determinations in the Lower Gila Basin Climate Data for the McMullen Valley Basin Flood ALERT Equipment in the McMullen Valley Basin Reservoirs and Stockponds in the McMullen Valley Basin Springs in the McMullen Valley Basin Groundwater Data for the McMullen Valley Basin Water Quality Exceedences in the McMullen Valley Basin Cultural Water Demands in the McMullen Valley Basin Effluent Generation in the McMullen Valley Basin Adequacy Determinations in the McMullen Valley Basin Climate Data for the Parker Basin Streamflow Data for the Parker Basin Flood ALERT Equipment in the Parker Basin Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Parker Basin Springs in the Parker Basin Groundwater Data for the Parker Basin Water Quality Exceedences in the Parker Basin Cultural Demand in the Parker Basin Effluent Generation in the Parker Basin 120 121 122 124 127 133 138 139 142 153 155 156 158 160 169 173 176 188 191 192 193 195 199 207 214 215 219 231 233 234 236 238 246 250 251 254 266 269 269 270 272 275 281 285 286 xi Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.6-10 Table 7.7-1 Table 7.7-2 Table 7.7-3 Table 7.7-4 Table 7.7-5 Table 7.7-6 Table 7.8-1 Table 7.8-2 Table 7.8-3 Table 7.8-4 Table 7.8-5 Table 7.8-6 Table 7.8-7 Table 7.8-8 Table 7.9-1 Table 7.9-2 Table 7.9-3 Table 7.9-4 Table 7.9-5 Table 7.9-6 Table 7.10-1 Table 7.10-2 Table 7.10-3 Table 7.10-4 Table 7.10-5 Table 7.10-6 Table 7.11-1 Table 7.11-2 Table 7.11-3 Table 7.11-4 Table 7.11-5 Table 7.11-6 Table 7.11-7 Table 7.11-8 Table 7.11-9 Table E-1 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Parker Basin Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Ranegras Plain Basin Springs in the Ranegras Plain Basin Groundwater Data for the Ranegras Plain Basin Water Quality Exceedences in the Ranegras Plain Basin Cultural Water Demands in the Ranegras Plain Basin Adequacy Determinations in the Ranegras Plain Basin Climate Data for the San Simon Wash Basin Streamflow Data for the San Simon Wash Basin Reservoirs and Stockponds in the San Simon Wash Basin Springs in the San Simon Wash Basin Groundwater Data for the San Simon Wash Basin Water Quality Exceedences in the San Simon Wash Basin Cultural Water Demands in the San Simon Wash Basin Effluent Generation in the San Simon Wash Basin Flood ALERT Equipment in the Tiger Wash Basin Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Tiger Wash Basin Springs in the Tiger Wash Basin Groundwater Data in the Tiger Wash Basin Water Quality Exceedences in the Tiger Wash Basin Cultural Water Demands in the Tiger Wash Basin Climate Data for the Western Mexican Drainage Basin Flood ALERT Equipment in the Western Mexican Drainage Basin Springs in the Western Mexican Drainage Basin Groundwater Data for the Western Mexican Drainage Basin Water Quality Exceedences in the Western Mexican Drainage Basin Cultural Water Demands in the Western Mexican Drainage Basin Climate Data for the Yuma Basin Streamflow Data for the Yuma Basin Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Yuma Basin Springs in the Yuma Basin Groundwater Data for the Yuma Basin Water Quality Exceedences in the Yuma Basin Cultural Water Demands in the Yuma Basin Effluent Generation in the Yuma Basin Adequacy Determinations in the Yuma Basin Count of Surface Water Right and Adjudication Filings by Planning Area xii 289 304 306 308 314 318 320 331 334 335 337 339 343 347 348 362 363 365 368 371 374 385 387 389 392 396 399 409 413 414 416 419 425 430 431 434 479 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 ARIZONA WATER ATLAS VOLUME 7 –LOWER COLORADO RIVER PLANNING AREA PREFACE Volume 7, the Lower Colorado River Planning Area, is the seventh 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. The Atlas divides Arizona into seven planning areas (Figure 7.0-1). There is a separate Atlas volume for each planning area, an executive summary volume composed of background information, and a resource sustainability volume. “Planning areas” are an organizational concept that provide for a regional perspective on supply, demand and water resource issues. A complete discussion of Atlas organization, purpose and scope is found in Volume 1. Also included in Volume 1 is general background information for the state, a description of 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. southwestern Arizona. The planning area contains the driest and hottest portions of the State. Large expanses of federal lands consisting of military reservations, wildlife refuges and national monuments are located in the planning area. Elevations range from over 7,700 feet in the Baboquivari Mountains along the southeastern boundary of the planning area to about 70 feet at the Colorado River where it enters Mexico. All of Yuma County and most of La Paz County (91% of the county) are contained within the planning area as well as portions of Maricopa (38%), Pima (43%) and Yavapai (1%) counties. Five Indian reservations including the Cocopah, Colorado River Indian Tribes (CRIT), Gila Bend, Fort Yuma-Quechan and Tohono O’odham are located within the planning area. One of the planning area basins, Harquahala, has been designated as an irrigation non-expansion area (INA) due to insufficient groundwater to provide a reasonably safe supply for irrigation. Although much of the planning area is relatively sparsely populated, there are several major population centers, particularly in the Yuma area. The 2000 Census planning area population was approximately 194,100 with basin populations ranging from less than 10 in the Tiger Wash Basin to almost 153,000 in the Yuma Basin. Yuma is the largest community with over 91,000 resiThere are additional, more detailed data available dents in 2006. Other population centers include to those presented in this volume. These data Fortuna Foothills and San Luis located near may be obtained by contacting the Arizona Yuma, Parker/Parker Strip, Ajo, Gila Bend and Department of Water Resources (Department). Quartzsite. 7.0 Overview of the Lower Colorado During 2001-2005 an average of over 2,899,700 River Planning Area acre-feet of water was used annually in the planning area for agricultural, municipal and The Lower Colorado River Planning Area is industrial uses (cultural water demand) – composed of eleven groundwater basins in approximately 42% of the state’s total demand Section 7.0 Overview 1 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 2 Section 7.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 during that period. Of the total planning area demand, approximately 964,670 acre-feet was well pumpage, 1,934,390 acre-feet was surface water diversions from the Colorado River, Gila River and the Central Arizona Project and about 680 acre-feet was effluent reuse. The agricultural demand sector was by far the largest with approximately 2,835,100 acre-feet of demand a year – 98% of the total demand. Average annual municipal sector demand was about 51,000 acre-feet a year (AFA) and industrial demand was about 13,560 AFA. 7.0.1 Geography The Lower Colorado River Planning Area encompasses about 17,200 square miles (sq. mi.) and includes the Butler Valley, Gila Bend, Harquahala, Lower Gila, McMullen Valley, Parker, Ranegras Plain, San Simon Wash, Tiger Wash, Western Mexican Drainage and Yuma basins. Basin boundaries, counties and prominent cities, towns and places are shown in Figure 7.0-2. The planning area is bounded on the north by the Bill Williams Basin in the Figure 7.0-2 Lower Colorado River Planning Area Section 7.0 Overview 3 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Upper Colorado River Planning Area, on the east by the Phoenix, Pinal and Tucson Active Management Areas (AMA), on the south by the international boundary with Mexico and on the west by the State of California and the international boundary. The planning area includes all or part of four watersheds, which are discussed in Section 7.0.2. The Cocopah Indian Reservation (10 sq. mi.) and the Gila Bend Indian Reservation (16.3 sq. mi.) are entirely within the planning area. Approximately 86% (391 sq. mi.) of the CRIT, 57% (2,471 sq. mi.) of the Tohono O’odham Indian Reservation, and 4% (3 sq. mi.) of the Fort Yuma-Quechan Indian Reservation are also located within the planning area (Figure 7.0-1). The Gila Bend and Tohono O’odham reservations are two of the four land bases that make up the Tohono O’odham Nation. Comparable in size to the state of Connecticut, the Nation is the second largest Indian reservation in the United States. geography consists of widely-scattered, small mountain ranges of mostly barren rock and broad, flat valleys (or plains). A number of groundwater basins in the planning area take their name from this geographic feature, e.g. Butler Valley, McMullen Valley and Ranegras Plain. Other examples of major valleys and plains are the Mohawk Valley in the Lower Gila Basin and the La Posa Plain in the Parker Basin. Relatively large areas of sand dunes occur south of Yuma and west of the Gila and Tinajas Altas Mountains in an ancient river terrace. To the southeast, the terrain contains more numerous mountain ranges and narrower valleys with higher rainfall and more plant diversity and density (ASDM, 2007a). With the exception of the Colorado River, there are no perennial streams in the planning area. The Gila River was historically perennial for most of its length but by the beginning of the 20th century the effects of farming and construction of dams both upstream and within the planning area caused cessation of perennial flows (Tellman The entire planning area is within the Basin and Figure 7.0-3 Physiographic Regions of Range physiographic province characterized by Arizona northwest-southeast trending mountain ranges separated by broad alluvial valleys (Figure 7.0-3). The planning area is relatively low elevation – generally less than 3,500 feet. Higher elevation mountain ranges occur along part of the northern boundary and in the Baboquivari Mountains that form the southeastern boundary where elevations rise to over 7,700 feet. The lowest elevation is about 70 feet where the Colorado River enters Mexico at the Southerly International Boundary (SIB) in the Yuma Basin. The basin with the largest elevational range is the San Simon Wash Basin with a range of 1,650 to 7,730 feet. A unique geographic feature of the planning area is its aridity, which has shaped its topography and surface water characteristics. In the more arid western part of the planning area, the 4 Data source: Fenneman and Johnson, 1946 Section 7.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 and others, 1997). Broad sandy washes are the main surface water feature in the planning area, flowing only in response to significant precipitation events the basin is covered by Quarternary surficial deposits and Holocene to Tertiary alluvial deposits. The basin fill can have very productive water-bearing units. 7.0.2 Hydrology1 Basins adjacent to the Colorado River were categorized by Anderson and others (1992) Groundwater Hydrology as Colorado River Basins. Colorado River infiltration was historically the main source The groundwater basins of the Lower Colorado of recharge to aquifers in these basins. Other River Planning Area contain alluvial valleys basins in the planning area receive minimal with significant volumes of groundwater in groundwater recharge due to the aridity of the storage. As shown in Figure 7.0-4 much of area. These other basins were categorized by Figure 7.0-4 Surface Geology of the Lower Colorado River Planning Area (Based on Reynolds, 1988) 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) Section 7.0 Overview 5 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Anderson and others (1992) as West Basins. The geology of the Colorado River Basins and West Basins are also somewhat different and each are summarized below. More detailed information on groundwater level changes, water quality, well yields, depth to water, groundwater in storage, groundwater recharge and other groundwater conditions are found in the individual basin sections. Colorado River Basins Colorado River Basins include the Parker and Yuma basins. In these basins the direction and occurrence of groundwater are influenced by the amount of streamflow in the Colorado River, which supplies the largest portion of groundwater recharge. Stream alluvium occurs along the Colorado River and its tributary washes and groundwater in the alluvium is hydraulically connected to the river. In general, the aquifer consists of recent stream alluvium overlying older, partially consolidated basin-fill deposits, which in turn overlie the Bouse Formation. The Bouse Formation consists of two zones. The upper zone is composed of medium to coarse-grained sand which can yield moderate amounts of groundwater under unconfined conditions. The lower zone contains fine-grained sediments which produce limited amounts of groundwater. Groundwater is found under confined (artesian) conditions in this lower zone. A fanglomerate unit (composed primarily of cemented gravel and thin basalt flows) underlies the Bouse Formation and can yield moderate amounts of groundwater. (Anderson and others, 1992) Parker Basin The Parker Basin is composed of three subbasins; La Posa Plains in the eastern portion, Cibola Valley in the southwest, and Colorado River Indian Reservation in the northwest. Along the Colorado River groundwater occurs under confined conditions in the Bouse Formation and fanglomerate unit and under unconfined conditions in alluvial deposits. The recent stream alluvium consists of silt, sand and gravel deposits and groundwater in these Parker Basin, Colorado River. Along the Colorado River groundwater occurs under confined conditions in the Bouse Formation and fanglomerate unit and under unconfined conditions in alluvial deposits. 6 Section 7.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 deposits is hydraulically connected to the river. In the La Posa Plains sub-basin groundwater is found in relatively small amounts under unconfined conditions. In this area, groundwater flows toward the Colorado River along stream courses (Figure 7.6-6). In the Cibola Valley and CRIT sub-basins, groundwater flows parallel to the Colorado River or away from it. below land surface (bls) beneath Yuma Mesa. Throughout most of the Yuma basin the wedge zone underlies the coarse-gravel zone and overlies the Bouse Formation. The wedge zone is a major water-bearing deposit and consists of interbedded sands, gravel and cobbles. Depth to the top of this zone is about 160 feet near Laguna Dam and 300 feet in the southern Yuma Valley. (Overby, 1997) The underlying Bouse Pre-development groundwater recharge is ap- Formation is a potential source of groundwater. proximately 241,000 AFA. Estimates of ground- Units that underlie this formation (marine sediwater in storage range from 14 million acre-feet mentary rocks and volcanic rocks) are highly (maf) to 24 maf. The median well yield reported mineralized and deep and are not utilized. for 75 large diameter (>10 in.) wells was 100 gallons per minute (gpm) (Table 7.6-6). Water Prior to development, nearly all groundwater levels declined in most wells measured between recharge was from the Colorado and Gila 1990-’91 and 2003-’04 (Figure 7.6-6). rivers through direct channel infiltration and annual flooding. The general groundwater flow Groundwater quality is generally good in the direction was from the Colorado and Gila Rivers Parker Basin although arsenic, fluoride, nitrate southward under Yuma Mesa. A significant and organic compounds have been measured at source of groundwater recharge now comes from concentrations exceeding the Drinking Water percolation of excess water applied to crops to Standard in some wells (Table 7.6-7). Many reduce salt accumulation in the root-zone. A water quality measurements have been made groundwater mound has developed under Yuma in the Quartzsite area where septic tanks have Mesa as a result of agricultural irrigation and caused nitrate contamination of groundwater. because groundwater flow away from the area is insufficient to drain rising water levels. This Yuma Basin Tertiary and Quaternary basin fill is the primary aquifer in the Yuma Basin. Thickness of the basin fill may exceed 16,000 feet in some areas but only the upper 2,000 to 2,500 feet is considered hydrologically important because of its excellent transmissive properties. This aquifer is subdivided into three zones. In descending order these are the upper fine-grained zone, the coarse-gravel zone and the wedge zone. The upper zone includes younger alluvium and the uppermost deposits of older alluvium. Little water is pumped from this zone although beneath irrigated areas, the water table lies within it. The middle, coarse-gravel zone is the principal water producing unit. Depths to the coarse-gravel Yuma Basin, Colorado River. Prior to development, nearly all groundwater recharge was from zone begin at about 100 feet in the Colorado the Colorado and Gila Rivers through direct chanand Gila River valleys and at about 180 feet nel infiltration and annual flooding Section 7.0 Overview 7 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 mound and rising groundwater levels in the Yuma area have affected groundwater flow patterns as shown on Figure 7.11-7. In the western part of the basin, groundwater flow is now generally toward the Colorado River from Imperial Dam to the Northerly International Boundary (NIB). South of the mound, groundwater flow is still generally south toward the natural drainage, but there also is a component of flow now toward the Colorado River and under the river toward the Mexicali Valley in Mexico (Dickinson and others, 2006). In the eastern part of the Yuma Basin, groundwater moves from northwest to southeast across the Yuma Desert and exits the basin into Mexico east of the Algodones Fault (Overby, 1997). The Algodones Fault trends northwest to southeast across the basin south of Yuma and is a barrier to groundwater movement, with higher water levels west of the fault (USBOR, 2009). sured in 2003-’04 (Figure 7.11-7). As shown in hydrographs of selected wells (Figure 7.11-8), water levels in most wells are relatively stable. Ground water quality varies across the Yuma Basin with elevated concentrations of total dissolved solids (TDS), arsenic, lead, agricultural pesticides, nitrate and volatile organic compounds in some areas (see Table 7.11-10). Groundwater was originally more similar in chemical composition to its source waters (Colorado and Gila rivers), but the quality has been altered by more than one hundred years of irrigation activity (Overby, 1997). West Basins West Basins include Butler Valley, Gila Bend, Harquahala, Lower Gila, McMullen Valley, Ranegras Plain, San Simon Wash, Tiger Wash and Western Mexican Drainage basins. Groundwater inflows and outflows are relatively small in these basins and there are no perennial streams. Groundwater inflows consist of minor amounts of mountain front recharge and stream infiltration. The basins are contain a relatively thin, heterogeneous layer of upper basin fill underlain by lower basin fill. The lower basin fill consists of a unit of primarily fine-grained material underlain by a medium to coarse grained unit. Pre-Basin and Range sediments underlie the basin fill. Stream alluvium deposits occur along the Gila River and elsewhere and may be locally productive water-bearing sediments (Anderson and others, 1992). Groundwater levels in the basin are also influenced by water management activities. The “242 Well Field and Lateral” located east of San Luis is a 5-mile wide regulated zone consisting of 35 wells that intercept part of the groundwater flow moving south into Mexico from Yuma Mesa (see Figure 7.0-9). Irrigation drainage water is a component of this groundwater flow. Water pumped from the well field is delivered to Mexico through the 242 Lateral and other laterals to meet international treaty obligations for Colorado River water deliveries. This activity, as well as groundwater pumping in Mexico, lowers groundwater levels in private wells in the vicinity of the wellfield Butler Valley Basin Butler Valley Basin contains basin-fill deposits (USBOR, 2007a). that make up the principal aquifer. These deposits Pre-development groundwater recharge was ap- range from about 500 feet in the southwest to proximately 213,000 AFA. Groundwater stor- nearly 1,500 feet thick in the central portion of age estimates range from 34 to 49 maf. The me- the basin. The valley is bordered by mountains dian well yield reported for 327 large diameter and some groundwater may be found along the (>10 in.) wells is among the highest in the State basin margins in thin alluvium and in volcanic, at 2,456 gpm. Water levels in wells are gener- granitic, metamorphic and sedimentary rocks. ally less than 100 feet bls in most wells mea- A 1½-mile wide area bordered by mountains 8 Section 7.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 where Cunningham Wash exits the basin is known as the Narrows. Groundwater is found under confined conditions northeast of the Narrows in T7N, R15W and confined conditions may occur in other areas due to the presence of clay layers. Groundwater flow is generally from northeast to southwest (Oram, 1987). Groundwater recharge is approximately 1,000 AFA or less. Groundwater storage estimates range widely from 2.0 to 20 maf (Table 7.1-3). The median well yield reported for 17 large diameter (>10 in.) wells is 2,200 gpm. Water levels declined in most wells measured between 1990-’91 and 2003-’04, with the recent water level measurements generally ranging from 100 to 500 feet bls (Figure 7.1-5). Gillespie Dam, Gila Bend Basin. Groundwater is recharged primarily from infiltration of surface flows from the Gila River and its tributaries, and when river water is impounded behind Painted Rock Dam. with thin interbedded volcanics near the top. (Rascona, 1996) In the area north of Gila Bend, groundwater Groundwater quality is generally good flow direction is generally from the Gila Bend with locally elevated fluoride and arsenic Mountains east to the Gila River. In the center concentrations measured in wells located in the of the basin, groundwater flow is toward the western part of the basin (Figure 7.1-8). southwest (see Figure 7.2-6). Gila Bend Basin Basin-fill material is the principal aquifer in the Gila Bend Basin. Groundwater generally occurs under unconfined conditions, but there are several areas where fine-grained layers in the alluvium create either overlying perched water-table conditions as a result of percolation of irrigation water or underlying confined conditions. Confined conditions occur in the upper basin fill immediately upstream from Painted Rock Dam (Rascona, 1996). Groundwater is recharged primarily from infiltration of surface flows from the Gila River and its tributaries, and when river water is impounded behind Painted Rock Dam. Some recharge also occurs from infiltration of irrigation water and underflow from the Hassayampa sub-basin of the Phoenix AMA (<1,000 AFA) (Rascona, 1996). Annual recharge estimates range from 10,000 to 37,000 AFA. Groundwater storage estimates range widely from 17 to 61 maf. The median well yield reported for 242 large diameter (>10 in.) wells is high with 2,700 West of Gila Bend, significant clay layers gpm (Table 7.2-6). ranging from 150 to 500 feet thick are found at various depths and depth to water increases Water levels in wells measured in 2003-‘04 southward. North of Gila Bend, unconfined ranged from 34 feet in a well along the mountain groundwater occurs primarily in the sands and front to almost 640 feet east of Gila Bend. gravels of the basin fill and may also occur in Groundwater pumpage historically caused interbedded volcanics. The Sil Murk Formation several cones of depression to form, with the is one of the principal water-bearing formations largest cone north of Gila Bend and parallel to in the lower basin fill in this area. It is comprised the Gila River. As shown in Figure 7.2-6 water of pebble to boulder-sized conglomerates level declines are still significant (>30 feet) in Section 7.0 Overview 9 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 wells in this area and almost all wells measured between 1990-’91 and 2003-’04 showed some decline. Groundwater quality is generally poor across the basin with several measurements of arsenic and fluoride concentrations meeting or exceeding drinking water standards. High concentrations of TDS and nitrate have also been detected (see Table 7.2-7). Harquahala Basin Groundwater in the Harquahala Basin is found primarily in basin-fill material composed of heterogeneous deposits of clay, silt, sand and gravel. The basin fill may be as much as 5,000 feet thick near Centennial. Groundwater is generally unconfined, although clay layers can cause locally semi-confined to confined conditions. Clay layers also cause perched water-table conditions in the east-central and southeastern parts of the basin from percolation of irrigation water. In the southeastern part of the basin the basin fill consists of coarse deposits of sand and gravel. North of T1S, fine-grained beds primarily composed of clay overly the coarse deposits. Wells in this area penetrate the fine-grained sequence and withdraw water from the underlying coarse-grained sequence. The fine-grained beds become thicker towards the northwest and grade into an alternating sequence of fine-grained and coarse-grained layers that overlie a conglomerate that begins at a depth of 800 to 850 feet bls. (Hedley, 1990) Reportedly, the best well yields occur from this alternating sequence in the west-central part of the basin. Groundwater recharge is negligible, coming primarily from infiltration of runoff in Centennial Wash. There may also be underflow from McMullen Valley Basin to the north. Seepage and infiltration of water from the Central Arizona Project (CAP) canal, which runs west to east across the southern part of the basin, may be another source of recharge. Estimated annual recharge was less than 1,200 AFA. Groundwater storage estimates range from 13 to 27 maf. The median well yield reported for 157 large diameter (>10 in.) wells is 1,620 gpm (Table 7.3-5). Introduction of CAP water in the late 1980s replaced a significant volume of groundwater pumping, allowing groundwater levels to rise by more than 30 feet in a number of wells in the south central part of the basin. Storage of CAP water at the Vidler Recharge facility has also caused local groundwater levels to rise. Elsewhere, water levels have generally declined (see Figure 7.3-5). The Harquahala Basin was designated an INA in 1984 pursuant to A.R.S. § 45-432 to prevent new lands from being brought into agricultural production. However, under A.R.S. § 45-555 groundwater may be withdrawn and transported from the basin to an initial active management area (such as the adjacent Phoenix AMA) under specific circumstances including a provision that groundwater levels not decline by an average of more than ten feet per year. Groundwater quality is generally suitable for irrigation purposes, but elevated TDS, fluoride, arsenic and other constituent concentrations in many wells require treatment to meet drinking Prior to the 1950s groundwater moved from water standards (see Table 7.3-6). northwest to southeast and exited where Centennial Wash leaves the basin. As shown Lower Gila Basin in Figure 7.3-5, groundwater flow in the south The Lower Gila Basin is composed of the central part of the basin has been impacted Wellton-Mohawk sub-basin, the Dendora by agricultural pumpage that caused severe Valley sub-basin in the northeast and the Childs overdraft from the 1950s through the mid Valley sub-basin in the southeast (Figure 7.4-6). 1980s, resulting in large water level declines Groundwater occurs in both recent stream and formation of a cone of depression. alluvium and basin fill. The stream alluvium 10 Section 7.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 consists of sand, gravel and boulders in the larger washes and the floodplain of the Gila River. The thickness of the stream alluvium ranges from 10 feet in smaller washes to 110 feet in the Gila River floodplain. The basin fill consists of three units. The upper sandy unit is composed of sand and gravel with some silt and clay layers. This unit is typically 200 to 380 feet thick. The middle fine-grained unit contains primarily silts and clays with occasional thin sand and gravel beds. The middle unit ranges from 250 to 750 feet thick. The lower coarsegrained unit is composed of coarse sand and gravel and contains some well-cemented zones. The thickness of this unit is variable. Groundwater development in the eastern part of the Lower Gila Basin is in the broad alluvial plains that border the Gila River, where the main aquifer is the upper sandy unit in the basin fill. Groundwater is primarily unconfined. water recharge. Estimates of natural groundwater recharge ranging from 9,000 to 88,000 AFA. There is a significant volume of groundwater in storage with estimates ranging from 100 to 246 maf. The median well yield reported for 597 large diameter (>10 in.) wells is 1,600 gpm (Table 7.4-6). Well yields exceeding 2,000 gpm are commonly found near the Gila River, southeast of Dateland and north of Hyder. Groundwater levels in the Gila River floodplain in the western part of the basin historically ranged from 10 to 20 feet bls and the streambed alluvium was the primary source of groundwater. As irrigation activity increased in the 1930s, groundwater levels declined and salinity increased. To provide a dependable water supply for irrigation, Colorado River water was brought to the area in 1952 and groundwater Prior to development, groundwater flow was pumping for irrigation ceased. Infiltration of from north and southeast toward the Gila River excess irrigation water to the stream alluvium and then downstream to the southwest. Ground- aquifer raised water levels, necessitating the water flow has been impacted by irrigation need for a system of drainage wells to maintain pumpage at some locations in the basin, where groundwater levels below crop root zones and cones of depression exist (see Figure 7.4-6). canals to transport the drainage water out of the Historically, cones of depression occurred in ir- basin. rigated areas north of Hyder, east of Dateland and in the Palomas Plain west of Hyder. Infiltration of irrigation water in the western part of the basin has created groundwater mounds in the floodplain aquifer that also affect groundwater flow. Groundwater recharge is primarily from infiltration of runoff in washes and the Gila River floodplain. Underflow from the Painted Rock Dam on the eastern basin boundary and releases from the dam during floods also contributes to groundwater recharge. Water releases from Painted Rock Dam in 1975 resulted in an estimated 59,500 acre-feet of recharge. In the far western part of the basin, infiltration of excess irrigation water is the largest source of ground- Agriculture in the Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation District. In the far western part of the basin, infiltration of excess irrigation water is the largest source of recharge. Section 7.0 Overview 11 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Historic groundwater level declines were as much as 15 feet per year in irrigated areas north and west of Hyder and east of Dateland. Few water level change measurements are available for the period 1990-’91 to 2004-’05 but several measured wells in the western part of the basin show relatively stable water level conditions (see Figure 7.4-6). Groundwater quality varies in the eastern part of the basin with elevated fluoride concentrations measured in a number of wells. In the western part of the basin, the quality of groundwater in the Gila River floodplain is unsuitable for most uses, with elevated TDS concentrations common as well as fluoride and arsenic. Eagle Eye Peak, McMullen Valley Basin. The principal aquifer in the McMullen Valley basin is alluvial-fan deposits in the basin fill. An estimated 1,000 acre-feet of groundwater recharge occurs annually. Groundwater storage McMullen Valley Basin estimates range from 14 to 15.1 maf. The median The principal aquifer in the McMullen Valley well yield reported for 167 large diameter (>10 basin is alluvial-fan deposits in the basin fill. in.) wells is 1,500 gpm (Table 7.5-5). These deposits underlie most of the valley floor, varying in thickness from 230 feet in Water levels in measured wells are generally the Wenden-Salome area to 3,100 feet north more than 300 feet bls. As shown in Figure of Aguila. Most large irrigation wells tap into 7.5-5, water levels declined in all wells this unit. Fine grained lake-bed deposits of low measured between 1990-’91 and 2003-’04, with permeability overlie the alluvial fan deposits significant declines (>30 feet) in a well east of in the central and lower parts of the valley. Aguila and in five wells in the western half of These deposits range in thickness from 150 the basin. feet southwest of Wenden to about 1,100 feet northeast of Wenden. Because of their relatively Fluoride and arsenic concentrations exceedlow permeability, the lake-bed deposits may ing drinking water standards are found at wells impede downward percolation of water, creating throughout the basin with elevated nitrate conperched aquifers. Stream alluvium has been centrations measured in a number of wells near deposited by Centennial Wash and its tributaries Salome (see Table 7.5-6). and is composed of silt, sand and clay. This unit ranges from 50 feet thick in the lower end of Ranegras Plain Basin the basin, 100 feet thick in the Wenden-Salome Groundwater in the Ranegras Plain Basin occurs area, and over 450 feet thick north of Aguila. primarily in older (Tertiary) basin-fill deposits There has been some groundwater development composed of clay, volcanics, conglomerate in the stream alluvium for domestic and stock and smaller amounts of sand and gravel. The use, but irrigation pumpage has dewatered the thickness of the basin-fill deposit is not well unit in the Aguila area (Remick, 1981). The known but is at least 1,500 feet northwest of basal unit of the basin fill is a conglomerate Vicksburg. The younger (Quaternary) alluvium, present at a depth of about 850 to 1,600 feet bls which includes stream alluvium, overlies the and is largely unexplored. basin fill and is composed primarily of sand 12 Section 7.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 and gravel with a thickness of less than a few hundred feet. Perched groundwater occurs in the central part of T6N, R16W and in Sections 9 and 10 of T5N, R16W where water levels are 10 to 60 feet higher than the surrounding area. (Johnson, 1990) Groundwater flow is generally to the northwest toward the community of Bouse but irrigation wells groundwater withdrawals have created a cone of depression southwest of Vicksburg (see Figure 7.7-5). Groundwater recharge is from infiltration of runoff in Bouse Wash, Cunningham Wash and along mountain fronts. About 32 miles of the CAP canal runs through the northeastern portion of the basin and may contribute 2,000 to 3,000 acre-feet of recharge a year. (Johnson, 1990) Annual recharge estimates range from less than 1,000 acre-feet to more than 6,000 acrefeet. Groundwater storage estimates range from 9.0 to 27 maf. Although yields in some wells are relatively low due to the presence of clays, yields reported for 68 large (>10 in.) diameter wells reach 4,000 gpm with a median yield of 1,150 gpm (Table 7.7-3). and 2003-’04, with significant declines (>30 feet) east of Vicksburg Road. Groundwater quality is generally poor with elevated TDS concentrations measured in a number of wells. Of 48 wells measured between 1984 and 1989, only five wells had TDS levels below the secondary maximum contaminant level of 500 milligrams per liter recommended by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The highest TDS concentrations were measured in the north-central part of the basin (Johnson, 1990).2 Water quality measurements taken between 1979 and 2000 also show a number of wells with elevated fluoride and arsenic concentrations (Table 7.7-4). San Simon Wash Basin Basin fill comprises the principal aquifer in the San Simon Wash Basin. The thickness of the basin fill ranges from near zero at the mountain fronts to over 8,000 feet near the international boundary. Four basin-fill units have been identified. Alluvial-fan deposits occur on the basin perimeter and vary in depth and well yield. Streambed alluvium consisting of sand, gravel and boulders occurs along stream channels and may yield significant volumes to As shown in Figure 7.7-5, water levels declined wells. Deltaic deposits consisting of a sequence in almost all wells measured between 1990-’91 of clay, silt, sand and gravel are found near Papago Farms (T19S, R1E) where deposits may be 800 feet thick and well yields are relatively high. Lakebed deposits consisting of thick sequences of fine-bedded silts and clays extend to depths of more than 1,000 feet. Groundwater occurs under unconfined conditions in the basin. Groundwater flow is generally toward the southwest, then south into Mexico. (Hollett, 1985) New Water Mountains in the Ranegras Plain Basin. Natural groundwater recharge in this basin is from infiltration of runoff in Bouse Wash, Cunningham Wash and along mountain fronts. There is relatively little grounwater data available for the basin, which is almost entirely within the Tohono O’odham Nation. Natural recharge is estimated at 11,000 AFA and ground- 2 Listed TDS exceedences indicate “mineralized water” that contains over 3000 milligrams per liter (mg/l) of TDS and would require special well construction procedures (A.A.C. R12-15-812(B)). The secondary drinking water standard for TDS is 500 mg/l. Section 7.0 Overview 13 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 water storage estimates range widely from 6.7 to 45 maf. Well yield estimates range from less than 50 to 3,000 gpm (Table 7.8-5). Hollett (1985) reported that wells drilled into the lakebed deposits in the center of the basin generally yield less than 50 gpm and well yields appear to be highest at depths of 400 to 700 feet. Depth to water averaged about 300 feet bls (Hollett, 1985). Elevated arsenic concentrations are found across the basin and fluoride concentrations that equal or exceed drinking water standards occur in the area around Papago Farms and the international boundary (Table 7.8-6). Tiger Wash Basin Tiger Wash Basin is a relatively small, shallow basin composed of heterogeneous deposits of clay, silt, sand and gravel that are likely less than 1,000 feet thick. There appears to be a groundwater divide near the center of the basin from which groundwater flows to the southwest and to the northeast (Hedley, 1990) (Figure 7.9-5). Tiger Wash, Tiger Wash Basin. Tiger Wash Basin is a small, shallow, alluvial basin composed of heterogeneous deposits of clay, silt, sand and gravel that are likely less than 1,000 feet thick. Natural recharge is estimated to be 1,000 AFA. Groundwater in storage estimates range from 3.0 to 4.1 maf. The median well yield reported for three large (>10 in.) diameter wells was 50 gpm (Table 7.10-4). Water levels varied from 27 to 237 feet bls at wells measured in 2003-‘04 and levels appear to be declining near Lukeville, likely due to development in the Sonoyta area of Sonora, Mexico (Figure 7.10-6). Water quality data Natural recharge is estimated to be less than 1,000 collected between 1976 and 1988 along the AFA. Groundwater in storage estimates range international boundary west of Lukeville show from 700,000 acre-feet to 2.0 maf. Measured concentrations of fluoride, arsenic and lead that well yield data are not available for the basin. equal or exceed the drinking water standard Anning and Duet (1994) estimated a maximum (Table 7.10-5). yield of 500 gpm. Two wells measured in 2003’04 had water levels of 29 feet and 219 feet bls Surface Water Hydrology (Figure 7.9-6). The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) divides Two water quality exceedences have been and subdivides the United States into reported in basin wells, with concentrations successively smaller hydrologic units based on of arsenic and nitrate that equal or exceed the hydrologic features. These units are classified drinking water standard (Table 7.9-4). into four levels. From largest to smallest these are: regions, subregions, accounting units and Western Mexican Drainage Basin cataloging units. A hydrologic unit code (HUC) The Western Mexican Drainage Basin contains consisting of two digits for each level in the broad alluvial-filled valleys containing uncon- system is used to identify any hydrologic area solidated gravel, sand, silt and clay deposits that (Seaber et al., 1987). A 6-digit code corresponds make up the main water-bearing unit. Ground- to accounting units, which are used by the USGS water flow is toward Mexico. for designing and managing the National Water 14 Section 7.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Data Network. There are all or portions of four watersheds in the planning area at the accounting unit level: Lower Colorado River below Lake Mead; Lower Gila River below Painted Rock Dam; Agua Fria River-Lower Gila River; and the Rio Sonoyta (Figure 7.0-5). More detailed information on stream flow, springs, reservoirs and general surface water characteristics are found in the individual basin sections. and includes all or parts of three basins in the Upper Colorado River Planning Area (see Volume 4, Figure 4.0-5). Within the Lower Colorado River Planning Area, all or parts of Butler Valley, Ranegras Plain, Parker, Harquahala, Lower Gila and Yuma basins are included in the watershed. The Colorado River is the only perennial surface water in the entire watershed. Within the planning area, the river flows for about 200 miles south of Parker Lower Colorado Below Lake Mead Watershed Dam to Mexico at the Southerly International This watershed extends north to Hoover Dam Boundary. There are many diversions and Figure 7.0-5 Lower Colorado River USGS Watersheds (USGS, 2005) Section 7.0 Overview 15 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 several dams along the Colorado River. Dams include Imperial, Laguna and Morelos. There are major diversions from Imperial Dam to the All-American Canal, which delivers agricultural water to California and to the Gila Gravity Canal for use in Arizona. Drainages to the Colorado River in the planning area are ephemeral and contribute little to river flow with the exception of the Gila River during flood events. Dam construction and diversions have fundamentally altered flow in the Colorado River, including the portion in the planning area. Historically, the Colorado was a broad, meandering, unpredictable, sediment-laden watercourse, with annual flooding and frequent changes in the configuration of the channel. It sometimes overtopped its banks and flowed west to the Salton Sink, forming intermittent lakes. In the early 1900s water began to be diverted from the Colorado River via the Imperial Canal to irrigate California’s Imperial Valley. When the canal filled with silt, a cut was made in the west bank of the river to temporarily allow water to flow into the valley. In 1905, massive flooding on the Colorado overtopped this diversion canal and diverted the river toward the Salton Sink (Salton Sea Authority, 2000). This flow flooded the valley, destroying farms and towns and began filling the Salton Sink, creating the modern Salton Sea. Flow continued for 18 months and for a time the Colorado ceased flowing into Mexico (Tellman and others, 1997). There were concerns that if the cutback erosion in the flow channel reached the Colorado River, it would be permanently diverted to the Salton Sink. In 1907 the Southern Pacific Railroad, which had substantial business interests in the region, repaired the gap in the diversion canal and the river resumed its natural course toward the Gulf of California. Prior to dam construction on the Colorado River, the river flowed to the Gulf of California, forming a delta with a maze of lagoons and dense riparian habitat. Today only about 420,000 acres 16 of the original two million acre delta survives and the river reached the sea only about half of the years between 1981 and 2002. Since 1979, an average of about 100,000 acre-feet of salty drainage water from the Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation District is delivered annually to the eastern side of the delta, creating the Cienega de Santa Clara. (Glenn and others, 2004) There are streamflow records for eight Colorado River streamgages in the watershed. Of these, five are currently in operation and four are real-time gages. There are two active gages in the Parker Basin, one in the Lower Gila Basin and two in the Yuma Basin. The active gages in the Parker Basin portion of the watershed report similar median and mean flows (Table 7.6-2). Median flow at the gage below Parker Dam is 7.2 maf and the mean is 8.9 maf. The highest maximum annual flow (20.4 maf) in the watershed was reported at this gage in 1984. The three operating downstream gages (located below the major California diversion structures) Parker Dam. Section 7.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 report mean flows substantially greater than median flows. For example, the gage on the Colorado River below Laguna Dam reports a median flow of 0.39 maf and a mean flow of 1.8 maf. The highest maximum annual flow among the three downstream gages was 15.4 maf at the Colorado River at the NIB above Morelos Dam gage (Table 7.11-2) There are no major (>10gpm) or minor (1-10 gpm) springs in the entire watershed, and only 15 to 16 smaller springs, primarily in the Parker Basin. Construction of Gillespie Dam in 1921 and Painted Rock Dam in 1959, impounded Gila River flow in the planning area for diversion to agricultural areas and to prevent flooding downstream. Prior to construction of the Painted Rock Dam, an average of approximately 6 AFA of groundwater was forced to the surface by the volcanic rocks of the Painted Rock Mountains and rock outcrops in the river channel at Painted Rock Narrows (Rascona, 1996). Gillespie Dam was breached during January 1993 when a 135-foot section of the dam collapsed during flooding. The same flood event filled Painted Rock Dam to full capacity of 2.5 maf, making it the largest lake in Arizona, and high volumes of spillwater caused extensive downstream damage. The reservoir is normally dry. A 28-mile reach of the Gila River (from Coyote Wash to Fortuna Wash) is designated as “impaired” due to elevated concentrations of boron and selenium that exceed the designated use standard for aquatic and wildlife uses In the planning area, the Gila River now (Tables 7.4-7 and 7.11-6). flows only in response to precipitation events, irrigation return flow or releases from upstream Lower Gila River Below Painted Rock Dam dams. Recent sources list the river as either Watershed intermittent (AZGF, 1997) or ephemeral This watershed includes almost all of the Lower (ADWR, 1994a). The Gila River is a flashy Gila Basin and part of the Yuma Basin. Major stream, showing wide variations in annual flow surface water drainages are the Gila River, in the planning area. There are four operating Tenmile Wash and San Cristobal Wash (see streamflow gages on the Gila River. Two gages Figure 7.0-5). are above Painted Rock Dam in the Agua Fria River-Lower Gila River Watershed in the Gila The Gila River drains the eastern and central Bend Basin, one is in the Lower Gila Basin and parts of the planning area and extends 150 one is in the Yuma Basin. All four gages have miles from Gillespie Dam (located where the years with no flow (see Tables 7.2-2, 7.4-2 and Gila River enters the planning area in the Gila 7.11-2). By contrast, total annual flow at the Bend Basin) to its confluence with the Colorado River in the Yuma Basin. The river originates in New Mexico and flows 600 miles from east to west across Arizona. The entire Gila River Watershed drains about 57,900 square miles and is the largest watershed in Arizona, covering over half of the state’s total land area (Tellman and others, 1997). Historically, the Gila River flowed in the planning area in the spring due to winter rain and snowmelt and in the summer following monsoon storms. Construction of dams resulted in Gila River at Gillespie Dam in January 1993. loss of flows and water supplies downstream. Section 7.0 Overview 17 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 gage below Gillespie Dam and the gage below Painted Rock Dam were over 5 maf in 1993. Further downstream near the confluence with the Colorado, the gage at the Gila River near Dome recorded a maximum annual flow of over 4.7 maf in 1993, but an has recorded annual median flow of less than 4,800 acre-feet. There are no major (>10gpm) or minor (1-10 gpm) springs in the Lower Gila River Watershed below Painted Rock Dam, and only six to eight smaller springs. Agua Fria River-Lower Gila River Watershed The Agua Fria River - Lower Gila River Watershed includes the drainage areas of the Agua Fria River and the Gila River from below its confluence with the Salt River to Painted Rock Dam. Within the Lower Colorado River Planning Area, Gila Bend, Harquahala, McMullen Valley and Tiger Wash basins are included in the watershed. The Gila River is the only major watercourse. Centennial Wash is the major tributary and is an ephemeral stream with no streamgage data within the planning area. The only streamgage data for the watershed, other than those on the Gila River (mentioned above), is a discontinued gage at Sauceda Wash near Gila Bend with a maximum annual flow of about 1,100 acre-feet (see Table 7.2-2). There are no major (>10gpm) or minor (1-10 gpm) springs in the Agua Fria River-Lower Gila River Watershed, and only five to seven smaller springs, three of which are located in the Tiger Wash Basin. The waters of the Gila are designated as “impaired” due to elevated concentrations of organic compounds that exceed the designated use standard for fish consumption from it’s point of entry into the planning area to Painted Rock Dam. Below Painted Rock Dam the Gila 18 Ephemeral flow in Centennial Wash, McMullen Valley Basin. is impaired due to dissolved oxygen, organics, selenium and boron concentrations that exceed fish consumption or aquatic and wildlife uses (see Tables 7.2-7 and 7.4-7). Rio Sonoyta Watershed The Rio Sonoyta Watershed in Arizona includes the San Simon Wash and Western Mexican Drainage basins and the south central portion of the Lower Gila Basin. Major drainages in the San Simon Wash Basin, all ephemeral, are Hickiwan Wash, San Simon Wash and Vamori Wash (Figure 7.8-4). Vamori Wash flows northwest to San Simon Wash, which in turn flows south to the Rio Sonoyta in Mexico. There are two active streamgages in the watershed in the San Simon Wash Basin, one on Vamori Wash at Kom Vo and one on San Simon Wash near Pisinimo. These ephemeral streams flow primarily in the summer as a result of monsoon precipitation. Annual mean flow at the Vamori Wash gage is over 6,600 acre-feet and almost 2,400 acre-feet at the San Simon gage (see Table 7.8-2). The largest ephemeral tributary to the Rio Sonoyta in the Western Mexican Drainage Basin is Aguajita Wash (Figure 7.10-4). The only major (>10gpm) and minor (1-10 gpm) springs in the entire planning area are found in this watershed in the Western Mexican Drainage Basin. Quitobaquito Springs are the only major Section 7.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 spring with a combined discharge of 28 gpm. Located adjacent to the international boundary in Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, the springs flow from fractured granite that forms the Quitobaquito Hills. Groundwater moves through the fractured granite and discharges in a line of springs on the southwest side of Quitobaquito Hills (Carruth, 1996). Two of the largest springs have been developed and diverted into a man-made stream channel that flows to a half-acre pond that provides habitat for the endangered Quitobaquito pupfish (Knowles, 2003). The springs are relatively warm, (a near about 74°F), and slightly brackish. The two minor springs in the planning area are located nearby. In total there are about 20 total springs in the watershed, with most located in the San Simon Wash Basin. 7.0.3 Climate2 The Lower Colorado River Planning Area is characterized by the highest average annual temperature in the state, 71.5°F, which is much warmer than the statewide average of 59.5°F. Average annual precipitation in the planning area is 4.6 inches, though totals are considerably higher in mountainous areas where precipitation is not recorded. Annual precipitation totals vary widely across the planning area, from 6-9 inches at Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Aguila, and Kofa Mine stations to less than 3 inches at Yuma Airport. On average, the Lower Colorado River exhibits the bi-modal precipitation seasonality characteristic of Arizona (Figure 7.0-6); however, the northwestern part of the planning area, near Parker, exhibits a stronger late winter peak, more typical of the Mohave Desert. Figure 7.0-6 Average monthly precipitation and temperature from 1930-2002 Data are from the Western Regional Climate Center. Figure author: CLIMAS. 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, November 2007 Section 7.0 Overview 19 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Frontal storm systems moving west-to-east, guided by the jet stream, deliver the area’s winter and spring precipitation. Summer monsoon thunderstorms deliver abundant moisture to the eastern part of the Lower Colorado River Planning Area. The planning area shows a very strong response to El Niño conditions, with winters registering wet conditions 59% of the time and dry conditions only 24% of the time. Strong El Niño years, such as 1941, 1982, 1983, 1992 and 1993, show high precipitation (Figure 7.0-7). The precipitation response to La Niña conditions is not as pronounced with dry winters occurring only 50% of the time. Neutral El Niño-Southern Oscillation conditions yield dry planning area winters 57% of the time – a strong indication of the extreme aridity in this region. Average annual temperatures in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area have been increasing since the 1930s, and especially rapidly since the mid-1970s (Figure 7.0-7). The long-term trend is superimposed on decadal variability generated primarily by Pacific Ocean and atmosphere variations. Decadal variations are particularly obvious in the instrumental record of precipitation. Drought conditions were present for the decades of the 1940s1960s and since the mid-1990s; the 1980s and early 1990s were relatively wet. This part of the state exhibits Arizona’s highest year to-year precipitation variability, with especially high variability during the dry 1940s-1960s. Winter precipitation records dating to 1000 A.D. estimated from tree-ring reconstructions for Arizona climate divisions show extended periods of above and below average precipitation in every century (Figure 7.0-8). A climate Figure 7.0-7 Average annual temperature and total annual precipitation for the Lower Colorado River Planning Area from 1930-2002 Horizontal lines are average temperature (71.5 °F) and precipitation (4.6 inches), respectively. Light lines are yearly values and highlighted lines are 5-year moving average values. Data are from the Western Regional Climate Center. Figure author: CLIMAS. 20 Section 7.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 division is a region within a state that is generally climatically homogeneous. Arizona has been divided into seven climate divisions and most of the Lower Colorado River Planning Area is within Climate Division 5, which includes La Paz and Yuma counties. Markedly dry periods in Climate Division 5 include the late 1000s, mid-1100s, the late 1200s, late 1500s, and several shorter, but very intense, periods during the last 300 years. Winters were relatively wet during the late 1400s, early 1600s, much of the 1800s, and the early 1900s. 7.0.4 Environmental Conditions Environmental conditions reflect the geography, climate and cultural activities in an area and may be a critical consideration in water resource management and development. Discussed in this section is vegetation, protection of riparian areas through the Arizona Water Protection Fund Program, threatened and endangered species, public lands protected from development as national monuments, wildlife refuges and wilderness areas, and managed waters. No instream flow claims (a non-diversionary appropriation of surface water for recreation and wildlife use) have been filed in this planning area. Figure 7.0-8 Winter (November - April) precipitation departures from average 1000-1988 - Climate Division 5 Data are presented as a 20-year moving average to show variability on decadal time scales. Data: Fenbiao Ni, University of Arizona Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research and CLIMAS. Figure author: CLIMAS. Section 7.0 Overview 21 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Vegetation Information on ecoregions and biotic (vegetative) communities in the planning area are shown on Figure 7.0-9. With the exception of a very small area of Chihuhuan desert and Sierra Madre Occidental pine-oak forest along the southeastern boundary, the entire planning area is within the Sonoran Desert ecoregion. Biotic communities range from Lower Colorado River Valley Sonoran desertscrub to Madrean evergreen woodland. Most of the planning area is covered by Lower Colorado River Valley and Arizona Uplands Sonoran desertscrub. the Baboquivari Mountains and smaller areas exist in the central part of the San Simon Wash Basin along the Lower Gila/Western Mexican Drainage/San Simon Wash basin boundaries, and near Aguila in the McMullen Valley Basin. Semidesert grasslands receive between about 10 to 17 inches of annual rainfall. Grasses were originally perennial bunch grasses with intervening areas of bare ground. Where heavily grazed, grasses have shifted to annual species where summer rainfall is low, or to low growing sod grasses where rainfall is moderate to heavy. Shrubs, cacti and herbaceous plants are commonly found in the semidesert grassland community. (Brown, 1982) Madrean evergreen woodland occurs at the highest elevations of the San Simon Wash Basin in the Baboquivari Mountains where mean annual precipitation exceeds 16 inches. The woodland consists of evergreen oaks, alligator bark and one-seed junipers, and Mexican pinyon transitioning to semidesert grassland at lower elevation. Cacti of the semidesert grassland may extend well into the woodland. (Brown, 1982) Two subdivisions of the Sonoran desertscrub region exist in the planning area-the Lower Colorado River subdivision and the Arizona Upland subdivision. The Lower Colorado River subdivision is the hottest and driest of the Sonoran desertscrub subdivisions. There is intense competition for water, with plants widely spaced and more concentrated along drainage channels. In some areas the soil is covered by a single layer of tightly packed pebbles known Interior chaparral occupies mid-elevation foot- as “desert pavement” that restricts plant types hills, mountain slopes and canyons in small ar- to ephemeral species. High concentrations of eas along the boundary of McMullen Valley and sodium in the soil below the pavement may also Butler Valley basins and along the McMullen restrict plant growth. Sand dunes occur near Valley/Harquahala/Tiger Wash basin bound- Yuma and Parker. Characteristic plants include aries. Interior chaparral is found in areas be- creosote bush, bursage, saltbush, and mixed, tween about 3,500 and 6,000 feet in elevation more diverse vegetation along washes and other that receive 15 to 25 inches of annual precipitation (Brown, 1982). Chaparral consists of dense shrubs that grow around the same height with occasional taller shrubs or small trees. Typical shrubby species are mountain mahogany, shrub live oak, and manzanita. Chaparral plants are well adapted to drought conditions. The western limit of the semidesert grassland community occurs in the eastern part of the planning area. A small area adjoins the Lower Colorado River Desertscrub in the Gila Bend Madrean evergreen woodland community in Basin. 22 Section 7.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.0 Overview 23 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 areas with more water. These areas may include blue palo verde, ironwood and jojoba. Also commonly found in the subdivision are several types of cholla and other cacti. (Turner and Brown, 1982) The Arizona Upland subdivision borders the Lower Colorado River subdivision and occurs primarily on slopes and sloping plains at elevations of 980 to over 3,000 feet where it merges with interior chaparral or semidesert grassland. This subdivision receives more precipitation than the other Sonoran desertscrub subdivisions with average annual precipitation between 8 to 16 inches. Vegetation is scrubland or low woodland in appearance with blue and foothill palo verde, ironwood, mesquite and cat-claw acacia as common tree species. Cacti are extremely important in this subdivision including saguaro, organ pipe, cholla and barrel cacti. (Turner and Brown, 1982) Lower Gila Basin, Colorado River. 7.0-10. Along the Gila River in the vicinity of Gillespie Dam, primarily tamarisk, but also cattail, occurs. Downstream from Gillespie Dam to Painted Rock Reservoir, irrigated agriculture adjacent to the river may support native and nonnative riparian vegetation. Below Painted Rock Dam, the Gila River is mostly dry until irrigation return flows within the WelltonMohawk Irrigation District add some flow to the river. In the area near Dome, return flow Bufflegrass (Pennisetum ciliare), was intro- supports riparian vegetation consisting of a duced to the United States in the 1930s as live- narrow line of cottonwood along the channel stock forage, and since the 1980s it has spread with dense tamarisk behind (Webb and others, rapidly and can now be found on the edges of 2007) roads in most of southern Arizona. It is problematic in the Sonoran Desert because it grows The riparian corridor of the lower Colorado Rivdensely, crowding out and competing for water er was historically a mixture of cottonwood and with native plants and it is a fire-prone peren- willow trees with backwater wetlands. These nial that alters the natural fire regime. (ASDM, habitats were maintained by the natural flow 2007b) When wildfires occur, the densely grow- regime consisting of spring floods that washed ing grass spreads fire rapidly and it thrives after salts from the banks, supported germination of fires, unlike native species (Brooks and Pyke, tree seeds, and created seasonal wetlands (Uni2002). versity of Arizona, 2003). Although the river has been altered by dams and water delivery Some efforts to control the spread of infrastructure, riparian ecosystems exist along bufflegrass have been successful. Organ Pipe most of the reach of the Colorado upstream of Cactus National Monument undertook a large Imperial Dam. Floods no longer occur so the eradication effort through yearly weeding efforts composition of woody riparian vegetation has and has managed to control and largely prevent changed with native species and tamarisk preits proliferation in the area (Burns, 2007). dominant. Riparian vegetation exists at locations along the Downstream from Parker Dam, non-native Colorado and Gila rivers as shown on Figure date palm, giant reed and fan palm are found 24 Section 7.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 with mesquite and arrowweed found further from the river. Downstream of Headgate Rock Dam (Figure 7.6-5), the river corridor widens. Riparian vegetation in this area was mapped in 1962 and covered 108,000 acres of primarily mesquite bosque with some reaches of native riparian vegetation among stands of tamarisk. The All American Canal at Imperial Dam diverts much of the flow of the Colorado River to California. Black willow, cottonwood and tamarisk are found in the abandoned river channel in this area. Through Yuma, flood control and bank protection have narrowed the river channel but has also provided more stable hydrologic conditions, resulting in an increase of riparian vegetation, primarily arrowweed. (Webb and others, 2007) In Mexico, the Colorado River Delta was historically two million acres in size and was a maze of lagoons and thickly forested. Today, only about 420,000 acres of riparian, wetland and intertidal habitat remain. This habitat is largely maintained by the delivery of irrigation drainage water from the Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation District in Arizona. This water has flowed to the eastern side of the delta since 1979, creating the largest wetland in the Sonoran Desert, the Cienega de Santa Clara (Glenn and others, 2004). Figure 7.0-10 Riparian Areas in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area Riparian Data Source: AZGF 1993 Section 7.0 Overview 25 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Arizona Water Protection Fund Programs The objective of the Arizona Water Protection Fund (AWPF) program is to provide grants for the protection and restoration of Arizona’s rivers and streams and associated riparian habitats. Twelve restoration projects in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area had been funded by the AWPF through 2008. Ten projects were funded in the Yuma Basin for wetland, habitat and watershed restoration, exotic species control, research and revegetation. Two projects in the Parker Basin funded habitat restoration and revegetation and exotic species control. A list of projects and project types funded in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area through 2008 are found in Appendix A. A description of the program, a complete listing of all projects funded, and a reference map are found in Volume 1. Threatened and Endangered Species4 A number of listed threatened and endangered species may be present in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area. Those listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as of 2008 are shown in Table 7.0-1. Presence of a listed species may be a critical consideration in water resource management and 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 Restoration project on Colorado River in the Yuma area. 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, power and wildlife 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). Its purposes include: 1) protection of habitat while ensuring current river water and power operations; 2) addressing the needs of listed species under the ESA; and 3) reduction of the likelihood of listing additional species along the river (USBOR, 2007b). LCR MSCP reaches 4-7 are within the planning area and their general location is shown in Figure 7.0-11. The LCR MSCP also addresses compliance with the “take” provisions of the ESA. Incidental take of a listed species, as the result of carrying out an otherwise lawful activity, is not allowed without acquiring a permit from the U.S. Fish 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.” 4 26 Section 7.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.0-1 Endangered Species in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area Common Name Bald Eagle Threatened Endangered X Elevation/Habitat Varies/Large trees or cliffs near water. Bonytail Chub X 235 - 1,960 ft./Main stream portions of mid-sized to large rivers (both strong current and pools), usually over mud or rocks. Cactus Ferruginous Pygmy-Owl X 1,300 - 4,000 ft./Cottonwoods, willows, mesquite bosques and dry washes. California Brown Pelican X Varies/Lakes and rivers. Kearny's Blue Star X 3,685 - 4,500 ft./Canyon bottoms and sides in oak woodlands. Lesser Long-Nosed Bat X 1,190 - 7,320 ft./Desert grassland and shrubland up to oak transition. Nichol's Turk's Head Cactus X 2,400-4,100 ft./Sonoran desertscrub. Quitobaquito Pupfish X 0-4,950 ft./Small ponds and springs. Razorback Sucker X <6,000 ft./Riverine and lacustrine areas, not in fast moving water. Sonoran Pronghorn X 400 - 1,600 ft./Broad alluvial valleys separated by block-faulted mountains. Southwestern Willow Flycatcher X <8,500 ft./Cottonwood-willow and tamarisk along rivers and streams. Yuma Clapper Rail X <4,500 ft./Fresh water and brackish marshes. Source: USFWS 2008 Section 7.0 Overview 27 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Figure 7.0-11 MSCP Reaches in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area Source: U.S. Department of the Interior, 2004 and Wildlife Service. The LCR MSCP documents the extent of the incidental take related to river operations and maintenance activities by both Federal and non-Federal entities and includes measures to avoid, minimize and mitigate the effect of the take (USDOI, 2004).5 Implementation of the LCR MSCP began in 2005. The program area extends from the full pool elevation of Lake Mead to the Southerly International Boundary with Mexico, a distance of 400 river miles and includes the historical floodplain of the Colorado River (USBOR, 2007b). 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. Historically the “Great Valley”, what is now known as the Palo Verde Valley in California and Cibola Valley from the Parker area downstream to Cibola Lake, supported an extensive riparian woodland ecosystem and this area is a focal area for conservation measures under the LCR MSCP. Significant conservation measures intended to restore native riparian woodland habitats, once common along the lower Colorado River, have been implemented in Arizona at Cibola Valley Conservation Area (CVCA) in the Cibola Valley Irrigation and Drainage District, Cibola National Wildlife Refuge (CNWR), and Imperial National Wildlife Refuge (INWR). Measures include planting cottonwood, willow, mesquite, and other seedlings to create habitat for riparian woodland obligate species at CVCA, CNWR, and INWR, creation of marsh habitat for Yuma clapper rail and California black rail at INWR, and creation of isolated refugia for razorback sucker and bonytail at INWR. Investigations continue on the suitability of existing backwaters for conversion into habitat suitable for razorback sucker and bonytail. In addition, experimental habitat restoration measures have been implemented at the ‘Ahakhav Tribal Preserve on the Colorado River Indian Tribes Reservation. National Monuments, Wildlife Refuges and Wilderness Areas The Lower Colorado River Planning Area contains 15 wilderness areas administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), four National Wildlife Refuges (NWR) and two National Monuments (Figure 7.0-12). Both As 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]) 5 28 Section 7.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 monuments and three wildlife refuges also contain wilderness areas. In total there are 2.3 million acres of protected federal lands in the planning area, accounting for 21% of the land area. Designated wilderness areas managed by the BLM, their size, basin location and a brief description of the area are listed in Table 7.0-2. The largest protected area in the planning area is the Cabeza Prieta NWR, the third largest refuge Eight BLM wilderness areas are entirely within in the contiguous United States with an area of the planning area as well as parts of seven over 860,000 acres. Designated in 1939, it lies others. Wilderness areas are designated under within the Lower Gila and Western Mexican the 1964 Wilderness Act to preserve and protect Drainage basins and shares a 56-mile border the designated area in its natural condition. with the Mexican state of Sonora. Most of the Figure 7.0-12 Wilderness Areas in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area (Wilderness Data Source: National Atlas of the United States 2005, Land Ownership Data Source: ALRIS 2004) Section 7.0 Overview 29 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.0-2 Wilderness areas in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area Acres in the Planning Area Basin Big Horn Mountains 18,000 (partial) Harquahala Eagletail Mountains 100,000 East Cactus Plain 15,000 Parker Intricate crescent dune topography and dense dunescrub vegetation known only in this area. Gibraltar Mountain 19,000 Parker Volcanic rock dissected by deep, sandy washes and rocky canyons, including many alcoves and caves. Harcuvar Mountains 22,000 (partial) McMullen Valley & Butler Bajadas and mountains with an isolated 3,500-acre Valley "island" of interior chaparral habitat. Harquahala Mountains 23,000 Tiger Wash, McMullen & Contains 5,691-foot- high Harquahala Peak, the Harquahala highest point in southwest Arizona. Hummingbird Springs 5,500 (partial) Harquahala Includes Sugarloaf Mountain which rises steeply from the Tonopah Desert plains. Muggins Mountains 7,700 Lower Gila Rugged peaks dissected by deeply cut drainages. New Water Mountains 25,000 Ranegras Craggy spires, sheer rock outcrops, natural arches, slick rock canyons and deep sandy washes. North Maricopa Mountains* 40,000 Gila Bend Low-elevation Sonoran Desert mountain range and extensive surrounding desert plains. Rawhide Mountains 4,900 (partial) Butler Valley Low hills punctuated by numerous rugged outcrops. Signal Mountain 12,000 (partial) Lower Gila Sharp volcanic peaks, steep-walled canyons, arroyos, craggy ridges and outwash plains. South Maricopa Mountains* 40,000 (partial) Gila Bend Low-elevation Sonoran Desert mountain range and extensive surrounding desert plains. Trigo Mountains 30,000 Parker Woolsey Peak 60,000 (partial) Gila Bend & Lower Gila Total Acres 400,100 Wilderness Area Description Desert plain escarpments, hills, fissures, chimneys and narrow canyons. Large desert plain with natural arches, high spires, Harquahala, Ranegras & monoliths, jagged sawtooth ridges and numerous Lower Gila washes six to eight miles long. Sawtooth ridges and steep-sided canyons heavily dissected by washes. Sloping lava flows, basalt mesas, rugged peaks and ridges. Source: BLM 2006 * Wilderness areas are within the boundaries of a National Monument. refuge is designated as wilderness. The refuge provides habitat for desert bighorn sheep, the endangered Sonoran pronghorn and lesser longnosed bat, as well as 420 plant species and more than 300 kinds of wildlife. (USFWS, 2007a) The U.S. pronghorn population is estimated at around 50 animals. refuge was established in 1964 to restore and protect historic habitat and wintering grounds for migratory birds and other wildlife. About 85% of Arizona’s wintering Canadian Goose population is found on the refuge. (USFWS, 2007b) Kofa NWR, at 665,400 acres, is located in Cibola NWR straddles the Colorado River, the Lower Gila, Parker and Ranegras Plain with almost 13,000 acres located in the Parker basins. Established in 1939, it provides habitat Basin and the remainder in California. The for desert bighorn sheep, currently numbering 30 Section 7.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 800-1,000 individuals, and protection for the California fan palm, the only native palm in Arizona (USFWS, 2007c). Most of the refuge is designated as wilderness. Imperial NWR protects wildlife habitat along 30 miles of the Colorado River in Arizona and California, including the last unchannelized section of the river before it enters Mexico. The entire refuge encompasses almost 25,800 acres, of which 15,000 acres is designated wilderness. In Arizona, refuge lands are located in the Lower Gila and Parker basins. Efforts are underway to restore wetlands, control tamarisk, plant cottonwood and willow trees, protect lakes and manage marshlands and croplands to provide food and habitat for wintering migratory birds. (USFWS, 2007d) ter the U.S. through the monument using unofficial roads and trails. This traffic has adversely impacted habitat including deposition of trash, damage to plants, pollution of water sources, and soil erosion. (NPS, 2007) A portion of the 496,000-acre Sonoran Desert National Monument, established by executive proclamation in 2001, is located in the Gila Bend Basin. The monument contains extensive areas of saguaro cactus forest, and archeological and historic sites. Three wilderness areas are contained within the Monument boundaries. (BLM, 2007) Managed Waters Water management decisions and operations outside of the planning area affect the character Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument pre- of the Colorado River within the planning serves approximately 106,800 acres of relative- area. Use of Colorado River water is primarily ly intact Sonoran Desert ecosystem in the Low- under the jurisdiction of the federal government er Gila and Western Mexican Drainage basins. and was developed through a number of The Monument contains twenty-six species of Congressional acts, Supreme Court Decisions, cactus and provides habitat for the endangered multi-state compacts and an international treaty Quitobaquito Pupfish and Sonoran Pronghorn. collectively known as the “Law of the River.” About 95% of the Monument is designated as More detail on management issues affecting the wilderness. The United Nations designated the river are found in Section 7.0-8. Monument as an International Biosphere Reserve in 1976. Due to the remoteness of the Historically, flow in the Colorado River was area, each year thousands of people illegally en- highly unpredictable with annual variation of 5 maf to 24 maf at its point of discharge to the Gulf of California. Sediments were carried downstream with spring floods, forming beaches and a large delta where the river met the sea. These floods often changed the course of the river. Today the river flow does not always reach the Gulf due to diversions, sediment is trapped behind dams and the river is channelized through parts of its length. Kofa Mountains in the Kofa National Wildlife Refuge. The Lower Colorado River Planning Area contains 2.3 million acres of protected federal lands, accounting for 21% of the land area Prior to development, the Colorado River delta area was one of the richest estuaries in the world. Upstream diversions have severely impacted the delta with a small remnant remaining in the Cienega de Santa Clara. This remnant has Section 7.0 Overview 31 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 been maintained as a result of bypassed saline Table 7.0-3 2000 Census population in the return flows generated by the Wellton-Mohawk Lower Colorado River Planning Area Irrigation and Drainage District. Salinity Basin/ 2000 Census standards established by the 1944 Treaty with Reservation Population Mexico require that these return flows can no Yuma 152,928 1,025 Cocopah longer be returned to the river in Arizona. The Fort Yuma (Quechan) 45 Cienega was designated as a Biosphere Reserve Parker 16,155 in 1994 (Tellman and others, 1997). Discussions Colorado River Indian Tribes 3,389 are ongoing on how to manage and utilize return (CRIT) flows in the Yuma area while still sustaining the Lower Gila 11,297 San Simon Wash 5,837 Cienega. Tohono O'odham 7.0.5 Population The 2000 Census populations for each basin and Indian reservation, from highest to lowest, are listed in Table 7.0-3. The most populous basin is the Yuma Basin with 79% of the total planning area population in 2000. Three basins have population totals less than 100 residents. The 2005 estimated population of the Yuma Basin was 181,600 and Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES) population projections forecast 305,900 residents by 2030. Historic, current and projected basin populations are shown in the basin cultural water demand tables (Sections 7.1-7.11). 5,833 Gila Bend 4,256 Gila Bend McMullen Valley Ranegras Plain Harquahala Western Mexican Drainage Butler Valley Tiger Wash 3,426 905 608 33 15 <10 600 community east of Yuma is also growing rapidly with a 165% growth rate between 1990 and 2000 and a 29% growth rate between 2000 and 2006. Yuma, Fortuna Foothills and Quartzsite experience a large population increase in the winter when seasonal residents arrive to enjoy the relatively warm climate. This seasonal population is not accounted for in the population estimates and projections unless these commuThe planning area is growing rapidly with a nities are listed as the primary residence. 44% population increase between 1990 and 2000. Census data for 2000 show about 194,100 Population Growth and Water Use residents and DES population projections forecast that the population will double by 2030, Arizona has limited mechanisms to address to about 388,400 residents (Table 7.0-4). the connections between land use, population growth and water supply. A legislative attempt Listed in Table 7.0-4 are incorporated and un- to link growth and water management planning incorporated communities in the planning area is the Growing Smarter Plus Act of 2000 (Act) with 2000 Census populations greater than 1,000 which requires that counties with a population and growth rates for two time periods. Commu- greater than 125,000 (2000 Census) include nities are listed from highest to lowest popula- planning for water resources in their comprehention in 2000. As shown, there are a number of sive plans. Of the five counties in the planning rapidly growing communities in the planning area, four fit the size criteria in 2000; Maricopa, area. San Luis, along the international border, Pima, Yavapai and Yuma. Only Yuma County had the most rapid growth rate during both time is entirely within the planning area. The Yuma periods. Fortuna Foothills, an unincorporated County 2010 Comprehensive Plan provides a 32 Section 7.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 general overview on the quality and quantity of water in the county, including information on drinking water and distribution and wastewater management (Yuma County, 2000). Beginning in 2007, all community water systems in the state were required to submit Annual Water Use Reports and System Water Plans. The reports and plans are intended to reduce community water systems’ vulnerabilThe Act also requires that twenty-three ity to drought, and to promote water resource communities outside AMAs include a water planning to ensure that water providers are preresources element in their general plans. In pared to respond to water shortage conditions. the Lower Colorado River Planning Area this In addition, the information will allow the State requirement applies to Yuma, Quartzsite, San to provide regional planning assistance to help Luis and Somerton and all communities have communities prepare for, mitigate and respond complied. Plans must consider water demand to drought. An Annual Water Use Report must and water resource availability in conjunction be submitted each year by the systems that inwith growth, land use and infrastructure. cludes information on water pumped, diverted and received, water delivered to customers, and Table 7.0-4 Communities in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area with a 2000 Census population greater than 1,000 Basin 1990 Census Pop. 2000 Census Pop. Percent Change 1990-2000 2006 Pop. Estimate Percent Change 2000-2006 Projected 2030 Pop. City of Yuma1 Yuma 54,923 77,515 41% 91,033 15% 136,305 Fortuna Foothills Yuma 7,737 20,478 165% 28,827 29% 57,224 City of San Luis1 Yuma 4,212 15,322 264% 24,485 37% 55,651 City of Somerton1 Yuma 5,282 7,266 38% 10,258 29% 20,433 Lower Gila 2,919 3,705 27% 4,118 10% 6,2662 Town of Quartzsite1 Parker 1,876 3,354 79% 3,650 8% 4,748 Parker Strip Parker 1,646 3,302 101% 3,802 13% 5,660 Town of Parker1 Parker 2,897 3,140 8% 3,308 5% 3,933 Town of Gila Bend1 Gila Bend 1,747 1,980 13% 1,805 -10% 5,6092 Town of Wellton1 Lower Gila 1,066 1,829 72% 1,998 8% 2,565 Parker 1,226 1,357 11% 1,397 3% 1,543 Total >1,000 85,531 139,248 63% 174,681 20% 299,937 Remainder of <1,000 49,096 54,814 12% 63,034 13% 88,418 Total 134,627 194,062 44% 237,715 18% 388,355 Communities Town of Ajo Town of Ehrenberg1 Sources: DES 2006, U.S. Census Bureau 2006 Incorporated communities 2 Derived by ADWR from MAG and PAG projections 1 Section 7.0 Overview 33 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 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. Plans have been submitted by 37 community water systems in the planning area including the City of Yuma, Town of Parker, Ajo Improvement Company/Phelps Dodge Corporation, City of Somerton, and Town of Gila Bend and were used to prepare this document. Annual water report information and a list of water plans are found in Appendix B. The Department’s Water Adequacy Program also relates water supply and demand to growth to some extent, but does not control growth. 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 inad- equate, 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, which requires a new subdivision to have an adequate water supply in order for the subdivision to be approved by the platting authority. If adopted, cities and towns within the county may not approve a subdivision unless it has an adequate water supply. If the county does not adopt the provision, the legislation allows a city or town to adopt a local adequacy ordinance that requires a demonstration of adequacy before the final plat can be approved. To date, only Yuma County and Cochise County have adopted the provision. Subdivision adequacy determinations (Water Adequacy Reports), including the reason(s) for inadequate determinations, are provided in basin tables and maps and are summarized for each basin in Table 7.0-5. As listed on the table, a Table 7.0-5 Water adequacy determinations in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area as of 12/2008 Number of Subdivisions Number of Lots1 Lots w/ Adequate Determ. Lots w/ Inadequate Determ. Approx. Percent of Lots w/ Inadequate Determ. Butler Valley 1 76 0 76 100% Gila Bend 6 222 43 179 81% Harquahala 4 301 201 100 33% Lower Gila 30 3,087 2,756 331 11% McMullen Valley 10 2,137 2,030 233 11% Parker 28 >1,575 >1,145 >430 27% Ranegras Plain 8 280 26 254 91% San Simon Wash none none none none none Tiger Wash none none none none none Western Mexican Drainage none none none none none Yuma 262 29,264 27,523 1,741 6% 348 >36,942 >33,724 >3,218 9% Basin Total Source: ADWR 2008a Notes: Data on number of lots are missing for some subdivisions; actual number may be larger (>) 1 34 Section 7.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 high percentage of lots have been determined to Figure 7.0-13 Average Annual Water Suphave an adequate water supply and only basins ply Utilized in the Lower Colorado River with relatively few subdivided lots have a high Planning Area, 2001-2005 (in acre-feet) percentage of inadequacy determinations. Effluent CAP 69,600 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. The service areas of two water providers in the planning area, Town of Parker and City of Yuma, have been designated as having an adequate water supply for their entire service area. If a subdivision is served by one of these designated water providers, a separate adequacy determination is not required. Surface Water 1,864,790 680 Groundwater 964,670 7.0.6 Water Supply Water supplies in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area include groundwater, surface water, Central Arizona Project (CAP) water and effluent. As shown on Figure 7.0-13, most water used is surface water. Colorado River water is the major supply in the Lower Gila, Parker and Yuma basins and CAP water is the largest supply in the Harquahala Basin. Gila River water combined with effluent discharge from the Phoenix AMA is an agricultural supply in the Gila Bend Basin. Elsewhere, groundwater is the primary water supply. Colorado River water is also used to meet environmental needs at the Imperial Wildlife Refuge in the Parker and Lower Gila basins. A discussion of Colorado River water entitlements and accounting is presented below. For purposes of the Atlas, water diverted from a watercourse or spring is considered surface water and if it is pumped from wells it is accounted for as groundwater. This is reflected in the cultural water demand tables in each basin section. 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 United States Supreme Court in Arizona v. California et al. (Decree), through a contract with the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) under Section 5 of the Boulder Canyon Project Act (BCPA) of December 21, 1928, or by Secretarial Reservation. Table 7.0-6 shows the annual total amount of Colorado River water that was consumptively used for each category of water use within each basin in the planning area based on an accounting system established by Decree. Article V of the Decree directs the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) to prepare an annual report of diversions from the mainstream, return flow of water to the mainstream that makes water Section 7.0 Overview 35 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 ARIZONA v. CALIFORNIA DECREE ACCOUNTING THE CONSUMPTIVE USE OFRiver Table 7.0-6 Arizona v. California decree accounting of theOF consumptive use of Colorado RIVER WATER IN THE LOWER RIVER PLANNING AREA water in COLORADO the Lower Colorado River Planning Area (inCOLORADO acre-feet/year) (in acre-feet/year) Basin/Year 1 1971-75 Parker Agricultural Industrial Municipal Environmental Lower Gila 4 5 Agricultural Industrial Municipal Environmental Yuma 4 4 Agricultural Industrial Municipal Environmental TOTAL 1976-80 1981-85 1986-90 1991-95 1996-00 2001-05 2 Entitlement 3 334,058 0 829 148 354,197 0 1,070 13,128 338,033 0 1,770 8,768 407,512 0 1,815 11,822 425,204 0 1,891 19,719 429,193 0 2,339 18,368 389,668 0 1,876 11,785 693,486 0 8,004 56,238 309,367 0 2 40 209,015 0 5 59 258,612 0 6 22 312,237 0 7 743 241,267 0 19 1,800 278,826 0 62 1,773 260,818 0 80 665 272,980 0 265 6,262 676,165 1,046 13,272 0 1,334,927 631,711 1,021 10,146 0 1,220,352 564,313 839 12,174 0 1,184,538 571,245 610 13,137 0 1,319,126 543,251 469 15,255 0 1,248,876 560,581 2,250 21,625 0 1,315,019 457,679 674 21,296 0 1,144,541 582,257 1,772 54,945 0 1,676,209 Footnotes 1 Consumptive use for individual users may not cover an entire 5 year period, the average shown is based on the years of record. 2 In 2003, the United States Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) began deducting unmeasured return flows from the diversions by individual divertors. Prior to this time, Reclamation only deducted the total amount of unmeasured return flow from the total Lower Basin diversions. 3 The entitlement amounts do not include 72,000 acre-feet for the Ak-Chin (50,000 acre-feet) and Salt River-Pima Maricopa Indian (22,000 acre-feet) water rights settlements, which is delivered by the Central Arizona Project to reservations. 4 The Imperial National Wildlife Refuge spans the Parker and Lower Gila basins. Consumptive use has been prorated based on the percentage of the Refuge land area in each basin. 5 The Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District (IDD) spans the Lower Gila and Yuma basins. Consumptive use has been prorated based on the percentage of the Wellton-Mohawk IDD land area in each basin. available for downstream consumptive use in the U.S. or in satisfaction of the Mexican Treaty obligation, and the consumptive use of such water. The Article V report lists diversions and return flow separately by diverter, point of diversion and state, for each of the lower basin states. determining consumptive water use, the Article V accounting system considers measured return flow and estimates of unmeasured return flows to the mainstream. Reclamation has made a preliminary delineation of the lateral and vertical extent of the Colorado River aquifer to provide a basis for accounting According to the Article V report, consumptive of withdrawals against river water allocations. use of Colorado River water in the planning On July 16, 2008, Reclamation proposed to dearea for agricultural, municipal, industrial and velop a rule for Regulating Non-Contract Use environmental purposes averaged 1,144,541 of Colorado River Water in the Lower Basin acre-feet annually for the 2001-2005 time period (73 Federal Register 40916 et seq.) to prevent out of a total annual entitlement of 1,676,209 non-contract Colorado River water use from acre-feet. The table shows the quantities of depleting the river and taking water from holdwater diverted by surface water diversions, ers of Colorado River water entitlements. Recin-river pumps, or pumped from wells lamation’s most current assessment indicates assumed to be located within the hydraulically that most existing non-contract water use reLowerColoradoPlanArea-DecreeAc. connected aquifer /of the Colorado River. When sults from water withdrawn from wells located Page 1 of 1 As of November 8, 2007 lower_CO_decree_accounting 36 Section 7.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 within the hydraulically connected aquifer of the Colorado River or from river pumps. The proposed rule would establish a methodology that Reclamation would use to determine if a well pumps Colorado River water and a process for a water user to appeal a subsequent finding (USBOR, 2008). As of October 2009, Reclamation had not adopted a rule. Because of the complexity of the accounting system and its unique methodology that includes return flow and other considerations, the surface water and groundwater discussions in this overview section and the cultural water demand tables in sections 7.4, 7.5 and 7.11 (those basins that utilize this supply), reflect the amount of water pumped from wells and diverted from streams. This approach is comparable to that used for other planning areas. The tables do not attempt to distinguish whether the water is used pursuant to the entitlement system. Entitlement Priority Levels Rights to Colorado River water include the following several priority levels: 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 entered into after September 30, 1968, for a total quantity not to exceed 164,652 acre-feet of diversions annually and ii) contract No. 14-06-W-245, dated December 15, 1972, as amended, between the United States and the Central Arizona Project (CAP). Entitlements having a 4th priority as described in (i) and (ii) are coequal; e. 5th Priority: Unused entitlement; and f. 6th Priority: Surplus water. In general, the lower priority entitlements will be the first to be impacted when the Secretary declares a shortage on the Colorado River system. Within the planning area, entitlement holders with a 1st Priority or Present Perfected Rights include the Cocopah Indian Reservation, Colorado River Indian Tribes Reservation, Fort Yuma Indian Reservation, Yuma County Water Users’ Association, North Gila Valley Irrigation District, Unit “B” Irrigation and Drainage District, the City of Yuma and the Town of Parker. 2nd and 3rd priority entitlement holders (which are coequal), include the AkChin Indian Community, Imperial and Cibola National Wildlife Refuges, Yuma Proving Grounds, the Marine Corps Air Station–Yuma, Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District and others. Information on Colorado River entitlements in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area is provided in Appendix C. Entitlements may be transferred under certain conditions. Within the planning area, the Cibola Valley Irrigation and Drainage District has assigned a portion of its entitlement to the Mohave County Water Authority (MCWA, 5th and/or 6th), to the Hopi Tribe (Priority 4th, 5th and 6th) and to Cibola Resources for municipal use at Ehrenberg. More information on entitlement transfers is in Appendix D. Coordinated Operations and Shortage Criteria In December 2007, Reclamation issued a Record of Decision (ROD) on interim operating criteria (2008-2026) including the coordinated operation of Lake Powell and Lake Mead and criteria for implementing shortage reductions in the Lower Basin. Historically, the reservoirs were operated independently; annual Lake Powell water releases were determined based on applicable law and relevant factors contained in the Long-Range Operating Criteria. The ROD adopted four key elements: 1) establishes rules for shortages; 2) allows coordinated operation Section 7.0 Overview 37 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 of Lake Powell and Lake Mead to avoid Lower Basin shortages and avoid curtailment of Upper Basin water use; 3) establishes rules for surpluses; and 4) address ongoing drought by encouraging new initiatives for water conservation. If regional drought conditions continue, shortage operations could begin as early as 2011. The ROD could have implications for water supply availability in the planning area. Colorado River Water Supply Distribution System In the Lower Colorado River Planning Area, dams on the Colorado River were constructed primarily for the purpose of regulating river flow and creating storage to facilitate water diversions to Arizona, California and Mexico via canals pursuant to decrees, international treaties and other legal agreements. Figure 7.0-14 shows the location of major dams, water delivery and diversion structures, and other features along the Colorado and Gila Rivers in the planning area. The agricultural and municipal water delivery systems are discussed in the cultural water demand section (7.0.7). The Colorado River system is described briefly below, from north to south. Parker Dam Parker Dam, at the northern edge of the planning area in the Parker Basin, is a concrete arch structure 320 feet high and 856 feet long at its crest. It is the deepest dam in the world with 73 percent of its structural height below the original riverbed. Completed in 1938, it impounds Lake Havasu and provides a desilting basin and forebay for diversion of Colorado River water. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California pumps water into its Colorado River Aqueduct from the forebay, conveying it 242 miles west to Lake Mathews near Riverside, California. On the Arizona side, water is pumped from the forebay into the CAP canal for use in central Arizona. (USBOR, 2007c) The dam includes a powerplant that is integrated with the Davis and Hoover powerplants, providing 38 Parker Dam. Water is pumped to canals for use in both California and Arizona from the dam’s forebay. power to Arizona and southern California. The powerplant is remotely operated from the Hoover Control Center. (USBOR, 2006) Headgate Rock Dam Downstream of Parker Dam, irrigation water for the CRIT near Parker is diverted at Headgate Rock Dam. This dam was constructed in 1942 to stabilize the river channel and provide reliable irrigation supplies. (USBOR, 2007d) A levee system protects areas downstream from flooding. Palo Verde Diversion Dam Palo Verde Diversion Dam is located about 44 miles downstream of Headgate Rock Dam. It maintains a sufficiently high, constant water surface elevation at the Palo Verde Irrigation District canal headwork for delivery of irrigation water to the west side of the Colorado River near Blythe, California. The dam is a semipervious barrier of sand, gravel and rockfill, 46 feet high and 1,850 feet long. (USBOR, 2007e) Senator Wash Dam Senator Wash Dam and Reservoir is an offstream pumping facility located on the California side of the river about two miles upstream from Imperial Dam. This structure improves water scheduling by downstream users by storing part of the riverflow upstream of Imperial Dam when it is not needed, releasing it to the river for downstream use when needed. out the Section 7.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Figure 7.0-14 Operational Diagram of the Colorado River Lower Colorado River Planning Area Parker Dam Can al ai n G an al Gil a Canal Senator Wash Dam Reservoir & Works a nC o t l l e W nal k Ca w a M oh Imperial Dam East Main Canal “B” Canal “A Laguna Dam al an C ” River l ra Colo o d Central Cana Ma in Dr ain al mo Can West Main C an al Ala So uth Mo haw k ila r ve Ri na l Yuma Mesa Conduit Ri annel lot Ch i P r ve Drain t a l e i l t G u O n Mai Yuma Palo Verde Diversion Dam C Yuma Desalting Plant Morelos Dam a Gila Gr North Gila Colorado River an al hC ain Dr Headgate Rock Dam M vity nlto el W NIB n Mittry Lake Cocopa Yuma Main Canal Wasteway Pilot Knob Wasteway l na a C nal in Ca Yuma Ma Reservation Ma i All n ica r e Am Ca nal Laguna Dam California Morelos Dam SIB 242 Well Field and Lateral Bypass Drain Levee Operational diagram,not to scale Adapted from U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 1993 Map and Operational Diagram Lower Colorado River Lees Ferry to Gulf of California Section 7.0 Overview Ariz ona Me xico 39 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Without the dam it would take three days for water released at Parker Dam to reach Imperial Dam. The dam is an earth embankment structure 2,342 feet long with a height of about 94 feet. Other works include three dikes, a spillway and a pumping plant. (USBOR, 2007d) Imperial Dam Imperial Dam is a major diversion point for both Arizona and California. The dam raises the water surface about 25 feet, allowing controlled gravity flow into the All American Canal and the Gila Gravity Main Canal. The All American Canal system diverts water from the California side of the dam and serves Imperial Irrigation District, Coachella Valley Water District, the Yuma Project in Arizona and California, and the City of Yuma. The Gila Gravity Main Canal system diverts water from the Arizona side of the dam and serves the north and south Gila Valley, Yuma Mesa, and the Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation District area. Imperial Dam is also used to regulate water deliveries to Mexico required by international treaty. (USBOR, 2007b) Laguna Dam From Imperial Dam to the Northerly International Boundary between the U.S. and Mexico, the entire channel of the Colorado River is bounded by a system of levees. Laguna Dam, located five miles downstream of Imperial Dam serves as a regulating structure for Colorado River water. (USBOR, 2007b) Because of upstream diversions and dams, from Laguna Dam to Morelos Dam the river consists of a small active channel located within a broad, older riverbed entrenched below the historic level of the unregulated river (USBOR, 2007d). Yuma Desalting Plant, Main Outlet Extension and Bypass Extension Utilizing Colorado River water for domestic and agricultural purposes has steadily increased the salinity of its waters. In the 1960s crops in the Mexicali Valley were damaged by the high Yuma Desalting Plant. salinity of the Colorado River water used for irrigation. An amendment to the 1944 treaty with Mexico (Minute 242) guaranteed that the treaty water delivery would be no more than 115 ppm (+/- 30 ppm) more saline than the water diverted at Imperial Dam. Nine miles downstream from Laguna Dam the Gila River enters the Colorado. Along the Gila River, extensive agricultural irrigation with Colorado River water in the Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District (WMIDD) has made it necessary to install drainage wells to pump excess irrigation water to keep salts from accumulating in the root zone. About 120,000 acre-feet of brackish groundwater is pumped annually. If this water was directly returned to the river it would increase salinity levels above the international treaty standard and could not be counted towards Mexico’s Colorado River apportionment of 1.5 million AFA. To desalinate the drainage water so that it could be returned to the mainstem and counted toward the apportionment, Reclamation constructed the Yuma Desalting Plant (YDP). Completed in 1992, the YDP is designed to treat up to 96,000 AFA. It operated briefly in 1993 and was then put on standby status until a 90-day demonstration run in 2007. Currently, WMIDD drainage water is discharged to the Main Outlet Drain Extension (MODE) and its bypass extension in Mexico and delivered to the Santa Clara Slough (Cienega de Santa Clara). (WMIDD, 2004) Section 7.0 Overview 40 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 To desalinate the drainage water so that it could be returned to the mainstem and counted toward the apportionment, Reclamation constructed the Yuma Desalination Plant (YDP). Completed in 1992, the YDP is designed to treat up to 96,000 AFA. It operated briefly in 1993 and was then put on standby status until a 90-day demonstration run was conducted in 2007. Currently, Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District (WMIDD) drainage water is discharged to the Main Outlet Drain Extension and its bypass extension in Mexico and delivered to the Santa Clara Slough (Cienega de Santa Clara). (WMIDD, 2004) In May 2010, a yearlong pilot run of the YDP at one-third capacity is scheduled to begin. The purpose of the pilot run is to assess the suitability of the treatment process and define its long-term design. The pilot run will include a monitoring program that evaluates impacts to the wildlife and habitat associated with the Cienega. Below Morelos Dam. River flow is reduced in this section due to diversions by Mexico into the Alamo Canal and because the channel is overgrown with vegetation. In addition, sediment buildup around the spillway has caused loss of dam function. As a result, the flood capacity of the channel has been reduced, posing a threat to the safety of the Valley Division of the Yuma Project. (USBOR, 2007d) 242 Well Field and Lateral Title I of the Colorado River Basin Salinty Control Act authorized the Protective and Regulatory Pumping Unit, consisting of the 242 well field and lateral. The unit is located east of San Luis in a 5-mile wide protected and regulated zone consisting of 35 wells, the 242 Lateral and other connecting laterals (Figure 7.0-21). The well field intercepts part of the groundwater flow, including irrigation drainage water that moves south into Mexico from the Yuma Mesa. Water pumped from the well field is delivered California and Pilot Knob Wasteways at the SIB to Mexico through the 242 Lateral Four miles downstream from the mouth of the and other laterals to meet international treaty Gila River, the Yuma Main Canal wasteway obligations for Colorado River water deliveries. returns water to the river to comply with the (USBOR, 2007a) treaty obligation to Mexico. In addition, a portion of the water scheduled to be delivered to Central Arizona Project Water Mexico is diverted at Imperial Dam, conveyed by the All American Canal, and returned to the Colorado River water is withdrawn at Lake river through the Pilot Knob Wasteway west of Havasu at the Mark Wilmer Pumping Plant Yuma. (USBOR, 2007b) into the Central Arizona Project Aqueduct system. It crosses the Parker, Ranegras Plain Northerly International Boundary (NIB) to and Harquahala basins via the Hayden-Rhodes Southerly International Boundary (SIB)/ Aqueduct to the CAP service area in central Morelos Dam Arizona (Maricopa, Pima and Pinal counties). The 23.7 mile long reach of the Colorado River between the NIB and the SIB is referred to as CAP water is used both directly and stored the limitrophe section. Levees have been con- underground in the planning area pursuant to structed on both sides of the river. About 1.1 the Department’s Recharge Program. Storage miles downstream of the NIB, Morelos Diver- facilities in the planning area are listed on sion Dam acts as a diversion control structure for Table 7.0-7. The Vidler Water Company the Alamo Canal, which conveys water to Mex- Underground Storage Facility (USF) is located ico. Other infrastructure includes wasteways, near Centennial in the Harquahala Basin where bypass channel, levees, etc. (USBOR, 2007b) it is permitted to recharge up to 100,000 acre- 41 Section 7.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.0-7 Storage facilities in the Harquahala Basin Permit Type/No. Permit Holder Project Description (Duration) Associated Water Storage Permit No’s (Permit Holder) USF 71-576699.0004 Vidler Water Annual recharge up to 100,000 73-576699.01 (Vidler) (09/03/04 to 09/30/20) Storage Company acre-feet of CAP water via basins 73-576699.02 (AWBA) and vadose zone wells. 73-593304 (AWBA) GSF 72-593304.0000 Harquahala Valley Indirect recharge up to 50,000 (03/06/06 to 03/06/11) Irrigation District acre-feet per annually of uncontracted CAP water. feet of CAP water annually. Harquahala Valley Irrigation District (HVID), located in the southern part of the Harquahala Basin holds a groundwater savings facility permit (GSF). It receives excess (uncontracted) CAP water which it uses “in-lieu” of groundwater. The Arizona Water Banking Authority (AWBA) holds water storage permits to store excess CAP water at both facilities. HVID has been using CAP water since 1986 and it has replaced groundwater as the major water supply in the basin. As a result of this storage and direct use, groundwater levels have risen in the vicinity of Vidler and HVID. A long-term storage account was established for the McMullen Valley Water Conservation & Drainage District (Vicksburg Farms) in 2000 in anticipation of the accrual of long term storage credits from storage of CAP water via two injection wells. However, a water storage permit was never issued and no water has been stored. Surface Water Rivers, has a current treatment capacity of 179 mgd (over 200,000 AFA). In typical years, most if not all water in this reach of the river is wastewater effluent (ADWR, 1994a). An average of 54,000 AFA of this water supply is used for irrigation in the basin. Legal availability of a surface water supply is also an important consideration. The following discussion applies to non-Colorado River surface water. As described in detail in Appendix E, the legal framework and process under which surface water right applications and claims are administered and determined is complex. Rights to surface water are subject 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 E and shown in Table 7.0-8. On the other hand, the act of filing a statement of claim of rights to use public waters (36) does not in itself create a water right. 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. The Gila River in the Gila Bend Basin is the only major surface water supply in the planning area in addition to the Colorado River. The river is intermittent or ephemeral in the planning area and the volume available for use is a mixture of upstream releases of water from dams, storm runoff from precipitation events, irrigation return flows and effluent flows from the 23rd Avenue and 91st Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plants (WWTPs) located in the Phoenix Surface water rights may also be determined AMA. The 91st Avenue WWTP, located near through judicial action in state or federal court in the confluence of the Salt, Gila and Agua Fria which the court process establishes or confirms Section 7.0 Overview 42 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 the validity of the rights and claims and ranks them according to priority. Court decreed rights 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, Cocopah and Quechan (Fort Yuma) reservations in the planning area. 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 adjudications will recognize existing water right settlements and decrees (see discus- sion below) and adjudicate all remaining water rights claims in the river systems. Pertinent to the Lower Colorado River Planning Area, the Gila River Adjudication is being conducted in the Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County. The Gila Adjudication was initiated by petitions filed by several parties in the 1970’s, including Salt River Project, Phelps Dodge Corporation and the Buckeye Irrigation Company. The petitions were consolidated in 1981 into a single proceeding. The Gila Adjudication includes seven adjudication watersheds - Upper Salt, San Pedro, Agua Fria, Upper Gila, Lower Gila, Verde, and Upper Santa Cruz. Only the Lower Gila Adjudication Watershed is within the planning area boundaries (see Figure 7.015). This watershed includes all of the Gila Bend, McMullen Valley and Tiger Wash basins, Table 7.0-8 Inventory of surface water right and adjudication filings in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area1 Type of Filing Basin Total BB2 3R3 4A3 333 364 385 396 Butler Valley 0 0 4 0 15 8 0 27 Gila Bend 0 0 5 16 26 23 343 413 Harquahala 0 1 2 8 35 46 332 424 Lower Gila 0 1 11 25 104 57 845 1,043 McMullen Valley 0 23 11 18 78 136 484 750 Parker 0 0 9 6 37 5 0 57 Ranegras Plain 0 0 4 4 6 15 0 29 San Simon Wash 0 0 0 3 11 5 0 19 Tiger Wash 0 0 2 3 4 9 30 48 Western Mexican Drainage 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 Yuma 0 1 0 2 38 0 289 330 Total 0 26 48 86 355 304 2,323 3,142 Notes: Based on a query of ADWR's surface water right and adjudication registries in February 2009. A file is only counted in this table if it provides sufficient information to allow a Point of Diversion (POD) 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. Several surface water right and adjudication filings are not counted here due to unsufficient locational information. However, multiple filings for the same POD are counted. 2 Court decreed rights; not all of these rights have been identified and/or entered into ADWR's surface water rights registry. 3 Application to construct a reservoir, filed before 1972 (3R); application to appropriate surface water, filed before 1972 (4A); and application for permit to appropriate public water or construct a reservoir, filed after 1972 (33). 4 Statement of claimant of rights to use public waters of the state, filed pursuant to the Water Rights Registration Act of 1974. 5 Claim of water right for a stockpond and application for certification, filed pursuant to the Stockpond Registration Act of 1977. 6 Statement of claimant, filed in the Gila or LCR General Stream Adjudications. 1 43 Section 7.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.0 Overview 44 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 most of the Lower Gila and Harquahala basins and a small part of the Yuma Basin. These watersheds do not coincide with the 6-digit HUC watersheds discussed previously and shown in Figure 7.0-5. The entire Gila Adjudication includes over 24,000 parties. Table 7.0-8 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 E. Of the 3,142 filings that specify surface water diversion points in the planning area, 108 CWRs have been issued to date. Most of these (46) are located in the McMullen Valley Basin. Figure 7.0-15 shows the general 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 7.0-15. Bend Basin, 15 maf in the McMullen Valley Basin and 27 maf in the Ranegras Plain Basin. However, groundwater levels declined in many of these basins between 1990-‘91 and 2003’04. During this period, water levels declined by more than 30 feet in several wells in the northern part of the Gila Bend Basin, in wells near Salome-Wenden in the McMullen Valley Basin and in the central part of the Ranegras Plain Basin (see Figures 7.2-6, 7.5-5 and 7.7-5). There are widespread occurances of fluoride and arsenic levels in groundwater that equal or exceed drinking water standards and high salinity levels in many agricultural areas. As mentioned previously, importation of Colorado River water to areas in the Lower Gila and Yuma basins has locally raised groundwater levels and changed groundwater flow directions, requiring drainage wells and exportation of groundwater out of the basins. In general, the Groundwater Transportation Act of 1991 restricts the transportation of groundwater from non-AMAgroundwater basins to AMAs. However, there are three basins in the planning area from which groundwater may The location of surface water resources are be withdrawn and transported outside of the shown on surface water condition maps and maps basin: Butler Valley, Harquahala and McMullen showing perennial and intermittent streams and Valley. General statutory provisions governing major springs for each basin, and in basin tables that contain data on streamflow, flood ALERT equipment, reservoirs, stockponds and springs. Groundwater In basins without access to Colorado River or CAP water, groundwater is the primary water supply. Groundwater is an abundant and dependable water supply throughout the planning area with relatively large volumes of groundwater in storage and high well yields in many basins. Well yields typically exceed 1,000 gpm, and often exceed more than 2,000 gpm. In groundwater dependent basins, estimates of water in storage are as high as 61 maf in the Gila McMullen Valley Basin. Groundwater an abundant and dependable water supply throughout the planning area with relatively large volumes of groundwater in storage and high well yields in many basins. Section 7.0 Overview 45 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 groundwater transportation from these basins are discussed below. Withdrawal and transportation of groundwater may cause groundwater level declines and impact the groundwater supply available for use within the basins. Pursuant to A.R.S. § 45-553, groundwater may be withdrawn from the Butler Valley Basin and transferred to an initial AMA from State land or land owned by a political subdivision of the State (e.g. counties, cities and special districts). There are no limits on the volume of groundwa- Agriculture and power plant in the Harquahala ter that may be transported from the basin. Basin. in general the transportation of groundwater Groundwater may be withdrawn from historically irrigated lands in the McMullen Valley Basin that were owned by a city or person prior to January 1, 1988 and transported to the Phoenix AMA. (A.R.S. § 45-552) Qualified groundwater importers are cities, towns, private water companies and replenishment districts for their use or use by the AWBA. The City of Phoenix owns 14,000 acres of agricultural lands in the basin. The annual volume that may be withdrawn is limited to an average of 3 acre-feet per irrigated acre with a total limit of 6 maf. If this water is used for an assured water supply demonstration in an AMA, only water withdrawn above 1,000 feet below land surface (bls) at a rate not to exceed 10 feet per year over the 100 year period will be considered. In the Harquahala Basin, A.R.S. § 45-552 allows the transportation of groundwater pumped from historically irrigated lands owned by a political subdivision of the state and transported for its use in an AMA or use by the AWBA. The volumetric limit is 6 acre-feet per acre per year or 30 acre-feet per acre for any period of ten consecutive years. The director of ADWR may establish an alternative volume as long as it will not unreasonably increase damage to residents and other water users. Groundwater may not be withdrawn below 1,000 feet bls nor at a rate that cause declines of more than an average of ten 46 from non-AMA groundwater basins to AMAs is restricted. However, there are three basins in the planning area from which groundwater may be withdrawn and transported outside of the basin: Butler Valley, Harquahala and McMullen Valley. feet per year during the one hundred year evaluation period. The City of Scottsdale has applied to the Department to export 3,645.24 acre-feet of groundwater per year from 1,215.08 acres of historically irrigated lands in the Harquahala Basin. This application is currently still under review. 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 includes records for over 42,000 wells and over 210,000 ground-water level measurements 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 downloaded to access local information for planning, drought mitigation and other purposes. Approximately 1,700 wells have are designated as Index Wells statewide out of over 43,700 GWSI sites. (GWSI sites are primarily Section 7.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 well sites 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 ground water 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 groundwater monitoring sites are established to better understand the water supply situation in areas of the state where data are lacking. These devices are located based on areas of growth, subsidence, type of land use, proximity to river/stream channels, proximity to water contamination sites or areas affected by drought. 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 Sections 7.17.11. Effluent Effluent, or reclaimed water, is a little used resource in the planning area with less than 700 acre-feet used annually as a partial water supply for six golf courses in the Yuma Basin and one golf course in the Parker Basin. Golf course irrigation demand is higher in the summer, but effluent production is higher in the winter when the area population increases due to winter visitors. The water supply at Foothills Volume 1 of the Atlas shows the location of Executive, Foothills Par 3 and Las Barrancas Index Wells and Automated Wells as of January Golf Courses is about 90% effluent in the winter 2009. At that time there were a total of 167 and 90% groundwater in the summer (personal Index Wells and eight ADWR automatic water- communication, T. Holyk, 11/07). Effluent level sites in the planning area located in the discharged to the Gila River from the Phoenix Butler Valley, Gila Bend, Harquahala, Lower AMA is an agricultural water supply in the Gila Gila, McMullen Valley and Ranegras Plain Bend Basin, but the precise volume used is not basins. Index wells are located in all basins quantified. except for San Simon Wash, most of which is covered by the Tohono O’odham Indian Approximately 16,300 acre-feet of wastewater Reservation. Updated well maps may be viewed is treated in the planning area, and 79% of that at the Department’s website. (12,800 acre-feet) is generated in the Yuma Information on major aquifers, well yields, Basin. Approximately 153,000 people or 79% estimated natural recharge, estimated water in of the total planning area population is served by a sewer system. Most of this potential water supply is discharged to evaporation ponds or to infiltration basins after treatment. A number of basins including: Butler Valley, Harquahala, McMullen Valley, Ranegras Plain, and Tiger Wash, have no record of a wastewater treatment plant. Use of septic tanks appears to be widespread throughout the entire planning area. Automated well in the Harquahala Basin. Section 7.0 Overview 47 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Contamination Sites Sites of environmental contamination may impact the use of some water supplies. An inventory of Department of Defense (DOD), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Superfund (Environmental Protection Agency designated sites), Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund (state designated WQARF sites), Voluntary Remediation Program (VRP) and Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) sites was conducted for the planning area. Of these various contamination sites, LUST, DOD, Superfund, WQARF and VRP sites are found in the planning area. Table 7.0-9 lists the contaminant and affected media and the basin location of all but the LUST sites. The location of all contamination sites in the planning area is shown on Figure 7.0-16. Seven active VRP sites are located in the planning area and all but one is in the Yuma Basin. All are sites of organic compound contamination such as petroleum and pesticide products. 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 program, is eligible to participate. To encourage participation, ADEQ provides an expedited process and a single point of contact for projects that involve more than one regulatory program (Environmental Law Institute, 2002). bls, has been affected. Water is being pumped and treated on site and injected back into the aquifer. (ADEQ, 2005a) The 20th Street and Factor WQARF Site is located in Yuma and also has cyanide contamination. Formerly the site of a motion picture laboratory and photo equipment manufacturer, wastewater was treated to recover silver and then discharged to a sump and disposal pond, to the ground, and used for landscape irrigation. Remedial actions at this site include soil removal and investigations to define the extent of a groundwater contamination plume. (ADEQ, 2007a) The Yuma Marine Corps Air Station (YMCAS) Superfund site, located at Yuma, involves multiple contaminants in groundwater as a result of disposal of materials related to military activities. Remedial actions include vertical recirculation of groundwater to contain and treat areas of relatively low contaminant concentrations, and air sparging/soil vapor extraction to treat the Area 1 Hot Spot (Source) Plume area (ADEQ, 2007b). The Yuma Army Proving Ground DOD site is located northeast of Yuma and was first used as a military training facility during WWII. Later it became a site for testing of equipment under desert conditions. Groundwater contamination has occurred from the possible release of half a million gallons of fuel and from other actions. Environmental investigations and cleanup activities are underway and most of the contaminated areas are fenced. (ADEQ, 2007c) There are 213 active LUST sites in the planning Two WQARF sites and one Superfund site exist area. One hundred eight sites are located at in the Yuma Basin. All sites involve Trichlo- Yuma, 22 at Gila Bend, 18 at Quartzsite, 13 roethylene (TCE) and Tetrachloroethene (PCE) each at Parker and Ehrenberg, and ten sites or contamination. The Tyson Wash WQARF Site less at Somerton, Vicksburg, Wellton, Salome, is located between Tyson Wash and Highway 95 Lukeville, Tacna and Centennial Wash. north of Business Route 10 in Quartzsite. Contamination was detected in 1993 and a groundwater monitoring program began in 1995 to further investigate the extent of contamination. The upper aquifer, located about 42 to 65 feet 48 Section 7.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.0-9 Contamination sites in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area MEDIA AFFECTED AND CONTAMINANT SITE NAME GROUNDWATER BASIN Voluntary Remediation Program Sites Adair Memorial Park Soil/Lead Yuma APS Yuma Manufactured Gas Plant (MGP) Soil/Hydrocarbons, Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and Volatile Organic Compounds( VOCs) Yuma Chevron Ajo Bulk Plant Soil & Groundwater/Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) and Benzene, Toluene, Ethyl benzene, and Xylene (BTEX) Lower Gila KMEP-Yuma Marine Corps Air Station Soil & Groundwater/Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH); BTEX; and PAHs Yuma Union Pacific Railroad Former AZ Agrochemical Facility Soil/Pesticides Yuma Union Pacific Railroad Yuma Yard Dieselville Soil & Groundwater/TPH and BTEX Yuma Soil & Groundwater/Toxaphene dieldrin, Dichloro diphenyl trichloroethane (DDT), Dichloro diphenyl Western Farm Service-Yuma Plant dichloroethane (DDD), Dichloro diphenyl dichloroethylene (DDE), Endrin heptachor epoxide disulphate and Nitrate Yuma Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund (WQARF) Sites 20th Street and Factor Avenue Soil & Groundwater/Tetrachloroethene (PCE) and Cyanide Yuma Tyson Wash Groundwater/ PCE and Tricholoroethene (TCE) Yuma National Priority List (NPL) Superfund Sites Yuma Marine Corps Air Station Soil & Groundwater/TCE, Dichloroethene (DCE), PCE and Petroleum Hydrocarbons Yuma Department of Defense (DOD) Sites Yuma Army Proving Grounds Soil & Groundwater/Hydrocarbons, Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), Semi-volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs) and Metals Lower Gila Sources: ADEQ 2002, ADEQ 2006a, ADEQ 2006b Section 7.0 Overview 49 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 50 Section 7.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.0.7 Cultural Water Demand Figure 7.0-17 Average Annual Basin Water Demand, 2001-2005 (in acre-feet) Cultural water demand in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area, organized by water source and water demand sector, is shown in Table 7.0-10. Total cultural water demand averaged approximately 2,899,700 AFA during the period from 2001-2005. Almost 98% of this demand is by the agricultural sector with approximately 2,835,100 acre-feet of annual demand. Agricultural demand occurs in all of the basins with the exception of Tiger Wash and Western Mexican Drainage basins. About 66% of the agricultural demand is met by surface water of which all but 3% is Colorado River water. Municipal demand averaged 51,000 AFA during the period 2001-2005. Municipal demand is primarily met by Colorado River water and the municipal sector is the only sector that utilizes effluent. Industrial demand, primarily related to dairies and feedlots, averaged 13,560 AFA during this period. Tribal water demand is included in these totals. As shown on Figure 7.017, cultural demand volumes vary substantially between planning area basins. Ranegras Plain, Butler Valley 29,200 McMullen Valley 9,850 89,750 Other 5,200 Yuma 1,037,000 Gila Bend 348,500 Harquahala 108,750 Lower Gila 635,300 Parker 635,550 Bend and the Tohono O’odham reservations. The Cocopah, Fort Yuma-Quechan and CRIT hold Priority 1 Colorado River entitlements totaling 677,573 AFA. The CRIT entitlement is 662,402 acre-feet, the largest in the state and Tribal Water Demand about a third of the state’s non-CAP entitlement. By comparison, the total non-tribal Priority 1 Tribal lands in the planning area include the entitlement in the planning area is 290,923 acreCocopah, CRIT, Fort Yuma-Quechan, Gila feet. Annual tribal demand is approximately 658,000 AFA, most of which is agricultural Table 7.0-10 Lower Colorado River irrigation on the CRIT Reservation in the Parker Planning Area average cultural water Basin. Almost the entire San Simon Wash demand by sector (2001-2005) Basin is within Tohono O’odham Reservation boundaries. Water Source/ Acre-feet Percent Demand Sector Groundwater Agricultural 935,700 32.27% Municipal 17,400 0.60% Industrial 11,570 0.40% Surface Water Agricultural 1,899,400 65.50% Municipal 33,000 1.14% Industrial 1,990 0.07% Effluent Municipal 680 0.02% Cocopah The Cocopah Reservation is entirely within the Yuma Basin. The reservation has about 1,000 tribal members and consists of three parcels (East, West and North Cocopah) located south of Yuma. The tribe has approximately 2,400 acres of land under irrigation, leased to nontribal farmers. The tribe operates a casino and a number of community facilities. (ITCA, 2003) Section 7.0 Overview 51 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 There is no tribal water utility but the Cocopah Environmental Protection Office tests the quality of domestic wells and monitors agricultural water use to ensure that the tribe does not exceed its annual Colorado River allocation. This office also conducts weekly monitoring of groundwater levels and Colorado River water quality within the limitrophe region that crosses the boundaries of the West Reservation. (Cocopah Indian Tribe, 2006) The tribe’s Colorado River entitlement is 8,821 AFA of Priority 1 rights and 2,026 acrefeet of Priority 4 entitlement for areas south of Morelos Dam. Fort Yuma-Quechan The Fort Yuma-Quechan Reservation is located primarily in California. Only 4% of the reservation land is in Arizona with about 45 residents located just east of Yuma in the Yuma Basin. Tribal offices, RV parks and two casinos are also located in Arizona. The tribe owns a 700-acre farm which is leased to a non-Indian farmer. Some of this farm is apparently located in Arizona (ITCA, 2003). Colorado River Indian Tribes Most of the CRIT Reservation is located in Arizona in the Parker Basin with a small portion in California. The Colorado River Indian Tribes include the Mohave, Chemehuevi, Hopi and Navajo, and consist of about 3,500 active tribal members. The primary tribal community is Parker, which contains non-tribal lands and Poston with about 400 tribal residents. The CRIT operate the CRIT Regional Water System (CRIT, 2005) and the CRIT Water Department serves the area outside the Parker Town limits. Tribal municipal demand is relatively small. The primary economic activity on the reservation is agriculture. Pursuant to Arizona v. California, 99,375 acres of irrigated land were decreed with an associated annual Colorado River entitlement of 662,402 acre-feet. According to the 2006 Lower Colorado Accounting System, 52 actual irrigated lands in Arizona totaled 72,610 acres, including land irrigated by lessees. The amount of irrigated acreage in Arizona reportedly averages between 72,000 to 80,000 acres. CRIT Farms manages over 15,000 acres of alfalfa, cotton, durum wheat and other crops (CRIT, 2005). Other economic activities on the reservation include recreation, gaming, governmental services and light industry. The tribe operates two sand and gravel facilities, one at Parker and one north of Ehrenberg. These facilities supply concrete ready mix, asphalt and sand and gravel products to La Paz County and to neighboring counties in California. (CRIT, 2005) Tohono O’odham Water demand on the Tohono O’odham Reservation is primarily related to municipal/ domestic uses in the tribal communities, particularly at Sells, and farming in the southern part of the San Simon Wash Basin at Papago Farms. The Tohono O’odham Utility Authority Water Department serves a total of about 3,200 customers and has 1,676 wastewater customers on the entire reservation which stretches into the Pinal and Tucson Active Management Areas. The Water Department is working to connect small systems into a single system that can be maintained in a central location. There are currently seven such systems in operation. (TOUA, 2007a) In the planning area there are plans to connect two community systems south of Gu Vo and connect another community with a regional system by the end of 2007. The water supply for the reservation comes from 73 wells located in and around the reservation. (TOUA, 2007b) Gila Bend The Gila Bend Reservation (San Lucy District) is part of the Tohono O’odham Nation but is located on 10,409 acres north of Gila Bend and divided by the Gila River. Completion of Painted Section 7.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Rock Dam resulted in flood damage to district lands including destruction of a 750-acre farm and the necessary relocation of tribal members from Sil Murk Village to the 40-acre San Lucy Village just north of Gila Bend. Approximately 600 tribal members reside in the district (TON, 2007). The village includes residential dwellings, tribal offices and library. The Gila Bend Indian Reservation Lands Replacement Act (P.L. 99-503), enacted in 1986, authorizes the Tohono O’odham Nation to purchase up to 9,880 acres of private lands in Pima, Pinal or Maricopa counties to replace the reservation lands that were rendered unusable for economic development due to flooding. In 2003, the Nation acquired a 135-acre parcel in Glendale to construct a Casino in order to provide needed services to its members. (TON, 2009) Municipal Demand Municipal demand is summarized by groundwater basin and water supply in Table 7.0-11. Average annual demand during 2001-2005 was about 50,930 acre-feet. Sixty-five percent of this municipal demand was met by surface water from the Colorado River, primarily in the Yuma Basin. In all other basins, groundwater is the primary municipal water supply. Effluent is used to meet municipal demand in the Yuma and Parker basins. It is estimated that about 84% of the planning area population is served by a water provider. Eight water providers in the planning area served 500 acre-feet of water or more in 2006. These providers and their demand in 1992, 2000 and 2006 are shown in Table 7.0-12. In 2006, municipal utilities served the communities of Gila Bend, Wellton, Parker, San Luis, Somerton and Yuma. Municipally-owned systems have more flexible water rate-setting ability than private water companies, which are regulated by the Arizona Corporation Commission. In addition, municipal utilities have the authority to enact water conservation ordinances. This authority may enable municipal utilities to better manage water resources within water service areas. Water provider issues are discussed in section 7.0.8. Primary municipal demand centers are the Yuma area where the four largest communities in the planning area are located, and Parker/ Parker Strip, Ajo, Quartzsite and Gila Bend. The only basins with population centers greater Table 7.0-11 Average annual municipal water demand in the Lower Colorado River 2001-2005 Planning Area, 2001-2005 (in acre-feet) Basin Groundwater Surface Water Effluent Butler Valley <300 Gila Bend 800 Harquahala <300 Lower Gila 2,000 500 McMullen Valley 500 Parker 3,800 500 220 Ranegras Plain 400 San Simon Wash 1,000 Tiger Wash <300 Western Mexican Drainage <300 Yuma 8,300 32,000 460 Total Municipal 17,400 33,000 680 Sources: USGS 2007 Notes: Effluent figures are for golf course irrigation in 2006 Volume <300 acre-feet assumed to be 150 acre-feet for computation purposes Section 7.0 Overview Total 150 800 0 2,500 500 4,520 400 1,000 150 150 40,760 50,930 53 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 than 1,000 are Gila Bend, Lower Gila, Parker The City of Yuma is the largest water provider, and Yuma basins. with Priority 1 and Priority 3 Colorado River water annual consumptive use entitlements Yuma Area totaling 50,000 acre-feet. The City can The total municipal demand in the Yuma Basin supplement its entitlement through the use of averaged 40,760 AFA during 2001-2005. The return flow credits such as water returned to largest providers, City of Yuma, Far West Water the river following wastewater treatment and and Sewer, Inc., City of Somerton and City conversion of irrigation rights to municipal use. of San Luis provided about 31,850 acre-feet Colorado River water is transported to Yuma of Colorado River water and groundwater to through several facilities (see Figure 7.0-14). customers in 2006. A number of wastewater About 97% of the City’s Colorado River water treatment plants treat sewage in the Yuma is transported through the All American Canal area. The largest is the Figueroa Avenue Water and Yuma County Water Users Association Pollution Control Facility at Yuma. Somerton, (YCWUA) facilities, including the Yuma Main San Luis and Far West Sewer also operate Canal, to the Yuma Main Street Water Treatment relatively large treatment plants. In its 2002 Plant. The remaining three percent is delivered General Plan, the City of Yuma estimated that through the Gila Gravity Main Canal to the East about 24% of existing housing units were not Mesa treatment plant. (City of Yuma, 2002) In connected to a sewer system and that rapid 2006, City of Yuma water demand was about growth in the Fortuna Foothills area has resulted 20,400 acre-feet of which 4,240 was well in construction of on-site septic systems and pumpage and 16,180 was Colorado River water. private package treatment plants. (City of Yuma, About 60% of this demand is for residential 2002) Table 7.0-12 Water providers serving 450 acre-feet or more of water per year in 2006, excluding effluent, in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area Basin/Water Provider 1992 (acre-feet) 2000 (acre-feet) 2006 (acre-feet) Gila Bend Town of Gila Bend 537 651 5571 Ajo Improvement Company2 Town of Wellton 541 NA 660 158 543 314 Town of Parker 887 1,049 988 City of Somerton City of San Luis Far West Water and Sewer - Fortuna Foothills Yuma Municipal Water Department3 827 772 2,994 21,680 1,012 1,904 5,222 32,906 1,403 3,366 6,660 20,421 Lower Gila Parker Yuma Sources: USBOR 1992, USBOR 2000, USGS 2007, Community Water System Annual Reports 2006 and 2007 NA = Not Available 1 Demand for 2006 not available, demand from 2007 shown. The Town of Ajo is served by three water providers. Ajo Improvement Company provides water to all three systems. 2 3 Yuma Municipal Water Department demand in 1992 and 2000 are reported diversions of Colorado River water from the Bureau of Reclamation Article V Decree Accounting Reports. 54 Section 7.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 The City of Somerton, located about ten miles southwest of Yuma, is a fast growing, primarily residential community with 10,260 residents in 2006. In 2006, approximately 1,400 acre-feet was served to customers, of which 93% were residential customers. The Somerton Municipal Water System service area is about 2.5 square miles in size and groundwater is pumped from three wells located in T9S, R24W. A fourth well is not used due to water quality problems. Depth Fortuna Foothills in the Yuma Basin. Rapid growth to water is consistently about ten feet below land in the Fortuna Foothills area has resulted in surface. The City is not interconnected to any construction of on-site septic systems and private other systems. It has a 2006 contract for 750 package treatment plants. acre-feet of Priority 4 Colorado River water and uses. Commercial demand includes deliveries to is purchasing rights that are not currently being golf courses but the precise number of courses used. (City of Somerton, 2006) and amount delivered is not known. (City of Yuma, 2007) The Department estimated that Located adjacent to the international boundary, there are at least six golf courses served by the the City of San Luis is the fastest growing City of Yuma with a total annual demand of community in the entire planning area, growing over 1,800 acre-feet. It does not appear that the by 37% between 2000 and 2006. In 2006, City of Yuma provides effluent to meet this turf approximately 3,400 acre-feet was withdrawn from nine wells to serve almost 5,100 customer irrigation demand. connections. Of the volume withdrawn, 1,079 Far West Water and Sewer, Inc. serves the acre-feet was delivered to residential customers rapidly growing Fortuna Foothills area east and 948 acre-feet to non-residential customers of of Yuma in unincorporated Yuma County. In which 414 acre-feet was delivered to turf (City 2006, it served about 6,660 acre-feet of water. of San Luis, 2007). In 2007 the City reported The primary water supply is surface water only ten acre-feet delivered to turf. from the Colorado River, delivered via the Yuma Mesa Irrigation District and “A” Canal. Parker/Parker Strip Groundwater is used as a back-up water supply, The Town of Parker and the Parker Strip had for irrigation water at three golf courses, and for a combined population of about 6,400 in 2000. construction. Far West operates a drinking water The Parker Strip is the area north of Parker along treatment plant, seven wastewater treatment the Colorado River to the basin boundary. The facilities and serves about 15,000 water and area has grown rapidly, particularly the Parker 6,500 wastewater connections. (Far West Water Strip, which grew by 101% between 1990 and & Sewer, Inc., 2006) About 446 AFA of treated 2000. The Town of Parker Municipal System is wastewater, in addition to groundwater, was the largest local water provider, serving about delivered to Foothills Executive, Foothills Par 3,200 residents with 1,250 service connections 3, Fortuna del Rey, Las Barrancas and Mesa to the one square mile town, deeded inside the del Sol golf courses to meet part of their annual CRIT Reservation. The CRIT Water Department water demand. Total annual demand of these serves the area outside the town limits. courses was estimated at 1,525 acre-feet. Section 7.0 Overview 55 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Parker Municipal System pumped almost 1,000 acre-feet in 2006 from three wells pumping Colorado River water. The town has 630 acrefeet of Priority 1 entitlement and a combined volume of 3,030 acre-feet of 4th, 5th and 6th Priority water. Water levels in system wells vary from 75 to 90 feet and well pumpage reportedly doubles in the summer months. The system is interconnected to the CRIT water system and is used for emergency purposes. (Town of Parker, 2006) In 2006 it delivered 470 acre-feet to residential customers, 285 to commercial customers and 89 acre-feet to turf. Brooke Water LLC is the largest water provider in the Parker Strip and has an entitlement for 360 acre-feet of Priority 1 and 440 acre-feet of Priority 4 water. In 2006 Brooke Water LLCLakeside diverted 163 acre-feet of Colorado River water and delivered 136 acre-feet to residential customers. Emerald Canyon Golf Course, located north of Cienega Springs, uses effluent from the Buckskin/Sandpiper WWTP to meet part of its irrigation demand. Ajo The Town of Ajo is the largest community in the planning area not located on or near the Colorado River. Ajo was founded by the New Cornelia Copper Company in about 1915. Phelps Dodge acquired the property in 1931 and continued to operate the mine until 1985. At that time most of the company-owned nonmining properties were sold to the residents and the unincorporated community is now a tourist and retiree destination. Three water companies serve the town. (ADOC, 2007a) The largest system is the Ajo Improvement Company owned by the Phelps Dodge Corporation. It pumps water from two active wells in the Child’s Well Field, seven miles north of Ajo. These wells are at depths between 1,170 to 1,350 feet. It also provides sewer services and wastewater treatment. Effluent is not reused but is discharged to evaporation ponds. Ajo 56 Improvement Company delivers groundwater to two other water systems: Arizona Water Company-Ajo System and Ajo Domestic Water Improvement District (DWID), neither of which operate their own wells to serve customers. (Malcolm Pirnie, 2006) In 2006, Ajo Improvement Company served 543 acre-feet of groundwater to 3,000 residents (1,390 service connections) and to the two other water systems. Its customer demand was about 300 acre-feet, of which 184 acre-feet was residential and 120 acre-feet was commercial. In that year the Ajo DWID received about 40 acre-feet of water from the Ajo Improvement Company and served about 405 residents. (Phelps Dodge Corporation, 2007) In 2006, Arizona Water Company received about 184 acre-feet of water from the Ajo Improvement Company. Arizona Water Company-Ajo System serves about 686 connections, 73% residential and 27% non-residential. (Arizona Water Company, 2007) There is a nine-hole golf course in Ajo but the source of irrigation water is not known. Gila Bend Located at a transportation hub, the Town of Gila Bend has a number of gas stations, mini-marts, hotels and restaurants in addition to residential housing The municipal water demand was 557 acre-feet in 2007 (2006 data were not available) served to 733 residential and 66 commercial connections. Groundwater was pumped from two wells with water levels at 300 feet bls. An emergency source of water is water trucked from Lewis Prison or Paloma Ranch (Town of Gila Bend, 2008). About 400 acre-feet of effluent is generated at the Gila Bend Wastewater Treatment Plant and all is discharged to a watercourse. Other municipal water demands in the northern part of the Gila Bend Basin include two large prisons, the Arizona State Prison Lewis Section 7.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Complex and the Eagle Point School Juvenile Corrections Facility, located on either side of Highway 85 in T2S R4W (see Figure 7.2-10). An associated Arizona Department of Corrections wastewater treatment plant generates over 400 AFA of effluent so water demand at the site is likely between 600 and 800 AFA. There is a small residential community located around a constructed water ski lake in the northern part of T4S R4W and another, Spring Mountain Ski Ranch, under construction in T3S R4W. These types of development are easier to construct outside of the state’s active management areas since within an AMA, groundwater may not be used to fill a private lake larger than 12,320 square feet (about 0.28 acres) in area. 2006 the town received 314 acre-feet of surface water and served 214 acre-feet to residential customers and 97 acre-feet to commercial connections. New developments in the area, such as the master planned Coyote Wash, will increase municipal water demand. This planned community is anticipated to include 2,500 homes, a condominium complex and shopping center, and two 18-hole golf courses. By 2009, a 9-hole golf course had been completed and more than 500 lots sold. Another 18-hole course (Butterfield) is located at Wellton. (see Table 7.0-13) Quartzsite Although the water system for the Town of Quartzsite is not large, the community is rapidly growing with 3,650 residents in 2006. Located in the middle of the Parker Basin at the junction of Interstate 10 and U.S. 95, it is a tourist and retirement community with a population that swells in the winter with numerous gem and rock shows. There are an estimated 1.5 million annual visitors (ADOC, 2007b). Wellton Wellton is located in the middle of the WelltonMohawk Valley along Interstate 8 and serves as a business, service and recreation center for more than 5,000 people in the surrounding area. The Town of Wellton had a population of almost 2,000 in 2006 and grew by 72% between 1990 and 2000. The municipal water system receives Colorado River water from In 2007, Quartzsite withdrew 439 acre-feet of the Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation District and water from two wells and served 340 acre-feet maintains one well for emergency backup. In to residential customers, primarily in the area Town of Quartzsite in the Parker Basin. Section 7.0 Overview 57 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 north of Interstate 10. Water levels in wells were reported at 390 feet and 442 feet. Plans are underway to drill a production well on the south side of the Interstate (Town of Quartzite, 2008). Prior to 1989, private domestic wells were the only water supply and several hundred exist within the town limits (Town of Quartzsite, 2003). Quartzsite has a 4th Priority Colorado River entitlement of 1,070 acre-feet but no way to currently convey this water to the town. has 214 connections served by four wells that delivered about 43 acre-feet of water in 2003 (ADWR, 2004). Municipal golf course demand is estimated to be approximately 11% of the total municipal demand in the planning area. Estimated demand and water supply for all golf courses in the planning area is shown in Table 7.013. There are eleven municipal golf courses in the Yuma Basin receiving a combination of In addition to the Town of Quartzsite public groundwater, surface water and effluent, three water system, two small private water compa- in the Lower Gila Basin using groundwater or nies, Desert Gardens RV Park and Q-Mountain surface water and one each in McMullen Valley MHP serve Quartzsite. The Q-Mountain system and Parker basins. Two other golf courses in the Table 7.0-13 Golf courses in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area (c. 2008) # of Demand Holes (acre-feet) Facility Basin Water Supply Ajo Country Club Butterfield Golf Course Coyote Wash Golf Course Sunset Links Golf Club Emerald Canyon Golf Club Arroyo Dunes Golf Club Cocopah Bend RV&GC Desert Hills Golf Course Foothills Executive Golf Course† Foothills par 3 Golf Course† Fortuna del Rey Golf Course† Ironwood Golf Course Las Barrancas Golf Course† Mesa Del Sol Golf Course† Sierra Sands Golf Course Westwind RV & Golf Resort Total Water Use Municipal Golf Courses Dove Valley Golf Course* Yuma Golf & Country Club* Total Water Use Industrial Golf Courses Total Water Use Lower Gila Basin Lower Gila Basin Lower Gila Basin McMullen Valley Parker Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma 9 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 9 9 9 9 18 18 18 9 211 441 441 441 441 175/175 441 441 211 211 211 211 441 441 221 211 Groundwater Surface Water Groundwater Groundwater Surface Water/Effluent Groundwater/Surface Water Surface Water/Effluent Surface Water Groundwater/Effluent Groundwater/Effluent Groundwater/Effluent Surface Water Groundwater/Effluent Groundwater/Effluent Surface Water Surface Water Yuma Yuma 18 18 5,365 441 441 Groundwater Groundwater/Surface Water 882 6,247 Source: ADWR 2008b Notes: * Golf course served by its own well and is considered to be an industrial user † These golf courses are served by Far West Water and Sewer. A total of 446 acre-feet of effluent is served for all courses. 58 Section 7.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Yuma Basin are believed to have facility wells use in the Harquahala Basin. Gila River water that serve the course and are considered industrial and effluent averaging 54,000 AFA was used in the Gila Bend Basin. During this period an avergolf courses and discussed below. age of 935,700 acre-feet of water withdrawn from wells was used to irrigate lands in all basins with Agricultural Demand agricultural demand. The planning area contains one of the largest agricultural areas in Arizona. Yuma County, which Agricultural demand is greatest in the Yuma, contains most of the agricultural lands in the plan- Parker, Lower Gila, Gila Bend, McMullen Valley, ning area, is considered the nation’s winter veg- and Harquahala basins. As shown in Figure 7.0etable capital. Crops grown here include head and 20, agricultural demand has steadily increased leaf lettuce, romaine, broccoli, cauliflower, hon- over time in most of these basins. Agricultural eydew, cantaloupe, watermelon, cabbage, spring demand in each basin is described below. mix, celery, endive/escarole, and citrus including Included are findings from a USGS agricultural lemons, oranges, grapefruit, and tangerines. Many field survey conducted of the Butler Valley, Gila seed crops are also grown including broccoli, cau- Bend, Harquahala, Lower Gila, McMullen Valley liflower, grasses, and onions. Annual agricultural and Ranegras Plain basins in the summer of 2007, sales are reported to total over $1.3 billion. In which are summarized in Table 7.0-15. La Paz County, upland cotton is the largest crop, followed by Durum wheat, Figure 7.0-18 Irrigation districts in the Lower Colorado barley, corn for grain, and al- River Planning Area falfa. Other crops include onions, honeydew, cantaloupe and watermelon. Annual agricultural sales are reported to total over $92 million in this county. (AZDA, 2005) There are 12 irrigation districts in the planning area. Their general location is shown in Figure 7.0-18 and described below. Irrigation water supply is primarily water diverted from the Colorado River. As shown in Table 7.0-14 and Figure 7.019, for the period 2001-2005, an average of about 1,775,800 AFA was diverted from the Colorado River for use in the Parker, Lower Gila and Yuma Basins. An additional 69,600 acre-feet was diverted via the Central Arizona Project for Section 7.0 Overview 59 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.0-14 Agricultural water demand in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area 1991-1995 (acre-feet) Butler Valley Groundwater Total Gila Bend Groundwater Surface Water 2 Total Harquahala Groundwater Surface Water 3 Total Lower Gila Basin Groundwater Surface Water Total McMullen Valley Groundwater Total Parker Groundwater Surface Water Total Ranegras Plain Groundwater Total San Simon Wash Groundwater Total Yuma Groundwater Surface Water Total Total All Basins 1996-2000 (acre-feet) 2001-2005 (acre-feet) 3,400 3,400 8,300 8,300 9,700 9,700 237,000 71,500 308,500 244,000 68,500 312,500 289,000 54,000 343,000 9,500 47,500 57,000 23,500 85,000 108,500 36,500 69,600 106,100 254,000 365,000 619,000 261,100 391,000 652,100 246,000 383,200 629,200 77,000 77,000 79,500 79,500 89,100 89,100 1,300 662,000 663,300 <1,000 667,000 667,500 <1,000 630,600 631,100 29,500 29,500 32,000 32,000 28,800 28,800 4,000 4,000 3,800 3,800 3,900 3,900 206,000 711,000 917,000 2,678,700 218,000 771,000 989,000 2,853,200 232,200 762,000 994,200 2,835,100 Source: USGS 2007 Notes: Volume <1,000 acre-feet assumed to be 500 acre-feet for computational purposes Unless otherwise noted, all surface water if from the Colorado River 2 From Gila River and effluent 3 From Central Arizona Project water 1 Butler Valley Basin Agricultural demand in the Butler Valley Basin averaged 9,700 AFA during 2001-2005. Demand has more than doubled compared to the 19711990 time period (Table 7.1-5). Agricultural lands are located in a contiguous area in the southwest part of the basin and groundwater is 60 the only water supply. In 2007 the USGS found 1,352 acres of irrigated alfalfa/hay, all center pivot irrigated. (USGS, 2009) Gila Bend Basin Irrigation in the Gila Bend Basin is located primarily along the Gila River valley and south Section 7.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Figure 7.0-19 Irrigation Water Supply for the Lower Colorado River Planning Area, 2001-2005 (acre-feet) agricultural demand. Agricultural demand has increased steadily from an annual average of 308,500 acre-feet during the 1991-1995 time period (see Table 7.2-8). Surface water/effluent supplies are used in the northern part of the basin where they are diverted at Gillespie Dam through the Gila Bend Canal and Enterprise Canal. Prior to 1993, when Groundwater Gillespie Dam was breached during a flood, 935,700 more surface water was diverted. Surface water Colorado has been a less reliable supply than groundwater River due to upstream dams and diversions and 1,775,800 the unpredictability of flow even under predevelopment conditions. As shown on Table CAP 7.2-8, the proportion of groundwater used has 69,600 increased since the 1990s. Investigations by the Gila River USGS found about 43,400 acres under irrigation 54,000 and all acreage was flood irrigated. (Table 7.0-15) The predominant cropped acreage at of the Gila River in the western part of the basin. that time was alfalfa/hay (76%), followed by Agricultural demand averaged 343,000 AFA sorghum (8%), wheat (7%) and smaller amounts during 2001-2005, of which 289,000 acre-feet of cotton, corn, jojoba, grasses and nursery was groundwater and 54,000 acre-feet was a plants. (USGS, 2009) mixture of Gila River surface water, agricultural drainage and effluent discharged upstream in the Harquahala Basin Phoenix AMA. Gila Bend Basin agricultural The number of irrigation acres in the Harquahala demand was 12% of the total planning area Basin is limited due to the basin’s designation Figure 7.0-20 Agricultural Demand in Selected Basins in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area 1991-2005 (in acre-feet) 1,000,000 900,000 800,000 Harquahala 700,000 McMullen Valley 600,000 500,000 Gila Bend Lower Gila 400,000 Parker 300,000 Yuma 200,000 100,000 0 1991-1995 1996-2000 Section 7.0 Overview 2001-2005 61 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.0-15 Agricultural acreage, crop type and irrigation type in selected basins in 2007 McMullen Valley Ranegras Plain 14,668 6,878 39% 2% <1% 19% 3% <1% 32% 16% <1% 5% 8% 2% 13% 5% 6% 9% 8% 17% 26% 19% 60% 8% 3% 5% 13% 7% 8% 20% 79% 1% 99% NA 13% 13% 15% Lower Gila Basin Butler Valley Gila Bend Harquahala 2007 Irrigated Acreage 1,352 43,434 25,951 Wellton-Mohawk Other 85,876 17,132 100% 76% 33% 1% 4% <1% 1% 5% 25% 2% 29% <1% <1% 11% 6% Crop Type Alfalfa/Hay Barley Corn Cotton Grasses Jojoba Melons Sorghum Vegetables Wheat Other Irrigation Type Center Pivot Drip Flood Furrow Sprinkler Unknown Source: USGS 2009 NA - Not Available 8% 13% 4% 7% 2% 14% 4% 100% 13% 86% 100% 1% as an irrigation non-expansion area, or INA. In an INA farmers must report annual agricultural water pumpage to the Department. Demand averaged 106,100 AFA, during 2001-2005, representing 4% of the agricultural demand in the planning area (Table 7.3-7). Noncontract CAP water began to be used in 1984 by the Harquahala Valley Irrigation District (HVID), replacing groundwater pumpage as the primary water supply in the basin. Under the Department’s Recharge Program, HVID is a permitted groundwater savings facility. (See Section 7.0.6, Central Arizona Project) 17% 17% 42% <1% 14% wheat,13% melons and lesser amounts of corn, sorghum, grasses, oats and nursery trees. About 86% of the lands were found to be flood irrigated and 13% were drip irrigated. (Table 7.0-15) (USGS, 2009) Lower Gila Basin The Lower Gila Basin contained 22% of the agricultural demand in the planning area during the 2001-2005 time period. Demand within the basin averaged between 619,000 acre-feet during 1991-1995 to a high of 652,000 acre-feet from 1996-2000. Demand declined during 20012005 to an average of 629,000 AFA. Colorado HVID lands are the most extensive in the basin, River water (surface water) comprises about covering a large area in the southeast portion. 60% of the water supply (Table 7.4-8). All irrigation canals and laterals are concretelined (ADWR, 1998). Other irrigated areas The principal farming area is the Welltonexist near Centennial and south of the Buckeye- Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District Salome Road in the northwest part of the basin. (WMIDD), whose location generally follows The USGS found 25,951 acres under irrigation the Gila River Valley west of Dateland and in the basin in 2007. At that time, about 33% of extends into the Yuma Basin (see Figure 7.0the cropped acreage was alfalfa/hay, 25% cotton, 18). Other irrigated areas are located north and 62 Section 7.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 west of Dateland, north of Hyder, near Agua irrigated, 17% sprinkler, 13% drip and 13% Caliente (south of Hyder) and in the Dendora center pivot (primarily north of Dateland). The Valley near the eastern basin boundary. irrigation method was unknown on 42% of the acreage. (Table 7.0-15) (USGS, 2009) Crop type and estimated irrigated acres in the WMIDD during 2007 are shown in Table 7.0- Reclamation’s Gila Project delivers Colorado 15. Principal crops grown were vegetables, River water to two divisions in the planning area alfalfa/hay, wheat, cotton, grasses (bermuda) - the Wellton-Mohawk Division and the Yuma and melon. A significant amount of double Mesa Division. The WMIDD was created in cropping occurs in the district (WMIDD, 2004). 1951 to provide a legal entity that could contract The irrigation method for each crop type was with the United States to repay the cost of the not available but flood irrigation is the primary Gila Project and to operate and maintain project irrigation method for most crops, with a few facilities. Lands in the area have been cultivated center pivots. Vegetables are irrigated with a for many centuries. During the late 19th century, combination of sprinkler (for seed germination) diversion structures and canals were constructed and flooding and melons are most likely irrigated to expand agricultural lands, but periodic floods with drip irrigation (personal communication, and construction of upstream reservoirs led to abandonment of the surface water system and S. Tadayon, 2009). conversion to groundwater wells. However, by The USGS field investigation of non-district the early 1930s, increasing salt concentrations lands in the summer of 2007 found much less in groundwater and falling groundwater levels land being irrigated north of Hyder than sug- made successful farming in the area difficult gested by Figure 7.4-10. The USGS found and many farms were abandoned. Area 17,132 irrigated acres on non-district lands. farmers approached Reclamation for delivery Principal cropped acreage observed was alfalfa/ of Colorado River water and the project was hay (39%), jojoba (13%), vegetables (9%), cot- constructed during the late 1940s and early ton (8%) and sorghum (6%). Citrus comprised 1950s. (WMIDD, 2004) 5% of the “other category” with lesser amounts of date/palm trees and oats. Irrigation methods Water for the District is diverted at Imperial vary in this area with 15% of the acreage flood Dam into the Gila Gravity Main Canal, a jointuse facility shared by five Yuma Basin irrigation districts (WMIDD, 2004). The WMIDD Colorado River entitlement is diverted into the 18.5 mile long Wellton-Mohawk Canal and to its major branches, the Wellton Canal (19.9 miles long) and the Mohawk Canal (46.8 miles long) (See Figure 7.0-14). The 13-mile long Dome Canal branches off the Wellton-Mohawk Canal west of the major branches and serves the western part of the District. There are 13 small pumping plants and 227 laterals in the WMIDD. (USBOR, 2007f) Facilities include 378 miles of main canals, laterals and return flow channels, three major pumping plants, drainage wells and Agriculture in the Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation Disgroundwater level observation wells. All canals trict. Section 7.0 Overview 63 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 and laterals are concrete-lined except for eight miles of the main canal west of the first pumping plant. There are also hundreds of domestic turnouts along the system (WMIDD, 2004). The WMIDD has a Colorado River Priority 3 right with a current allowable consumptive use of 278,000 AFA, but diversions are significantly higher. Diversions to the District averaged 408,258 AFA during the 2001-2005 time period. Water pumped from drainage wells and returned to the Colorado River is deemed “return flow” that is subtracted from the District’s diversions to derive its consumptive use. McMullen Valley Basin About 3% of the recent agricultural demand in the planning area is near the communities of Aguila and Wenden-Salome in the McMullen Valley Basin. There are two irrigation districts but neither the Aguila Irrigation District nor the McMullen Valley Water Conservation District has a consolidated distribution system and all district wells and ditches are privately owned. Both districts were formed in order to contract water and power from the Colorado River. (ADWR, 1998) Groundwater is currently the only water supply. Agricultural demand in the basin has been increasing with an annual average of 89,100 acrefeet of demand during the 2001-2005 time period. (Figure 7.5-7) The USGS field investigation in 2007 found approximately 14,700 acres under irrigation with 79% flood irrigated and 20% drip irrigated. Cropped acres at the time of the investigation included melons (60%), cotton (19%) and sorghum (8%). Other crops observed were vegetables (chilis), oats, alfalfa/ hay, corn, guayule, pistachio, palm and oats (Table 7.0-15). (USGS, 2009) Long-term irrigation with Colorado River water combined with naturally elevated salt concentrations in groundwater and soil require that salts be leached from the soil by irrigating in excess of the crop consumptive use and removal of excess groundwater to prevent waterlogging. In addition, occasional flooding on the Gila River raises groundwater levels. The District operates 90 drainage wells spaced about a mile apart with an average depth of 100 feet to control rising groundwater levels, keeping water below the root zone of crops. Three-hundred observation wells monitor groundwater levels. McMullen Valley is one of the few groundwater (WMIDD, 2004) basins in the state designated for out of basin Because the high salinity of the WMIDD return flows increase the salinity of the Colorado River, a number of actions have been taken to achieve the salinity standards for delivery to Mexico specified in Minute 242. The drainage water is pumped into a concrete-lined channel (Main Outlet Drain and Extension, MOD/ MODE), which allows it to be either diverted to the main channel of the Colorado River at the NIB above Morelos Dam, or bypassed around the dam through a canal to the Cienega de Santa Clara. WMIDD has also taken steps within the District to reduce return flows including acreage reduction, improved irrigation scheduling, land-leveling and improvements to ditches and turnouts. (WMIDD, 2004) 64 Agriculture near Salome, McMullen Valley Basin. Agricultural demand in the basin has been increasing with an annual average of 89,100 acre-feet of demand during the 2001-2005 time period. Section 7.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 transportation of groundwater. About 14,000 acres of agricultural land have already been purchased by the City of Phoenix for transport of groundwater to the Phoenix AMA (ADWR 1994b). met with groundwater pumping. Agricultural demand has been relatively stable since 1991 (Table 7.7-5). In 2007, the USGS found about 6,900 irrigated acres primarily along Vicksburg road north of Interstate 10, and north of Highway 72 in the northern part of the basin. Cropped Parker Basin acres at that time were corn (26%), cotton Irrigation in the Parker Basin represented 22% of (19%), barley (17%), jojoba (17%) and smaller the agricultural demand in the planning area in acreages of alfalfa/hay, guayule and sorghum. 2001-2005. The annual average Colorado River Their investigations found 99% of the irrigation demand for the basin during that period was was by drip systems and 1% by sprinkler (Table 630,600 acre-feet. A relatively small amount 7.0-15). (USGS, 2009) of groundwater, less than 1,000 acre feet, was reportedly pumped for agricultural irrigation San Simon Wash Basin (Table 7.6-8). Irrigation in the San Simon Wash Basin appears to be restricted to about 2,200 irrigable Irrigation occurs primarily on the CRIT acres at the end of Reservation Road 21 near Reservation and also within the Cibola Valley the international boundary. Average annual Irrigation and Drainage District (CVIDD). demand was estimated to be 3,900 acre-feet As mentioned in the Tribal Demand section, of groundwater during 2001-2005. Historic about 72,610 acres were irrigated on the CRIT withdrawals were higher, up to 11,300 AFA reservation in 2006. Of this total, CRIT Farms during the late 1970s (Table 7.8-7). After 1980, manages over 15,000 acres of alfalfa, cotton, the principal crop was alfalfa, irrigated year durum wheat and other crops (CRIT, 2005). round (Hollett, 1985). It is not known how many acres are currently being irrigated. CVIDD was formed in 1962, and in 1964 the southern half of the district was incorporated Yuma Basin into the Cibola National Wildlife Refuge. The Yuma Basin is the largest agricultural There is an integrated canal system and all main demand center in the planning area with 35% of canals are owned by the district and concrete- the recent demand, an annual average of 994,200 lined. On average about 3,550 acres of land acre-feet during the 2001-2005 time period. Of have been irrigated within CVIDD. Primary this total demand, 762,000 acre-feet was water crops are alfalfa, bermuda and cotton, although diverted from the Colorado River and 232,200 a variety of other crops are grown including acre-feet was water pumped from wells. Annual vegetables, wheat and barley. (ADWR, 1998) demand has increased by over 77,000 acreColorado River water is the sole source of feet on average since 1991. Agricultural lands water. CVIDD has a Priority 4 Colorado River surround Yuma and extend through much of the entitlement of 12,066 acre-feet and 5th and 6th western part of the basin from north of Fortuna Priority entitlements totaling 3,500 acre-feet. Foothills to San Luis. The USGS did not visit agricultural lands in the Parker Basin in 2007. Bureau of Reclamation Projects Two Reclamation projects serve irrigation water Ranegras Plain Basin in the basin – the Gila Project and the Yuma Agricultural demand in the Ranegras Plain Basin Project (Table 7.0-16). The location of canals averaged 28,800 acre-feet during 2001-2005, all and associated irrigation districts is shown on Section 7.0 Overview 65 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Figures 7.0-14, 7.0-18 and 7.0-21. Water for the Gila Project is diverted at Imperial Dam and delivered via the Gila Gravity Main Canal. The project is separated into the Wellton-Mohawk Division (discussed previously) and the Yuma Mesa Division. The Yuma Mesa Division includes three irrigation districts in the basin: Yuma Mesa Irrigation and Drainage District (Yuma Mesa IDD), North Gila Irrigation District (North Gila ID) and Yuma Irrigation District (Yuma ID). (USBOR 2007f) basin (see Figure 7.0-18). The western part of the Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District extends into the basin and is discussed above in the Lower Gila Basin section. The general location of the water delivery and drainage infrastructure in the Yuma area including canals, conduits, drains and drainage wells is shown in Figure 7.0-14 and 7.0-21. The three Gila Project/Yuma Mesa Division irrigation districts have a shared 3rd priority entitlement of 250,000 AFA on 37,187 acres. In The Yuma Project includes lands in both addition, North Gila Valley ID has 1st and 2nd Arizona and California. In Arizona, the project Priority entitlements, and Yuma Mesa IDD and is divided into the Valley Division and the Yuma Yuma ID have 2nd Priority consumptive use Auxiliary Division. The Valley Division consists entitlements (see Appendix C). of the Yuma County Water Users Association (YCWUA). Water for the Valley Division is Crops grown on Yuma Mesa IDD lands (the diverted at Imperial Dam into the All-American Mesa Unit) include citrus, alfalfa hay and seed, Canal to the Yuma Main Canal, then through peanuts, cotton and grains. There are about the siphon under the Colorado River at Yuma 25,000 irrigated acres in the district. Crops and into the Valley Division canals. Water for grown on North Gila ID and Yuma ID lands the Yuma Auxiliary Division, also referred to (North and South Gila Units) include alfalfa, as Unit “B”, is diverted at Imperial Dam and cotton, melons, citrus, winter vegetables and conveyed via the Gila Project Canals to the Unit Bermuda grass seed (USBOR, 2007f). About “B” Irrigation District (Unit “B” ID) (see Figure 6,300 acres of the North Gila ID and 9,600 acres of the Yuma ID are irrigated (Yuma Area 7.0-14). Ag Council, 2004). The South Gila Valley Unit Irrigation Districts of the Yuma Mesa Division consists of 24 drainA total of eight irrigation districts operate in the age wells (Figure 7.0-21). Water is conveyed to Table 7.0-16 Bureau of Reclamation project areas in the Yuma Basin YUMA PROJECT (AZ) GILA PROJECT (Imperial Dam Diversion) (Imperial Dam) Valley Division (Yuma Main Canal) ↓ YCWUA Yuma Auxilary Division (Gila Project Canals) ↓ Unit “B” I.D. Wellton-Mohawk Division (Wellton-Mohawk Canal) Yuma Mesa Division (Gila Gravity Main Canal) ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ Wellton-Mohawk I.D. Mesa Unit North Gila Valley Unit South Gila Valley Unit ↓ ↓ Yuma North Gila Mesa ID ID 66 ↓ Yuma ID Section 7.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 the Gila River Pilot Channel and Figure 7.0-21 Yuma area drainage fields and conduit the Colorado River to become systems part of the Treaty water delivered to Mexico. (USBOR, 2007g) Unit “B” ID is a relatively small district that operates and maintains the water distribution facilities of the Yuma Auxiliary Project. It distributes water to about 3,400 acres of land on the Yuma Mesa. Crops are almost entirely citrus including grapefruit, oranges and lemons. (USBOR, 2007h) The district has a 1st Priority diversion entitlement of 6,800 acre-feet and an unquantified 2nd priority diversion entitlement. YCWUA provides water to the Yuma Valley south of Interstate 8. It encompasses all of the Colorado River flood-plain land, approximately 53,000 acres, between the City of Yuma and the international boundary. YCWUA assumed operation and maintenance of Valley Division works of the Yuma Project in 1951 and the Siphon Drop Power Plant in 1962. There are approximately 28,800 irrigable acres in the district (Yuma Area Ag Council, 2004). YCWUA has an annual Colorado River entitlement of 254,200 acre-feet or, the consumptive use for irrigation of 43,562 acres (whichever is less) of 1st and 4th Priority water. Principal crops grown are lettuce and other produce crops in the fall and winter months and wheat, cotton, hay, and melons in the spring and summer months. In 2003, YCWUA received funding to line a number of its earthen canals to reduce seepage and conserve water. (BECC, 2003) that runs through the center of the division and terminates at the Boundary Pumping Plant at the international boundary (see Figure 7.0-21). The main drain and its branches total 56 miles in length. This drainage system is supplemented by 16 drainage wells located along the east side of the Yuma Valley that intercept groundwater flows from Yuma Mesa. YCWUA operates 11 of the wells and Reclamation operates the others. Most of this pumped water is discharged into the open drain. At the Boundary Pumping Plant, the drainage water is discharged into the bypass canal that flows into Mexico (USBOR, 2007i). Excess irrigation water from the Valley Division of the Yuma Project is removed via an open drain Section 7.0 Overview 67 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Gila Monster Farms is a relatively small operation located north of the Yuma ID and west of the Wellton-Mohawk IDD. It has 1st Priority diversion rights of 780 AFA and 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th priority rights for a total entitlement of 9,156 acre-feet (see Appendix C). Water is delivered through the Gila Gravity Main Canal. In 2006, the total irrigated area covered 2,090 acres. possibility that mining and ore processing may resume if copper prices increase enough. There are several small gold mines in the planning area including the Yuma King, 30 miles east of Parker. Two “industrial” golf courses are located in the Yuma Basin: Yuma Golf and Country Club and Dove Valley Golf Course. Industrial facilities are those with their own well or water supply and not served from a municipal water provider. Hillander “C” Irrigation and Drainage District, located north of the international boundary east Table 7.0-17 shows “other” industrial uses in of San Luis, pumps groundwater to irrigate about the Yuma area that use Colorado River water 2,300 acres within the 3,440 acre district. His- (surface water). These other uses include the toric use was between 15,000 and Table 7.0-17 Industrial water demand in the Lower 20,000 AFA for irrigation of citrus Colorado River Planning Area and asparagus. Center pivot systems in the area suggest that alfalfa 1991-1995 1996-2000 2001-2005 or other crops may be grown. The Type Water Use (acre-feet) District is located adjacent to the Power Plant Total 285 700 7,670 242 well field and has a contract Gila Bend Groundwater 0 0 4,600 to pump up to 4,000 acre-feet of Harquahala water annually from the 242 LatGroundwater 0 0 2,500 eral (see Section 7.0.6). Yuma Industrial Demand Industrial demand in the Lower Colorado River planning area averaged 13,560 AFA during the 2001-2005 time period, about 0.5% of the total demand. As shown in Table 7.0-17, most demand is associated with power plants, although dairy and feedlot demand is growing, particularly in the Lower Gila Basin. Mining activity in the Yuma Basin is associated with sand and gravel operations including the largescale Cemex Highway 95 facility and BLT Company facility in the northern part of the basin. The New Cornelia Mine, a large open pit copper mining operation at Ajo, was placed on care and maintenance in 1983. There is a Surface Water Golf Course Total Yuma Groundwater Surface Water Dairy/Feedlot Total Gila Bend Groundwater Lower Gila Groundwater Mining Total McMullen Valley Groundwater Parker Groundwater Yuma Groundwater Other Total Yuma Surface Water Total 285 440 700 440 570 440 220 220 3,400 220 220 3,500 220 220 3,700 0 0 100 3,400 350 3,500 380 3,600 550 <300 <300 <300 0 0 <300 200 2,600 230 2,900 250 1,200 2,600 7,075 2,900 7,920 1,200 13,560 Source: ADEQ 2005b, ADWR 2008b, USGS,2007 Notes: Volume <300 acre-feet assumed to be 150 acre-feet for computation purposes. Other category includes water use by the Yuma Desalting Plant, Union Pacific Railroad, Desert Lawn Memorial, Huerta Packing and Yuma Mesa Fruit Growers 68 Section 7.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Yuma Desalting Plant, cemetery irrigation and produce packing companies. There are other industrial demands in the planning area not reflected in the table, primarily from sand and gravel operations including at least three in the Parker Basin. Some of these operations are identified on the cultural demand maps. Water is used for aggregate washing, dust control, vehicle washing and equipment cooling at sand and gravel facilities. Relatively little water is consumed at these sites. Finally, north of Gila Bend, in the Gila Bend Basin, shrimp are pond grown at the Desert Sweet Shrimp operation. About 300,000 pounds of shrimp are produced annually and the shrimp effluent is applied to nearby agricultural fields. Water demand of this aquaculture operation is not known. Panda Gila River Power Station, Gila Bend Basin. produce nearly 150 megawatts of power to APS customers. The plant’s other combustion turbine unit and one steam unit are owned by the Imperial Irrigation District in California. The plant provides power on an as needed basis, Power Plants particularly during the summer months. (APS, Panda Gila River Power Station is a 2,200 2007) The plant, which has a 1,500 acre-feet megawatt natural gas plant located in Gila Bend of 5th priority entitlement, used about 350 acreand completed in 2003. It was approved by the feet of Colorado River water in 2005. Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) in 2001 under very strict emissions requirements. Dairy/Feedlot The plant has zero water discharge, with There are a number of dairy and feedlot concentrated brine effluent disposed to operations in the planning area and these evaporation ponds. The plant used about 4,400 facilities are a growing demand sector due to acre-feet of groundwater in 2005. development pressures and land costs in more urban parts of the state. Dairies and feedlots are The Harquahala Generating Project is a 1,000 located adjacent to irrigated land where feed is megawatt natural gas power facility that came on grown and where disposal of wastes can occur. line in 2003. As a condition of approval by the ACC, the owner agreed to use CAP water as the In 2003, Citrus Valley Dairy was the only preferable supply. Groundwater use is allowed dairy operating in the Gila Bend Basin with a but must meet the same siting and permitting groundwater demand of about 100 acre-feet. requirements of facilities in AMAs. The facility Painted Rock Dairy began operation the next is designed to be zero water discharge and treats year and the combined demand in 2005 was and recycles water more than 130 times to approximately 170 acre-feet for an estimated minimize consumption. (PG&E Corporation, 1,600 animals. 2000) The facility used about 750 acre-feet of groundwater and CAP water in 2005. There are two dairies in the Lower Gila Basin, G.H. Dome Valley and Hine Hettinga, with a Arizona Public Service (APS) operates the 2005 demand of 152 acre-feet and 94 acre-feet natural gas Yucca Power Plant near Yuma. respectively. These dairies house a combined There are four combustion turbine units that total of 1,900 animals. There are also two Section 7.0 Overview 69 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 meet the needs of growing communities while maintaining the agricultural economy are important considerations in the planning area. Colorado River Issues Issues involving the Colorado River system have implications for resource management and supply availability in the planning area. Issues include consequences related to compliance with the International Treaty with Mexico, agreement on management of the Colorado River system Painted Rock Dairy, Lower Gila Basin. under shortage conditions in a manner that is feedlots in the basin. The Kammann Cattle equitable for all users, salinity control and water Company used about 27 acre-feet of water for quality, entitlement transfers, and the developabout 800 animals while McElhaney Cattle used ment of accounting surface rules. Information about 3,394 acre-feet for an estimated 101,000 on the “Law of the River” and more detailed animals in 2005. discussion of some of the issues described below are found in Appendix D. A biorefinery was planned to open in 2008 near Vicksburg in the Ranegras Plain Basin. Plans Mexican Treaty included a 7,500-cow dairy, a corn fractionation Compliance with conditions of the delivery mill, a biodiesel plant and a waste-to-energy of 1.5 maf of water to Mexico under the 1944 conversion plant. While the facility has been Treaty and Minute 242 have required significant substantially constructed, the project has been investments and actions within the U.S. and in delayed with a focus on development of algae the planning area. In the 1960s, salinity associbiomass as an alternative to corn and grains for ated with irrigation return flows from the Wellbiofuels. (AZFB, 2008) As of October 2009, the ton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District facility had not commenced operation. (WMIDD) to the Colorado River coupled with reduced flows in the river system developed into 7.0.8 Water Resource Issues in the a major international issue. To address this issue, Lower Colorado River Planning Area Minute 242 to the Treaty was negotiated. This Minute requires that the Treaty water delivered Water resource issues in the Lower Colorado to Mexico will be of nearly the same quality as River Planning Area have been identified in that which is diverted at Imperial Dam and deregional studies primary involving Colorado livered to U.S. water users. To comply with this River water supplies, through the distribution requirement, the U.S. implemented a number of of surveys and from other sources. There are measures including re-routing drain water from no ADWR Rural Watershed Initiative Groups the WMIDD to the Cienega de Santa Clara in in the planning area. Colorado River and Mexico. The U.S. also built a $250 million dolgroundwater transportation issues, planning and lar desalination plant in Yuma to treat WMIDD conservation activities and results from water drain water, so that it could be returned to the provider surveys are discussed in this section. mainstream for delivery to Mexico. The facility Environmental protection and restoration, was completed in 1992, operated briefly in 1993 and local management of water resources to and then placed in standby status. 70 Section 7.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 In 2007, Reclamation conducted a pilot run of the Yuma Desalting Plant by operating it at about ten percent capacity for three months. The purposes of the run were to test new equipment, acquire current operational data, and identify design deficiencies to better determine whether the facility could reliably and efficiently be operated on a long-term basis. Results from this study were favorable. However, it was determined that to obtain more conclusive information, the plant needed to be operated at a scale and for a duration which covers seasonal variations associated with chemical use and power Imperial Dam and Colorado River, Lower Gila consumption. As a result, Reclamation will conBasin. duct a second pilot run of the facility. During A consequence of continuing to annually by- this pilot run, which is scheduled to be initiated pass the approximately 100,000 acre-feet of in May 2010, the plant will operate at up to onesaline irrigation return flow to the Cienega de third capacity for 365 operating days during Santa Clara was the reestablishment of a rich, a 12- to 18-month period. Components of the ecologically important wetland in the Mexican project will include a commitment to offset the Delta. Currently, there is significant interest on reduced bypass flows with up to 30,000 acreboth sides of the border to continue to maintain feet of Colorado River water and an extensive the area in its present condition. However, by- monitoring program for the Cienega. passing this water to Mexico each year without crediting it against the U.S. Treaty obligation Shortage Sharing requires the U.S. to release an equal amount of As mentioned in Section 7.0.6, Reclamation iswater from storage in Lake Mead. As a result, sued a Record of Decision (ROD) in December, the risk of shortage is increased, particularly to 2007 on interim operating criteria (2008-2026). the Central Arizona Project and other equal pri- The elements of the ROD, which include rules ority water users in Arizona. After more than a for shortages and surpluses, coordinated operadecade of drought, the potential for shortage has tion of Lake Powell and Lake Mead, and water conservation have implications for water supply been further amplified. availability in the planning area. Reactivation of the Yuma Desalination Plant to treat and discharge this water to the Colorado River to meet U.S. Treaty obligations with Mexico, would impact the Cienega. In recognition of this concern, the Yuma Desalination Plant/Cienega de Santa Clara Workgroup was formed in 2004 to identify and discuss potential solutions that would preserve the Cienega and make the treated bypass flows available for use under the Treaty. Workgroup recommendations were released in April, 2005. The shortage recommendation implements water supply reductions when Lake Mead water storage is depleted to key surface water level elevations. In Arizona, hydrologic modeling indicates that shortage reductions will impact 4th, 5th and 6th priority water users, including on-river municipal, industrial and agricultural contractors and to the Central Arizona Project excess pool. During a shortage, the available water supply is sufficient to meet all higher priority water users. Section 7.0 Overview 71 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Currently, Arizona and the other Colorado River Basin States, Reclamation and federal and state water organizations in Mexico have been engaging in discussions regarding the development of cooperative, innovative and holistic measures that will ensure that the Colorado River will continue to be able to meet environmental, agricultural and urban water demands in both countries. To further this effort, the U.S., Mexico and the Basin States are working to develop a policy framework. Groundwater Transportation In general, groundwater cannot be transported between groundwater basins or from a groundwater basin outside an AMA into an AMA (A.R.S. §§ 45-544 and 45-551 through 45-555). These restrictions were designed to protect hydrologically distinct groundwater supplies and rural economies by ensuring that groundwater is not depleted in one groundwater basin to benefit another. Three basins in the planning area, Butler Valley, Harquahala and Salinity and Other Water Quality Issues McMullen Valley, are designated as basins Increased salinity levels in the Colorado Riv- from which groundwater may be withdrawn er affect agricultural, municipal and industrial and transported under certain conditions. uses. Damages in the U.S. are estimated at $330 Information about the statutory provisions is million per year, and while economic damage in found in Section 7.0.6. Mexico is not quantified, it also poses a significant concern. The EPA approved salinity stan- As of December 2007, only the City of dards proposed by the Colorado River Basin Phoenix has purchased agricultural land in Salinity Control Forum for three locations in the McMullen Valley Basin for the purpose Arizona, including two in the planning area. The of potentially transferring groundwater to the water quality standards establish a flow-weight- Phoenix AMA. In addition, the Department ed average annual salinity standard that must be has received an application from the City of maintained on the lower Colorado River at the Scottsdale to transport groundwater from the following locations in the planning area: Below Harquahala Basin. As competition for water Parker Dam (to Imperial Dam) - 747 mg/L and supplies in AMAs increases, it is likely that at Imperial Dam - 879 mg/L. additional applications will be filed. Under the transportation statutes the rate of groundwater In 2005, the Governor of Arizona appointed The decline and pumping depth are regulated in Clean Colorado River Alliance (Alliance) stake- the McMullen Valley and Harquahala basins, holder group to address water quality issues for but there are no specified limits for the Butler the Colorado River. In addition to salinity, the Valley Basin. Withdrawal and transportation Alliance identified several other water quality of groundwater may cause groundwater level concerns including nutrients, metals, endocrine declines and impact the groundwater supply disrupting compounds, perchlorate, bacteria available for use within the basins. and pathogens, and sediment. In 2006, the Alliance issued a report titled Clean Colorado River Planning and Conservation Alliance Recommendations to Address Colorado River Water Quality. The report includes As mentioned in section 7.0-5, all community a number of recommendations to monitor and water systems in Arizona are required to mitigate the impacts of these pollutants. 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 72 Section 7.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Big Horn Mountains, Harquahala Basin. 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. Local Drought Impact Groups (LDIGs) are county-level voluntary groups created to 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. To date, LDIG groups have not been formed in La Paz or Yuma counties. Information on LDIGs may be found at http://www.azwater.gov/dwr/drought/ LDIG.html. 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 to incorporate into the Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan, adopted in 2004. Questionnaires were sent to almost 600 water providers, jurisdictions, counties and tribes, and a report of the findings from the survey was subsequently completed (ADWR, 2004). There were 15 water provider and 2 jurisdiction respondents in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area and all numerically ranked a list of 18 issues. Issues that ranked consistently high by the most respondents are shown in Table 7.018. As shown, most respondents were concerned about the need for infrastructure replacement and the ability to fund improvements, and had water quality concerns. Few respondents were concerned about inadequate storage or pumping capacity to meet future demand or the need for additional water supplies. The Department conducted another, 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, 31 water providers in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area, with a total of approximately 40,200 service connections, participated and provided information on water supply, demand, and infrastructure and almost all ranked a list of seven issues. Respondents were from the Gila Bend, Harquahala, Lower Gila, McMullen Valley, Parker and Yuma basins. Water providers were asked in the 2004 survey to rank seven issues from 0 to 3 with 0 = no concern, 1 = minor concern, 2 = moderate concern and 3 = major concern. There were 30 respondents that ranked issues. As shown in Table 7.0-18, infrastructure concerns ranked as important concerns, similar to the 2003 survey. This was especially of concern to providers in the Lower Gila Basin. Water quality issues were not included in the issues list but a separate question asked the respondent to indicate contaminant concerns. Of the 31 respondents, 6 indicated concerns about arsenic and one indicated a concern about proximity to a source of contamination. Unlike results from the 2003 survey, this group of respondents was Section 7.0 Overview 73 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.0-17 Water resource issues ranked by survey respondents in the Lower 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 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 Infrastructure in need of replacement Inadequate capital to pay for infrastructure improvements Drought related water supply problems Ability to meet arsenic standard NR 26% NR 10 NR 6 NR 23 65% 45 35 58 NR 6 35 NA Concern about proximity of wells to 29 NA sources of contamination Source: ADWR, 2004; ADWR, 2005 Note: 2003 respondents consisted of 15 water providers and 2 jurisdictions. 2004 respondents included 30 water providers NR=not reported as a top 5 issue NA= respondents were not asked to rank the issue comprised of more large water providers and expressed concern about storage capacity and supplies to meet future demand. Geographic Features Geographic features maps are included to present a general orientation to principal land features, roads, counties and cities, towns and 7.0.9 Groundwater Basin Water Re- places in the groundwater basin. source Characteristics Land Ownership Sections 7.1 through 7.11 present data and The distribution and type of land ownership in maps on water resource characteristics of the a basin has implications for land and water use. groundwater basins in the Western Plateau Large amounts of private land typically translate Planning Area. A description of the data into opportunities for land development and sources and methods used to derive this associated water demand, whereas federal lands information is found in Section 1.3 of Volume are typically maintained for a purpose with little 1 of the Atlas. This section briefly describes associated water use. State owned land may be general information that applies to all of the sold or traded, and is often leased for grazing basins and the purpose of the information. This and farming. The extent of state owned lands information is organized in the order in which is due to a number of legislative actions. The the characteristics are discussed in Sections 7.1 State Enabling Act of 1910 and the Act that through 7.11. 74 Section 7.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 established the Territory of Arizona in 1863 set aside sections 2, 16, 32 and 36 in each township to be held in trust by the state for educational purposes. Other legislation authorized additional state trust lands for specified purposes, which are identified for each basin (ASLD, 2006). Climate Climate data including temperature, rainfall, evaporation rates and snow are critical components of water resource planning and management. Averages and variability, seasonality of precipitation and long term climate trends are all important factors in demand and supply planning. Flood gage information is presented to direct the reader to sources of additional precipitation and flow information that can be used in water resource planning. Large reservoir storage information provides data on the amount of water stored in the basin, its uses, and ownership. Because of the large number of small reservoirs, and less reliable data, individual small reservoir data is not provided. The number of stockponds is a general indicator of small scale surface water capture and livestock demand. Runoff contours reflect the average annual runoff in tributary streams. They provide a generalized indication of the amount of runoff that can be expected at a particular geographic location. Surface Water Conditions Depending on physical and legal availability, surface water may be a potential supply in a basin. 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. 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 accurately 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 Surface water maps display runoff contours and and to the environmental community due to the location of reservoirs and gages. Also shown their importance in maintaining habitat, even are 1st and 2nd order streams, and 3rd order from small discharges. streams with gages. The stream order used is the Cartographic order, similar to ‘stream level’ Groundwater Conditions used by the USGS to categorize streams in its Several indicators of groundwater conditions National Hydrography Dataset (NHD). This are presented for each basin. Aquifer type can be method assigns Level 1 to the principal stream a general indicator of aquifer storage potential, in a drainage area, major tributaries are assigned accessibility of the supply, aquifer productivity, Level 2, minor tributaries are assigned Level 3, water quality and aquifer flux. Well yield etc. information for large diameter wells is provided and is generally measured when the well is Criteria for including stream gage stations in drilled and reported on completion reports. It the basin tables are that there is at least one year was assumed that large diameter wells were of record, and annual streamflow statistics are drilled to produce a maximum amount of water included only if there are at least three years of and, therefore, their reported pump capacities record. There are different types of stations and are indicative of the aquifer’s potential to yield those that only serve repeater functions were water to a well. However, many factors can not included. affect well yields including well design, pump Section 7.0 Overview 75 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 size and condition and the age of the well. Reported well yields are only a general indicator of aquifer productivity and specific information is available from well measurements conducted as part of basin investigations. 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. Cultural Water Demand Cultural water demand is an important component of a water budget. However, without mandatory metering and reporting of water uses, accurate demand data is difficult to acquire. Municipal demand includes water company and domestic (self-supplied) demand estimates. Basin demand information is from several sources in order to prepare as accurate an estimate as possible. Annual demand estimates have been averaged over a specific time period. This provides Water level data is from measured wells, usually general trend information without focusing on collected during the period when the wells were potentially inaccurate annual demand estimates not actively being pumped or only minimally due to incomplete data. pumped. Depth to water measurements are shown on mapped wells if there was a measurement Locations of major cultural water uses are taken during 2003-2004. The basin hydrographs primarily from a 2004 USGS land cover study show water-level trends for selected wells over using older satellite imagery that may not the 30-year period from January 1975 to January represent recent changes. The cultural demand 2005. Not all basins have a sufficient number of maps provide only general information about representative hydrographs. the location of water users. Natural recharge is typically the least well known component of a water budget. Many of the estimates in the Atlas are derived from studies of larger geographic areas and all deserve further study. Similarly, estimates of storage are based on rough estimates and considerably more studies are needed in most basins. Components of storage include aquifer depth and specific yield. The flow directions that are shown generally reflect long-term, regional aquifer flow in the basin and are not meant to depict temporary or local-scale conditions. However, flow directions in some basins indicate how localized pumping has altered regional flow patterns. Water Quality Water quality conditions impact the availability of water supplies. Water quality data was compiled from a variety of sources as described in Volume 1 Section 1.3. The data indicate areas where water quality exceedences have previously occurred, however additional areas of concern may currently exist where water quality samples have not been collected or sample results were not reviewed by the Department (e.g. samples collected in conjunction with the 76 Effluent generation data was compiled from several sources to provide an estimate of how 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. Section 7.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 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 be disclosed in promotional materials and in sales documents. In addition to these subdivision determinations for which a water adequacy report is issued, water providers may apply for adequacy designations for their entire service area. If a subdivision is to be served water from one of these water providers, then a separate adequacy determination is not required (See Section 7.0-5). Developers of large, master-planned communities outside of AMAs may apply for an Analysis of Adequate Water Supply (AAWS). This type of application is generally used to prove that water will be physically available for the master-planned community. AAWS are issued based on the development plan or plat. If an AAWS is issued for groundwater, it reserves a specific volume of water for 10 years (for purposes of further adequacy reviews) only for the specific property that is the subject of the AAWS. Section 7.0 Overview 77 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 REFERENCES Anderson, T.W., G.W. Freethy and P. Tucci, 1992, Geohydology and Water Resources of Alluvial Basins in South-Central Arizona and Parts of Adjacent States-Regional Aquifer-System Analysis: USGS Professional Paper 1406.B. 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 Agriculture (AZDA), 2005, Yuma County: Accessed December, 2007 at http://www.azda.gov/Main/yuma.htm Arizona Department of Commerce (ADOC), 2007a, Ajo Community Profile: Accessed December, 2007 at www.azcommerce.com ______, 2007b, Quartzite Community Profile: Accessed December, 2007 at www.azcommerce. com Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES), 2006, Workforce Informer: Accessed August 2005 at www.workforce.az.gov Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), 2007a, 20th Street and Factor Avenue Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund (WQARF) Site: Accessed December 2007 at www.azdeq.gov/environ/waste/sps/ _____, 2007b, Yuma Marine Corp Air Station National Priorities List (NPL) Site: Accessed December 2007 at www.azdeq.gov/environ/waste/sps/ _____, 2007c, U.S. Army Yuma Proving Ground Department of Defense (DoD) Site: Accessed December 2007 at www.azdeq.gov/environ/waste/sps/ _____, 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. _____, 2005a, Tyson Wash Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund (WQARF) Site, Publication Number FS 05-13: Accessed December 2007 at www.azdeq.gov/environ/ waste/sps/ _____, 2005b, Active dairy farms & feedlots: Data file, received October 2005. _____, 2002, The Status of Water Quality In Arizona – 2002: Volume 1. Arizona’s Integrated 305(b) Assessment and 303(b) Listing Report 78 Section 7.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR), 2008a, Assured and adequate water supply applications: Project files, ADWR Water Management Division _____, 2008b, Water use by golf courses in rural Arizona: Unpublished analysis by ADWR Office of Regional Strategic Planning. _____, 2005, Data from 2004 rural water provider questionnaire: 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 Farm Bureau (AZFB), 2008, XL Renewables Hits a Few Bumps in the Road but Renewables is Still the Focus: Accessed October, 2009 at http://www.azfb.org/news/ index.cfm?fuseaction=article&rowid=224 Arizona Game and Fish (AZGF), 1997, Remote Sensing Mapping of Arizona Intermittent Stream Riparian Areas. _____, 1993, Arizona Riparian Inventory and Mapping Project: GIS cover. Arizona Land Resource Information System (ALRIS), 2004: Land Ownership, GIS cover, accessed in 2004 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index.html Arizona Public Service, 2007, Power Plants: Accessed December 2007 at http://www.aps.com/ general_info/AboutAPS_18.html Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum (ASDM), 2007a, Center for Sonoran Desert Studies-Lower Colorado River Valley and Arizona Uplands: Accessed November, 2007 at http://www. desertmuseum.org/desert/sonora.php). ______, 2007b, Invaders of the Sonoran Desert Region: Bufflegrass: Accessed October 2007 at: www.desertmuseum.org/invaders.htm Arizona State Land Department (ASLD), 2006, Historical overview-Land Grant and Designation of Beneficiaries: Accessed February 2006 at http://www.land.state.az.us/history.htm. Arizona Water Company, 2007, Community Water System Report-Ajo: Submitted to ADWR May, 2007 Section 7.0 Overview 79 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC), 2003, Yuma County Water Users Association Water Conservation Improvement Projects.: Accessed November 2007 at http://www.cocef.org/aproyectos/ExcomYuma2003_09ing.htm Brooks, M.L. and D.A. Pyke, 2002, Invasive Plants and Fire in the Deserts of North America, Proceedings of the Invasive Species Workshop: the Role of Fire in the Control and Spread of Invasive Species. Fire Conference 2000: the First National Congress on Fire Ecology, Prevention and Management. Brown, D., 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 Burns, S., 2007, “Stopping the Spread: The fight against bufflegrass rages on in Southern Arizona.” In Tucson Weekly, April 26, 2007. Carruth, R.L., 1996, Hydrogeology of the Quitobaquito Springs and La Abra Plain Area, Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Arizona, and Sonora, Mexico, USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report 95-4295 Central Arizona Project (CAP), 2009, Report on Pilot Run of Yuma Desalting Plant & Related Agreements: Accessed October 2009 at http://www.cap-az.com/includes/docs/meetings/ City of San Luis, 2007, 2006 Community Water System Annual Report: Submitted to ADWR, June, 2007. City of Somerton, 2006, Somerton Water Supply Plan: Submitted to ADWR, December 2006. City of Yuma, 2007, 2006 Community Water System Annual Report: Submitted to ADWR, June, 2007 _____, 2002, City of Yuma 2002 General Plan, Public Services Element. Cocopah Indian Tribe, 2006, Environmental Protection: Accessed December, 2007 at http:// www.cocopah.com/docs/environ.html Colorado River Indian Tribes (CRIT), 2005, About the Tribes and Business Opportunities: Accessed December, 2007 at http://critonline.com/index.shtml Dickinson, J.E., M. Land, C.C. Faunt, S.A. Leake, E.G. Reichard, J.B. Fleming and R.E. Pool, 2006, Hydrogeologic Framework Refinement, Ground-Water Flow and Storage, Water-Chemistry Analyses, and Water-Budget Components of the Yuma Area, Southwestern Arizona and Southeastern California, USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5135 80 Section 7.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Environmental Law Institute, 2002, An Analysis of State Superfund Programs: 50 State Study, 2001 Update. Far West Water & Sewer, Inc., 2006, Water Supply & Drought Preparedness Plan: Submitted to ADWR, December, 2006. Fenneman, N.H. and D.W. Johnson, 1946, Physiographic divisions of the conterminous U.S.: GIS cover. Glenn, E.P., P. Nagler, R. Romo and O. Hinojosa-Huerta, 2004, Regeneration of Native Trees and Wetlands in the Delta; In Southwest Hydrology, January/February 2004. Hedley, J.D., 1990, Maps Showing Groundwater Conditions in the Harquahala Irrigation Non-Expansion Area and Tiger Wash Basin, Maricopa and La Paz Counties, Arizona-\ 1989. Department of Water Resources Hydrologic Map Series Report Number 17. Hollett, K.J., 1985, Geohydrology and Water Resources of the Papago Farms-Great Plain Area, Papago Indian Reservation, Arizona and the Upper Rio Sonoyta Area, Sonora, Mexico USGS Water-Supply Paper 2258. Intertribal Council of Arizona (ITCA), 2003, Cocopah Tribe and Fort Yuma-Quechan Tribe: Accessed October, 2007 at www.itcaonline.com Johnson, B.J., 1990, Maps Showing Groundwater Conditions in the Ranegras Plain Basin, La Paz and Yuma Counties, Arizona-1988. Department of Water Resources Hydrologic Map Series Report Number 18. Knowles, G., 2003, Aquatic Life in the Sonoran Desert, In Endangered Species Bulletin May/ June 2003 Volume XXVIII No. 3. Malcolm Pirnie, 2006, System Water Plan Ajo Improvement Company Phelps Dodge Corporation: Submitted to ADWR, November 2006. National Atlas of the United States, 2005, National Wilderness Preservation System of the United States: GIS Cover, Accessed December 2007 at http://www.nationalatlas.gov/ atlasftp.html#wildrnp National Park Service (NPS) 2007, Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument: Accessed October 2007 at http://www.nps.gov/orpi/index.htm 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 Section 7.0 Overview 81 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Oram, P, 1987, Map Showing Groundwater Conditions in the Butler Valley Basin, La Paz County, Arizona-1986. Department of Water Resources Hydrologic Map Series Report Number 13. Overby, A., 1997, Maps Showing Groundwater Conditions in the Yuma Basin, Yuma County, Arizona-1992. Department of Water Resources Hydrologic Map Series Report Number 30. Pacific Gas and Electric Corporation (PG&E), 2000, PG&E Corporations’s Harquahala Plant Receives Unanimous Approval of Environmental Capatibility Certificate: Press Release, June 8, 2000. Phelps Dodge Corporation, 2007, Community Water System Report-Ajo Improvement Company: Submitted to ADWR May, 2007. Rascona, S.J., 1996, Maps Showing Groundwater Conditions in the Gila Bend Basin Maricopa County, Arizona – 1993. Department of Water Resources Hydrologic Map Series Report Number 29. Remick, W.H., 1981, Maps Showing Ground-Water Conditions in the McMullen Valley Area, Maricopa, Yavapai, and Yuma Counties, Arizona-1981. Department of Water Resources Hydrologic Map Series Report Number 6. Reynolds, S.J., 1988, Geologic Map of Arizona: Arizona Geologic Survey Map 26. Salton Sea Authority, 2000, Historical Chronology: Accessed November, 2007 at http://www. saltonsea.ca.gov/histchron.htm Seaber, P.R., Kapinos, E.P. and G.L. Knapp, 1987, Hydrologic Unit Maps; U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2294, 63 pp. Tellman, B., R. Yarde and M. Wallace, 1997, Arizona’s changing rivers: How people have affected rivers: Water Resources Research Center, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona. Tohono O’odham Nation (TON), 2009; Issue Brief: The United States’ Obligation to Replace Damaged Reservation Land; Accessed October 2009 at http://www.tonation-nsn.gov/pdf/ Land_Replacement_Issue_Brief.pdf ______, 2007, Community-Districts; Accessed October 2009 at www.tonation-nsn.gov Tohono O’odham Utility Authority (TOUA), 2007a, Water: Accessed December 2007 at http:// www.toua.net/water.html ______, 2007b, TOUA 2006 Annual Water Quality Report. 82 Section 7.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Town of Gila Bend, 2008, Gila Bend Water System Water Supply Plan: submitted to ADWR March, 2008. Town of Parker, 2006, Town of Parker Water Supply Plan: Submitted to ADWR, December 2006. Town of Quartzsite, 2008, Town of Quartzite Water Supply Plan: Submitted to ADWR, March, 2008. _______, 2003, Town of Quartzite 2003 General Plan-Conservation, the Environment and Water Resources Element. Turner, R.M. and D.E. Brown, 1982, Sonoran Desertscrub; In 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. U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 2007, Sonoran Desert National Monument: Accessed October 2007 at http://www.blm.gov/az/ ______, 2006, Arizona Wilderness Areas: Accessed December 2006 at www.blm.gov/az/ wildarea.htm U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBOR), 2009, Seepage and Groundwater Investigations, Yuma Area Groundwater Elevations map: accessed October, 2009 at http://www.usbr. gov/lc/yuma/programs/YAWMS/Groundwater/YA122008-72dpi.pdf ______, 2008, Regulating the Use of Lower Colorado River Water Without an Entitlement; Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 16, 2008; 43 CFR Part 415 ______, 2007a, CRB - Salinity Control Project - Protective and Regulatory Pumping Unit: Accessed December, 2007 at www.usbr.gov/dataweb/html/crbscpprpu.html ______, 2007b, Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and Coordinated Operations for Lakes Powell and Mead. ______, 2007c, Parker-Davis Project: Accessed December, 2007 at http://www.usbr.gov/ dataweb/html/parkerdavis.html ______, 2007d, Colorado River Front Work and Levee System: Accessed December, 2007 at http://www.usbr.gov/dataweb/html/fwls.html ______, 2007e, Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program Palo Verde Irrigation District, California: Accessed December, 2007 at http://www.usbr.gov/dataweb/dams/az10314.htm Section 7.0 Overview 83 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 ______, 2007f, Gila Project Arizona: Accessed December, 2007 at http://www.usbr.gov/ dataweb/html/gila.html ______, 2007g, Yuma Project Arizona and California: Accessed December, 2007 at http://www. usbr.gov/dataweb/html/yuma.html ______, 2007h, Yuma Auxiliary Project Arizona: Accessed December, 2007 at http://www.usbr. gov/dataweb/html/yumaap.html ______, 2007i, Groundwater Recovery and River Regulation Program-Yuma Area Well Fields: Accessed December, 2007 at http://www.usbr.gov/lc/yuma/facilities/yao_wellfields_map. html _____, 2006, Parker PowerPlant: Accessed December, 2007 at http://www.usbr.gov/power/data/ sites/parker/parker.html _____, 2000, Accounting for Colorado River Water Use within the States of Arizona, California, and Nevada Calendar Year 2000: Accessed December 2007 at http://www.usbr.gov/lc/ region/g4000/wtracct.html _____, 1992, Accounting for Colorado River Water Use within the States of Arizona, California, and Nevada Calendar Year 1992: Accessed December 2007 at http://www.usbr.gov/lc/ region/g4000/wtracct.html U.S. Census Bureau, 2006, on-line data files: Accessed January 2006 at www.census.gov U.S. Department of Interior (USDOI), 2004, Final Programmatic EIS/EIR Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program, Volume 1. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2008, Endangered Species List by County: Accessed July 2008 at www.fws.gov/arizonaes/documents/countylists and www.fws.gov/ifw2es/ endangeredspecies/lists/default.cfm. _____, 2007a, Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge: Accessed October 2007 at http://www. fws.gov/refuges/ _____, 2007b, Cibola National Wildlife Refuge: Accessed October 2007 at http://www.fws.gov/ refuges/ _____, 2007c, Kofa National Wildlife Refuge: Accessed October 2007 at http://www.fws.gov/ refuges/ _____, 2007d, Imperial National Wildlife Refuge: Accessed October 2007 at http://www.fws. gov/refuges/ 84 Section 7.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 2009, Preliminary Data from 2007 Agricultural Ground Truthing in Select Basins in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area; GIS cover received October, 2009. _____, 2007, Water withdrawals for irrigation, municipal, mining, thermoelectric-power, and drainage uses in Arizona outside of the active management areas, 2000-2005: Data file, received December 2007. ______, 2005, 1:2,000,000-Scale Hydrologic Unit Boundaries: GIS Cover, accessed in 2007 at http://nationalatlas.gov/atlasftp.html?openChapters=chpwater#chpwater University of Arizona, 2003, A brief history of the Colorado River Delta: Accessed November, 2007 at http://www.ag.arizona.edu/colorado_river_delta/delta/intro.html Webb, R.H., S.A. Leake, R.M. Turner, 2007, The Ribbon of Green; Change in Riparian Vegetation in the Southwestern United States, University of Arizona Press, 462 pp. Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District (WMIDD), 2004, History/ Irrigation/ Agriculture/Drainage/ Challenges: Accessed December 2007 at http://www. welltonmohawk.org/html Yuma Area Ag Council, 2004, Yuma Area Irrigation Districts: Accessed December, 2007 at http://www.yaac.net/irrigation.html Yuma County, 2000, Yuma County 2010 Comprehensive Plan. Section 7.0 Overview 85 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 86 Section 7.0 Overview Section 7.1 Butler Valley Basin 87 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.1.1 Geography of the Butler Valley Basin The Butler Valley Basin, located in the northern part of the planning area, is 288 square miles in area. Geographic features and principal places are shown on Figure 7.1-1. The basin is characterized by a valley bordered by two mountain ranges. Vegetation types include Lower Colorado River and Arizona uplands Sonoran desertscrub and a small amount of interior chaparral on the eastern basin boundary. (See Figure 7.0-9) • Principal geographic features shown on Figure 7.1-1 are: o Cunningham Wash running northeast to southwest in the northern portion of the basin o Butler Valley bordered by the Harcuvar Mountains on the eastern basin boundary and the Buckskin Mountains on the northwestern basin boundary o Harcuvar Peak at 4,618 feet, the highest point in the basin o The lowest point in the basin at 1,345 feet at “The Narrows” where Cunningham Wash exits the basin. 88 Section 7.1 Butler Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.1 Butler Valley Basin 89 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.1.2 Land Ownership in the Butler Valley Basin Land ownership, including the percentage of ownership by category, for the Butler Valley Basin is shown in Figure 7.1-2. Principal features of land ownership in this basin are the large blocks of 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 7.0.4. Land ownership categories are discussed below in the order of largest to smallest percentage in the basin. U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) • 55.5% of the land is federally owned and managed by the Yuma Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management. • BLM land in this basin includes 4,900 acres of the 38,000 acre Rawhide Mountains Wilderness and 11,000 acres of the 25,000 acre Harcuvar Mountains Wilderness. (see Figure 7.0-12) • Land uses include grazing, resource conservation and recreation. State Trust Land • 43.9% of the land is held in trust for the public schools, the Pioneer Home and both the Dept of Corrections and Juvenile Corrections and county bonds under the State Trust Land system. • Primary land use is grazing. Private • 0.6% of the land is private. • Small parcels of private land are found surrounded by BLM land in the northern and southern portions of the basin. • Land uses include domestic and ranching. 90 Section 7.1 Butler Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.1 Butler Valley Basin 91 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.1.3 Climate of the Butler Valley Basin The Butler Valley Basin does not contain NOAA/NWS, Evaporation Pan, AZMET or SNOTEL/ Snowcourse stations. Figure 7.1-3 shows precipitation contour data from the Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS) at Oregon State University. More detailed information on climate in the planning area is found in Section 7.0.3. A description of climate data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. SCAS Precipitation Data • See Figure 7.1-3 • Average annual rainfall is as high as 18 inches along the central eastern basin boundary and as low as six inches in the western portion of the basin. 92 Section 7.1 Butler Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.1 Butler Valley Basin 93 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.1.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Butler Valley Basin There are no streamflow data, flood ALERT equipment or USGS runoff contour data available for this basin. Reservoir and stockpond data, including maximum storage or maximum surface area, are shown in Table 7.1-1. The location of large reservoirs is shown on Figure 7.1-4. Descriptions of stream, reservoir and stockpond data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Reservoirs and Stockponds • Refer to Table 7.1-1. • The basin contains one large reservoir, Cunningham Wash, with a maximum surface area of 143 acres. Its use was not available. • There are no small reservoirs and seven registered stockponds in this basin. Table 7.1-1 Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Butler 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) USE JURISDICTION None identified by ADWR at this time B. Other Large Reservoirs (50 acre surface area or greater) 1 MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME (Name of dam, if different) OWNER/OPERATOR MAXIMUM SURFACE AREA (acres) USE JURISDICTION 1 Cunningham Wash NA 143 NA Private 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: 7 Notes: Capacity data is not available to ADWR NA = Information is not available to ADWR 1 94 Section 7.1 Butler Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.1 Butler Valley Basin 95 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.1.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Butler Valley Basin The total number of springs in the basin are shown in Table 7.1-2. There are no perennial or intermittent streams and no major or minor springs in the Butler Valley Basin. Descriptions of data sources and methods for intermittent and perennial reaches and springs are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. • The total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by the USGS is one. Table 7.1-2 Springs in the Butler Valley Basin A. Major Springs (10 gpm or greater): Map Key Name Location Discharge Latitude Longitude (in gpm) Date Discharge Measured None identified by ADWR at this time B. Minor Springs (1 to 10 gpm): Name Location Discharge Latitude 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): 1 96 Section 7.1 Butler Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.1.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Butler Valley Basin Major aquifers, well yields, estimated water in storage, number of index wells and date of last waterlevel sweep are shown in Table 7.1-3. Figure 7.1-5 shows aquifer flow direction and water-level change between 1990-1991 and 2003-2004. Figure 7.1-6 contains hydrographs for selected wells shown on Figure 7.1-5. Figure 7.1-7 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 7.1-3 and Figure 7.1-5. • The major aquifer is basin fill. • Flow direction is from northeast to southwest generally following Cunningham Wash. Well Yields • Refer to Table 7.1-3 and Figure 7.1-7. • As shown on Figure 7.1-7, well yields generally range from 1,000 gallons per minute (gpm) to greater than 2,000 gpm. • One source of well yield information, based on 17 reported wells, indicates that the median well yield is 2,200 gpm. Natural Recharge • Refer to Table 7.1-3. • Natural recharge estimates range from less than 1,000 acre-feet per year (AFA) to 1,060 AFA. Water in Storage • Refer to Table 7.1-3. • Storage estimates for this basin range from 2.0 million acre-feet (maf) at a depth of 1,200 feet to 20 maf at a depth of 1,000 feet. Water Level • Refer to Figure 7.1-5. Water levels are shown for wells measured in 2003-2004. • The Department annually measures eleven index wells in this basin. Hydrographs for three index wells are shown on Figure 7.1-6. • The deepest water level shown on the map is 514 feet west of Conley Ranch and the shallowest water level shown on the map is 86 feet near the southwestern basin boundary. Section 7.1 Butler Valley Basin 97 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.1-3 Groundwater Data for the Butler Valley Basin Basin Area, in square miles: 288 Name and/or Geologic Units Major Aquifer(s): Basin Fill Range 15.6-2,910 Median 1590 (5 wells measured) Range 100-3,200 Median 2,200 (17 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 300-1,000 ADWR (1990) Range 0-2,500 Anning and Duet (1994) <1,000 Freethey and Anderson (1986) 1,060 Herndon (1985) 6,400,000 - 6,500,000 (to 1,200 ft) ADWR (1990 and 1994b) 2,000,0001 (to 1,200 ft) Freethey and Anderson (1986) 5,000,000 (to 1,200 ft) Arizona Water Commission (1975) 12,000,000 (to 700 ft) Herndon (1985) 20,000,000 (to 1,000 ft) USBOR (1979) Estimated Natural Recharge, in acre-feet/year: Estimated Water Currently in Storage, in acre-feet: Current Number of Index Wells: 13 Date of Last Water-level Sweep: 2004 (24 wells measured) 1 Predevelopment Estimate 10/8/2009 98 Section 7.1 Butler Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.1 Butler Valley Basin 99 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Figure 7.1-6 Butler Valley Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 500 A WELL DEPTH: 1000 ft USE: UNUSED basin fill B-08-13 04DDD1 550 1975 200 B 1985 1995 2005 basin fill B-08-14 20DAB WELL DEPTH: 545 ft USE: UNUSED 250 1975 150 C 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 520 ft USE: IRRIGATION 2005 basin fill B-07-15 02DDC 200 1975 1985 1995 2005 YEAR 100 Section 7.1 Butler Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.1 Butler Valley Basin 101 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.1.7 Water Quality of the Butler Valley Basin Wells, springs and mine sites with parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standard(s), including location and parameter(s) are shown in Table 7.1-4A. There are no impaired lakes or streams in this basin. Figure 7.1-8 shows the location of water quality occurrences keyed to Table 7.1-4. 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 7.1-4A. • Eight wells have parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standards. • The parameter most frequently equaled or exceeded was fluoride. Other parameters equaled or exceeded include arsenic, lead and nitrates. Table 7.1-4 Water Quality Exceedences in the Butler Valley Basin 1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Site Location Township Range Section Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water Standard (DWS) 2 8 North 8 North 7 North 7 North 7 North 7 North 7 North 7 North 14 West 14 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 20 29 2 10 12 13 15 15 As, F As, F, Pb F F As As F F, NO3 Map Key Site Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 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 Stream Reach (in Lake (in acres) miles) Designated Use Standard Parameter(s) Exceeding Use Standard None identified by ADWR at this time Notes: 1 2 Water quality samples collected between 1979 and 1998. As = Arsenic NO3 = Nitrate F = Fluoride Pb = Lead 102 Section 7.1 Butler Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.1 Butler Valley Basin 103 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.1.8 Cultural Water Demands in the Butler 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 7.1-5. Figure 7.1-9 shows the location of demand centers. There is no recorded effluent generation in this basin. A description of cultural water demand data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. More detailed information on cultural water demands is found in Section 7.0.7. Cultural Water Demands • Refer to Table 7.1-5 and Figure 7.1-9. • Population in this basin is very small, with 15 residents in 2000. • There are no surface water diversions in this basin. Most cultural water use is for irrigation east of Butler Valley Road in the southwestern portion of the basin. Agricultural water use increased 185% from 1991-2005 with 9,700 acre-feet of demand per year on average from 2001 to 2005. • Municipal water demand is minimal and did not increase from 1991 to 2005. • As of 2005 there were 18 registered wells with a pumping capacity of less than or equal to 35 gpm and 21 wells with a pumping capacity of more than 35 gpm. 104 Section 7.1 Butler Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.1-5 Cultural Water Demand in the Butler Valley Basin1 Year Average Annual Demand (in acre-feet) Number of Registered Estimated Water Supply Wells Drilled and Well Pumpage Surface-Water Diversions Projected Population Q < 35 gpm Q > 35 gpm Municipal Industrial Agricultural Municipal Industrial Agricultural 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 5 1981 6 1982 6 1983 7 1984 7 1985 8 1986 8 1987 9 1988 9 1989 10 1990 10 1991 11 1992 11 1993 12 1994 12 1995 13 1996 13 1997 14 1998 14 1999 15 2000 15 2001 15 2002 15 2003 15 2004 15 2005 15 2010 15 2020 15 2030 16 WELL TOTALS: 122 4,000 NR 4,000 NR Data Source 192 ADWR (1994a) 1 0 4,000 NR 2 0 4,000 NR 2 0 <300 NR 3,4003 NR 1 2 <300 NR 8,300 NR 0 0 <300 NR 9,700 NR 18 21 USGS (2007) 1 Does not include effluent or evaporation losses from stockponds and reservoirs. Includes all wells through 1980. 3 Data not available for 1991-1993, average shown is 1994-1995 NR - Not reported 2 10/8/2009 Section 7.1 Butler Valley Basin 105 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 106 Section 7.1 Butler Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.1.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Butler Valley Basin Water adequacy determination information including the subdivision name, location, number of lots, adequacy determination, reason for an inadequacy determination, date of determination and subdivision water provider are shown in Table 7.1-6. Figure 7.1-10 shows the general locations of subdivisions (to the section level) 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 La Paz County. One water adequacy determination for 76 lots has been made in this basin through December 2008; all lots were inadequate. The reason for the inadequacy was because the applicant chose not to submit necessary information and/or available hydrologic data were insufficient to make a determination. Table 7.1-6 Adequacy Determinations in the Butler Valley Basin1 Location Map Key Subdivision Name 1 Saguaro Acres Township Range Section No. of Lots 7 North 13 West 7 76 County La Paz ADWR File No.2 ADWR Adequacy Determination Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination 3 Date of Determination Water Provider at the Time of Application 53-402268 Inadequate A1 9/6/2006 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 = Data not currently available to ADWR Section 7.1 Butler Valley Basin 107 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 108 Section 7.1 Butler Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Butler Valley 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 Water Resources (ADWR), 2008, Assured and adequate water supply applications: Project files, ADWR Hydrology Division. _____, 2005a, Flood warning gages: Database, ADWR Office of Water Engineering. _____, 2005b, Groundwater Site Inventory (GWSI): Database, ADWR Hydrology Division. _____, 2005c, Registry of surface water rights: ADWR Office of Water Management. _____, 2005d, Wells55: Database. _____, 2002, Groundwater quality exceedences in rural Arizona from 1975 to 2001: Data file, ADWR Office of Regional Strategic Planning. _____, 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, D.W., January, 16, 1990. Arizona Land Resource Information System (ALRIS), 2005, Springs: GIS cover, accessed January 2006 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index.html. _____, 2004, Land ownership: GIS cover, accessed in 2004 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/ index.html. Arizona 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) H Herndon, R.L., 1985, Hydrogeology of Butler Valley, AZ: an artificial recharge and groundwater storage pre-feasibility study, University of Arizona, 106 p. Section 7.1 Butler Valley Basin 109 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 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 Bureau of Reclamation (USBOR), 1979, Butler Valley exploratory well no 1, Butler Valley, Arizona, reject stream replacement study: Colorado River Salintiy Control Project, Title I Division, Arizona. United States Geological Survey (USGS), 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. 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., 2002, Estimation and analysis of the uncertainty in stream flow and change in reservoir-content data at selected stream flow-gauging stations in the Lower Colorado River network, 1995-99: University of Arizona, M.S. thesis. Oram, P., 1987, Map showing groundwater conditions in the Butler Valley Basin La Paz County, Arizona: Arizona Department of Water Resources Hydrologic Map Series #13. 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. Santec Consulting, 1999, Small and minor watercourses analysis for La Paz County, Arizona, Arizona State Land Department, Final Report. 110 Section 7.1 Butler Valley Basin Section 7.2 Gila Bend Basin 111 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.2.1 Geography of the Gila Bend Basin The Gila Bend Basin, located in the east central part of the planning area, is 1,284 square miles in area. Geographic features and principal communities are shown on Figure 7.2-1. The basin is characterized by washes and a series of small mountain ranges. Vegetation types include Lower Colorado River Valley and Arizona uplands Sonoran desertscrub. (See Figure 7.0-9) • Principal geographic features shown on Figure 7.2-1 are: o The Gila River running east to west in the northern portion of the basin and Painted Rock Reservoir, which during flood events impounds the river o Quilotosa and Sauceda Washes south of Gila Bend o Maricopa and Sand Tank Mountains in the eastern portion of the basin, the Sauceda Mountains in the south and the Gila Bend Mountains in the north o The highest point in the basin at 3,183 feet in the Maricopa Mountains o The lowest point in the basin about 660 feet at Painted Rock Dam where the Gila River exits the basin 112 Section 7.2 Gila Bend Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.2 Gila Bend Basin 113 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.2.2 Land Ownership in the Gila Bend Basin Land ownership, including the percentage of ownership by category, for the Gila Bend Basin is shown in Figure 7.2-2. Principal features of land ownership in this basin are the large areas of military and 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 7.0.4. Land ownership categories are discussed below in the order of largest to smallest percentage in the basin. U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) • 41.7% of the land is federally owned and managed by the Lower Sonoran Office of the Bureau of Land Management. • BLM land in this basin includes 238,700 acres of the 487,000 acre Sonoran Desert National Monument and 49,000 acres of the 64,000 acre Woolsey Peak Wilderness. (See Figure 7.012) • Land uses include resource conservation, recreation and grazing. U.S. Military • 33.5% of the land is federally owned and managed by the U.S. Military as the Barry Goldwater Air Force Range. • Primary land use is military activity. Private • 15.7% of the land is private. • The majority of the private land is in the center of the basin in the vicinity of Gila Bend, Highway 89 and Interstate 8. • Land uses include domestic, commercial and ranching. State Trust Land • 6.2% of the land is held in trust for the public schools under the State Trust Land system. • Primary land use is grazing. Indian Reservation • 2.8% of the land is under tribal ownership including all of the Gila Bend Indian Reservation and a small portion of the Tohono O’odham Indian Reservation. Both are part of the Tohono O’odham Nation • Land uses include agriculture, domestic and grazing. Other (Game and Fish, County and Bureau of Reclamation Lands) • 0.1% of the land is owned by Maricopa County. • County land is located on the northern basin boundary and is managed as the Buckeye Hills County Park. • Primary land use is recreation. 114 Section 7.2 Gila Bend Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.2 Gila Bend Basin 115 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.2.3 Climate of the Gila Bend Basin Climate data from NOAA/NWS Co-op Network and AZMET stations are complied in Table 7.2-1 and the locations are shown on Figure 7.2-3. Figure 7.2-3 also shows precipitation contour data from the Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS) at Oregon State University. The Gila Bend Basin does not contain Evaporation Pan or SNOTEL/ Snowcourse stations. More detailed information on climate in the planning area is found in Section 7.0.3. A description of climate data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network • Refer to Table 7.2-1A • There is one NOAA/NWS Co-op Network station in the basin, Gila Bend, with a maximum monthly temperature of 94.1°F in July and a minimum monthly temperature of 55.0°F in December and January. • Highest average seasonal rainfall, 2.49 inches, occurs in both the summer (July-September) and fall (October-December) seasons when 66% of the annual average precipitation occurs. AZMET • Refer to Table 7.2-1C • There is one evaporation pan station in the basin, Paloma. This pan is at 719 feet and has an annual evaporation rate of 75.27 inches. SCAS Precipitation Data • See Figure 7.2-3 • Additional precipitation data shows average annual rainfall as high as 14 inches at the southeastern tip of the basin and as low as four inches along the western basin boundary. 116 Section 7.2 Gila Bend Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.2-1 Climate Data for the Gila Bend Basin A. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network: Station Name Gila Bend Elevation Period of Record (in feet) Used for Averages 730 1971 - 2000 Average Temperature Range (in F) Average Precipitation (in inches) Max/Month Min/Month Winter Spring Summer Fall Annual 94.1/Jul 55.0/Dec, Jan 2.21 0.39 2.49 2.49 7.01 Source: WRCC, 2005 B. Evaporation Pan: Station Name Elevation Period of Record (in feet) Used for Averages Avg. Annual Evaporation (in inches) None C. AZMET: Station Name Paloma Elevation Period of Record (in feet) 719 Average Annual Reference Evaportranspiration, in inches (Number of years to calculate averages) 75.27 (9) 1999 - current Source: Arizona Meteorological Network, 2007 D. SNOTEL/Snowcourse: Station Name Elevation Period of Record (in feet) 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 7.2 Gila Bend Basin 117 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 118 Section 7.2 Gila Bend Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.2.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Gila Bend Basin Streamflow data, including average seasonal flow, average annual flow and other information are shown in Table 7.2-2. Flood ALERT equipment in the basin is shown in Table 7.2-3. Reservoir and stockpond data, including maximum storage or maximum surface area, are shown in Table 7.2-4. The location of streamflow gages identified by USGS number, flood ALERT equipment, USGS runoff contours and large reservoirs are shown on Figure 7.2-4. Descriptions of stream, reservoir and stockpond data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Streamflow Data • Refer to Table 7.2-2. • Data from three stations located at two watercourses are shown in the table and on Figure 7.2-4. • Average seasonal flow is highest at most stations in the winter (January-March) or spring (April-June). • The largest annual flow recorded in the basin is 5.7 million acre-feet (maf) in 1993 at the Gila River below Gillespie Dam station with a contributing drainage area of 49,650 square miles. Gillespie Dam was breached during the 1993 flood. Flood ALERT Equipment • Refer to Table 7.2-3. • As of October 2005 there were nine stations in this basin. Reservoirs and Stockponds • Refer to Table 7.2-4. • The basin contains one large reservoir, Painted Rock, with a maximum storage of 4,831,500 acre-feet. This reservoir is used for flood control and is only filled during flood events. • Surface water is stored or could be stored in two small reservoirs in the basin. • There are 24 registered stockponds in this basin. Runoff Contour • Refer to Figure 7.2-4. • Average annual runoff is highest, 0.2 inches per year or 10.66 acre-feet per square mile, in the southernmost portion of the basin and decreases to 0.1 inches, or 5.33 acre-feet per square mile, in the remainder of the basin. Section 7.2 Gila Bend Basin 119 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.2-2 Streamflow Data for the Gila Bend Basin Drainage Area (in mi2) Gage Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Gila River below Gillespie Dam 49,650 753 9519760 Sauceda Wash near Gila Bend 126 9519800 Gila River below Painted Rock Dam 50,910 Station Number USGS Station Name 9519500 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 8/1921-current 66 13 7 13 0 (1956) 43,185 327,935 5,675,984 (1993) 84 900 10/1989-9/1994 (discontinued) 6 0 83 10 4 (1992) 195 385 1,144 (1990) 4 519 10/1959-current (real time) 36 36 16 13 0 (1962, 2002) 5,185 330,347 5,088,672 (1993) 43 Source: USGS (NWIS) 2005 & 2008 Notes: NA = Not available Statistics based on Calendar Year Annual Flow statistics based on monthly values Annual Flow/Year statistics were only completed for those gages that had at least 3 years of 12 month records 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 120 Section 7.2 Gila Bend Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.2-3 Flood ALERT Equipment in the Gila Bend Basin Station ID Station Name Station Type Install Date Responsibility 5060 G&F Woolsey Peak Weather Station/Stage 6/25/2003 Maricopa County FCD 6905 Gillespie Dam Precipitation 4/12/1994 Maricopa County FCD 6910 Gila Bend Landfill Weather Station 4/7/1993 Maricopa County FCD 6920 Sauceda Wash Precipitation/Stage 2/28/1990 Maricopa County FCD 6930 Sand Tank @ I-8 Precipitation/Stage 6/28/2001 Maricopa County FCD 6940 Sand Tank Wash Precipitation 7/21/1983 Maricopa County FCD 6950 Rainbow Wash Precipitation/Stage 11/6/2000 Maricopa County FCD 6955 Maricopa Mountains Precipitation 4/21/2005 Maricopa County FCD 6960 Bender Wash Precipitation/Stage 1/12/1982 Maricopa County FCD Source: ADWR 2005b Notes: FCD = Flood Control District Section 7.2 Gila Bend Basin 121 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.2-4 Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Gila Bend 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 Painted Rock Bureau of Reclamation 4,831,500 C 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: 2 Total maximum storage: 171 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: 24 Notes: C = Flood control 1 122 Section 7.2 Gila Bend Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.2 Gila Bend Basin 123 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.2.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Gila Bend Basin The total number of springs in the basin are shown in Table 7.2-5. The locations of perennial streams are shown on Figure 7.2-5. Descriptions of data sources and methods for intermittent and perennial reaches and springs are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. • • • There are no perennial streams and one intermittent stream, the Gila River. There are no major or minor springs in the basin. The total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by the USGS varies from zero to one, depending on the database reference. Table 7.2-5 Springs in the Gila Bend Basin A. Major Springs (10 gpm or greater): Map Key Location Name Latitude Longitude Discharge (in gpm) Date Discharge Measured None identified by ADWR at this time B. Minor Springs (1 to 10 gpm): Location Name Latitude Longitude Discharge (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): 0 to 1 124 Section 7.2 Gila Bend Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.2 Gila Bend Basin 125 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.2.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Gila Bend Basin Major aquifers, well yields, estimated water in storage, number of index wells and date of last water-level sweep are shown in Table 7.2-6. Figure 7.2-6 shows aquifer flow direction and waterlevel change between 1990-1991 and 2003-2004. Figure 7.2-7 contains hydrographs for selected wells shown on Figure 7.2-6. Figure 7.2-8 shows well yields in five yield categories. A description of aquifer data sources and methods as well as well data sources and methods, including waterlevel changes and well yields are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Major Aquifers • Refer to Table 7.2-6 and Figure 7.2-6 • The major aquifer is basin fill. • Flow direction is from north to southwest in the center of the basin and from the west to east in the northern portion of the basin. Well Yields • Refer to Table 7.2-6 and Figure 7.2-8 • As shown on Figure 7.2-8, well yields are generally greater than 2,000 gallons per minute (gpm). • One source of well yield information, based on 242 reported wells, indicates that the median well yield is 2,700 gpm. Natural Recharge • Refer to Table 7.2-6 • Natural recharge estimates range from 10,000 acre-feet per year (AFA) to 37,000 AFA. • The largest source of natural recharge in the basin occurs from Gila River flood events and infiltration of water impounded behind Painted Rock Dam (ADWR 1994b). Water in Storage • Refer to Table 7.2-6 • Storage estimates for this basin range from 17maf to 61 maf, both to a depth of 1,200 feet. Water Level • Refer to Figure 7.2-6. Water levels are shown for wells measured in 2003-2004. • The Department annually measures 30 index wells in this basin. Hydrographs for seven index wells are shown on Figure 7.2-7. • The deepest water level shown on the map is 639 feet south of Maricopa Road and the shallowest is 34 feet near the western basin boundary. 126 Section 7.2 Gila Bend Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.2-6 Groundwater Data for the Gila Bend Basin Basin Area, in square miles: 1,284 Name and/or Geologic Units Basin Fill Major Aquifer(s): Range 300-4,266 Median 2,221 (107 wells measured) Range 7-5,800 Median 2,700 (242 wells reported) Well Yields, in gal/min: Estimated Natural Recharge, in acre-feet/year: Estimated Water Currently in Storage, in acre-feet: Measured by ADWR (GWSI) and/or USGS Reported on registration forms for large (>10-inch) diameter wells (Wells55) Range 300-3,000 ADWR (1990) Range 0-2,500 Anning and Duet (1994) Range 1,000-5,000 ADWR HMS 29 (1996) 26,000 ADWR (1996) 37,000 Freethey and Anderson (1986) 10,000 Arizona Water Commission (1975) 27,600,000 (to 1,200 ft) ADWR (1994b) 17,000,0001 (to 1,200 ft) Freethey and Anderson (1986) 61,000,000 (to 1,200 ft) Arizona Water Commission (1975) Current Number of Index Wells: 31 Date of Last Water-level Sweep: 2008 (241 wells measured) 1 Predevelopment Estimate 10/15/2009 Section 7.2 Gila Bend Basin 127 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 128 Section 7.2 Gila Bend Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Figure 7.2-7 Gila Bend Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells 250 A WELL DEPTH: 600 ft USE: UNUSED basin fill C-02-04 26BDA Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 300 350 1975 0 B 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 1500 ft USE: IRRIGATION 2005 basin fill C-03-05 02CBB 50 100 1975 50 C 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 300 ft USE: UNUSED 2005 basin fill C-04-04 09BAA1 100 150 200 1975 1985 1995 2005 YEAR Section 7.2 Gila Bend Basin 129 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Figure 7.2-7 (Cont) Gila Bend Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells 0 D basin fill C-04-07 34CDC WELL DEPTH: 830 ft USE: UNUSED 50 Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 100 1975 150 E 1985 WELL DEPTH: 1217 ft USE: IRRIGATION 200 1975 125 F 1995 2005 basin fill C-05-04 31ADD 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 1875 ft USE: IRRIGATION 2005 basin fill C-05-06 31CBB 175 225 275 275 1975 G 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 632 ft USE: PUBLIC SUPPLY 325 1975 130 1985 2005 basin fill C-06-05 25BBB2 YEAR 1995 2005 Section 7.2 Gila Bend Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.2 Gila Bend Basin 131 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.2.7 Water Quality of the Gila Bend Basin Wells, springs and mine sites with parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standard(s), including location and parameter(s) are shown in Table 7.2-7A. Impaired lakes and streams with site type, name, length of impaired reach, area of impaired lake, designated use standard and parameter(s) exceeded is shown in Table 7.2-7B. Figure 7.2-9 shows the location of water quality occurrences keyed to Table 7.2-7. 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 7.2-7A. • One hundred and twenty-two wells have parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standards. • Ninety-two percent of the wells measured equaled or exceeded the parameter for fluoride. • Other parameters equaled or exceeded include arsenic, nitrate, mercury, selenium and total dissolved solids. Lakes and Streams with impaired waters • Refer to Table 7.2-7B. • The water quality standard for organics was equaled or exceeded in three reaches of the Gila River totaling 41 miles. The standard for organics was also equaled or exceeded in 100 acres of the Painted Rock Reservoir. • None of the reaches or the lake are part of the ADEQ water quality improvement effort, the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program, at this time. Effluent Dependent Reaches • See Figure 7.2-9 • There is one effluent dependent reach north of Gila Bend. This reach receives effluent from the Gila Bend Wastewater Treatment Plant. 132 Section 7.2 Gila Bend Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.2-7 Water Quality Exceedences in the Gila Bend Basin 1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Township Range Section Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water Standard (DWS)2 2 South 2 South 2 South 2 South 2 South 2 South 2 South 2 South 3 South 3 South 3 South 3 South 3 South 3 South 3 South 3 South 3 South 3 South 4 South 4 South 4 South 4 South 4 South 4 South 4 South 4 South 4 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 4 West 4 West 4 West 4 West 4 West 4 West 4 West 4 West 4 West 4 West 4 West 4 West 4 West 4 West 4 West 4 West 4 West 4 West 4 West 4 West 4 West 4 West 4 West 4 West 4 West 6 West 6 West 4 West 4 West 4 West 4 West 4 West 4 West 4 West 4 West 4 West 4 West 4 West 4 West 4 West 4 West 4 West 4 West 4 West 4 West 4 West 4 West 5 West 5 West 25 25 32 32 33 33 33 33 5 9 9 9 15 15 16 23 27 28 3 4 10 21 22 28 32 28 36 3 3 4 9 10 10 16 16 17 18 21 21 29 29 29 31 31 31 31 31 18 18 F F F F F F, NO3, TDS F F F F, NO3 F F F F F F F TDS NO3 NO3, TDS F F, TDS F F NO3 F F NO3 F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F As, F, Hg F TDS 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 Site Type 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 Well Well Well Section 7.2 Gila Bend Basin 133 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.2-7 Water Quality Exceedences in the Gila Bend Basin (Cont) 1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Township Range Section Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water Standard (DWS)2 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 6 West 6 West 6 West 6 West 6 West 6 West 6 West 7 West 7 West 7 West 7 West 7 West 7 West 3 West 3 West 4 West 4 West 4 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 5 West 6 West 6 West 6 West 6 West 6 West 19 20 21 22 22 23 24 24 36 3 11 11 16 31 31 34 26 35 35 36 36 36 18 19 20 20 20 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 6 8 25 4 4 6 10 11 F F F F F F F F F F F F TDS F, As F F, TDS F F F F F F As, F F F As, F F F F F As, F F F F F F F As, F As, F F F F, NO3, TDS As, F As, F F F F F, Se F Site Location Map Key Site Type 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 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 Well Well Well 134 Section 7.2 Gila Bend Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.2-7 Water Quality Exceedences in the Gila Bend Basin (Cont) 1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Township Range Section Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water Standard (DWS)2 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 6 West 7 West 7 West 7 West 7 West 7 West 7 West 7 West 6 West 6 West 6 West 6 West 6 West 6 West 6 West 6 West 6 West 6 West 6 West 6 West 6 West 6 West 6 West 6 West 33 2 2 11 11 11 11 12 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 As, F F F F As, F F F F As, F As As, F F F F F As, F As, F As, F As, F As F F F As, F Site Location Map Key 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 Site Type Well Well Well Well 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 Length of Area of Designated Use Impaired Stream Impaired Lake Standard3 Reach (in miles) (in acres) Parameter(s) Exceeding Use Standard2 Map Key Site Type Site Name a Stream Gila River (Gillespie Dam to Rainbow Wash) 5 NA FC Organics b Stream Gila River (Rainbow Wash to Sand Tank) 17 NA FC Organics c Stream Gila River (Sand Tank to Painted Rock Reservoir) 19 NA FC Organics d Lake Painted Rock Reservoir NA 100 FC Organics Source: ADEQ 2005d Notes: 1 Water quality samples collected between 1975 and 2001. Listed TDS exceedences indicate "mineralized water" that contains over 3000 milligrams per liter (mg/l) of TDS and would require special well construction procedures (A.A.C. R12-15-812(B)). The secondary drinking water standard for TDS is 500 mg/l. 2 As = Arsenic NO3 = Nitrate F = Fluoride Hg = Mercury Organics = One or more of several volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds and pesticides Se = Selenium TDS = Total Dissolved Solids 3 FC = Fish Consumption Section 7.2 Gila Bend Basin 135 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 136 Section 7.2 Gila Bend Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.2.8 Cultural Water Demands in the Gila Bend 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 7.2-8. Effluent generation including facility ownership, location, population served and not served, volume treated, disposal method and treatment level is shown in Table 7.2-9. Figure 7.210 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 demands is found in Section 7.0.7. Cultural Water Demands • Refer to Table 7.2-8 and Figure 7.2-10. • Population in this basin decreased from 3,437 in 1980 to 4,256 in 2000. • Most cultural water use is for irrigation in the northern portion of the basin. • Agricultural groundwater demand increased 18% and surface water demand decreased 25% from 1991 to 2005. • There was no reported industrial groundwater demand prior to 2003. In 2003 the Gila River Power Plant and the Citrus Valley Dairy began operation. The Painted Rock Dairy began operation in 2004. Total average water demand for the three uses was 4,700 AFA from 2003-2005. • Municipal groundwater demand is small and increased 18% from 1991 to 2005. • As of 2005 there were 146 registered wells with a pumping capacity of less than or equal to 35 gallons per minute and 391 wells with a pumping capacity of more than 35 gallons per minute. Effluent Generation • Refer to Table 7.2-9. • There are four wastewater treatment facilities in this basin. • Information on population served was available for three facilities and information on the volume of effluent generated was available for two facilities. These facilities serve almost 4,900 people, 3,400 of which are at the Lewis Prison, and generate almost 800 acre-feet of effluent per year. • Effluent is discharged to evaporation ponds and a watercourse (overland flow) and is not reused. Section 7.2 Gila Bend Basin 137 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.2-8 Cultural Water Demand in the Gila Bend 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) Estimated and Number of Registered Water Supply Wells Drilled Projected Well Pumpage Surface-Water Diversions Population Q < 35 gpm Q > 35 gpm Municipal Industrial Agricultural Municipal Industrial Agricultural 982 3,437 3,402 3,367 3,332 3,297 3,262 3,227 3,192 3,157 3,122 3,087 3,204 3,321 3,438 3,555 3,672 3,789 3,905 4,022 4,139 4,256 4,688 5,119 5,551 5,983 6,415 8,573 10,268 15,392 WELL TOTALS: 237,000 78,000 274,000 102,000 Data Source 3072 ADWR (1994a) 8 18 245,000 117,000 6 16 179,000 99,000 3 17 700 NR 8 16 700 NR 23 27 800 4,700 146 391 237,000 3 NR NR 71,500 244,000 NR NR 68,500 289,000 NR NR 54,000 USGS (2007) ADWR (2008b) 1 Does not include effluent or evaporation losses from stockponds and reservoirs. Includes all wells through 1980. 3 Water use shown is for the Gila River Power Plant (4,600 acre-feet) and the Citrus Valley Dairy (100 acre-feet) that opened in 2003 and the Painted Rock Dairy that opened 2004 (60 acre-feet). NR - Not reported 2 10/15/2009 138 Section 7.2 Gila Bend Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.2-9 Effluent Generation in the Gila Bend Basin Volume Treated/Generated (acre-feet/year) Disposal Method Facility Name Ownership City/Location Served Population Served Auxiliary Field US Air Force Airfield 70 Gila Bend WWTP Municipal Gila Bend 1,440 392 Lewis WWTP Arizona Department of Corrections Prison 3,400 403 X Panda Gila River Project Private Power plant Industrial NA X 4,910 795 Total Watercourse Evaporation Pond Golf Irrigation Course/Turf/ Landscape Wildlife Area Discharged to Another Facility Infiltration Basins Other (Overland Flow) Current Treatment Level Population Not Served Year of Record Adv. Trt.I 600 2003 Adv.Tr.I NA 2004 NA X 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 WWTP: Waste Water Treatment Plant Adv. Trt. I: Advanced Treatment Level I Section 7.2 Gila Bend Basin 139 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 140 Section 7.2 Gila Bend Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.2.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Gila Bend Basin Water adequacy determination information including the subdivision name, location, number of lots, adequacy determination, reason for an inadequacy determination, date of determination and subdivision water provider are shown in Table 7.2-10. Figure 7.2-11 shows the general locations of subdivisions (to the section level) 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 Maricopa County. Six water adequacy determinations for 222 lots have been made in this basin through December 2008. Forty-three lots, or 18%, were determined to be adequate. Reasons for a determination of inadequacy included water quality and because the applicant chose not to submit necessary information and/or available hydrologic data were insufficient to make a determination. There are five analysis of Adequate Water Supply applicants for a total of 37,577 lots. Section 7.2 Gila Bend Basin 141 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.2-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Gila Bend Basin 1 A. Water Adequacy Reports Location Map Key Subdivision Name Current Place Subdivision, Unit 1 Dos Lagos, Lots 1 through 64, Tracts A through N 2 3 5 Gila Bend Estates Palo Verde Heights Unit I Spring Mountain Ski Ranch 8 10 11 Zuni Estates 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 No. of Lots Maricopa 5 South 4 East 31 30 53-300552 Inadequate A1 10/23/1998 Town of Gila Bend Maricopa 4 South 4 East 3 64 53-700383 Inadequate A1 7/27/2007 Town of Gila Bend Maricopa 5 South 5 East 36 35 53-400726 Inadequate A1,C 7/10/2002 Town of Gila Bend Maricopa 5 South 4 East 31 24 53-400094 Adequate 6/22/1999 Town of Gila Bend Maricopa 2 South 5 East 35 50 53-401600 Inadequate 3/4/2005 Unformed HOA Maricopa 5 South 5 East 36 19 53-501721 Adequate 12/1/1975 Town of Gila Bend Section No. of Lots ADWR File No.2 Date of Determination Water Provider at the Time of Application County A1 B. Analysis of Adequate Water Supply Location Map Key 1 Subdivision Name Belvedere 4 Enterprise Ranch 6 Insignia 7 Ladera 9 Sonoran Trails County Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Township Range 3 South 4 East 6 13,120 43-401992 7/7/2006 NA 2 South 3 South 5 East 4 East 3 South 5 East 8,393 43-500008 10/14/2008 Undetermined 4 South 4 East 28, 32, 34 19, 30, 31 3, 11, 12, 13, 24, 25 6 2 South 5 East 36 2,091 43-500090 6/12/2007 Town of Buckeye 28, 29, 31, 32, 33 5, 6 5,864 43-500044 3/5/2008 NA 8,109 43-700427 5/9/2008 NA 2 South 4 East 3 South 4 East 5 South 4 East 3, 10 4 South 4 East 9, 10, 15, 22, 27, 34 Maricopa Notes: 1 2 Each determination of the adequacy of water supplies available to a subdivision is based on the information available to ADWR and the standards of review and policies in effect at the time the determination was made. In some cases, ADWR might make a different determination if a similar application were submitted today, based on the hydrologic data and other information currently available, as well as current rules and policies. 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 142 Section 7.2 Gila Bend Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.2 Gila Bend Basin 143 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Gila Bend 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 table) _____, 2005b, ADEQWWTP: Data file, received August 2005. (Effluent Table) _____, 2005c, Effluent dependent waters: GIS cover, received December 2005. (Water Quality Map) _____, 2005d, Impaired lakes and reaches: GIS cover, received January 2006. _____, 2005e, WWTP and permit files: Miscellaneous working files, received July 2005. (Effluent 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. _____, 2005a, Agricultural Surface Water Use Estimates: Unpublished analysis, ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning. _____, 2005b, Flood warning gages: Database, ADWR Office of Water Engineering. _____, 2005c, Inspected dams: Database, ADWR Office of Dam Safety. (Reservoirs Table) _____, 2005d, Non-jurisdictional dams: Database, ADWR Office of Dam Safety. (Reservoirs Table) _____, 2005e, Groundwater Site Inventory (GWSI): Database, ADWR Hydrology Division. _____, 2005f, Registry of surface water rights: ADWR Office of Water Management. (Reservoirs 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 Planning Division, Memorandum to L. Linser, D.W., January, 16, 1990. Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGF), 1997, Remote Sensing Mapping of Arizona Intermittent Stream Riparian Areas: 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 January 2006 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/ index.html _____ (ALRIS), 2004, Land ownership: GIS cover, accessed in 2004 at http://www.land.state. 144 Section 7.2 Gila Bend Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 az.us/alris/index.html. Arizona Meteorological Network (AZMET), 2007, Arizona climate stations: Pan evaporation data, accessed December 2005 at http://www.ag.arizona.edu/azmet/locate.html. Arizona Water Commission, 1975, Summary, Phase I, Arizona State Water Plan, Inventory of resource and uses. E Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2005, Surf Your Watershed: Facility reports, accessed April 2005 at http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/ef_home2.water. (Effluent Table) _____, 2005, 2000 and 1996, Clean Watershed Needs Survey: datasets, accessed March 2005 at http://www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/cwns/index.htm. (Effluent 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), 2006, Average annual precipitation in Arizona for 1961-1990: PRISM GIS cover, accessed in 2006 at www.ocs. orst.edu/prism. U US Army Corps of Engineers, 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 Table) United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2008 & 2005, National Water Information System (NWIS) data for Arizona: Accessed October 2008 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. Section 7.2 Gila Bend Basin 145 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 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. Anning, D.W., 2002, Estimation and analysis of the uncertainty in stream flow and change in reservoir-content data at selected stream flow-gaging stations in the Lower Colorado River network, 1995-99: University of Arizona, M.S. thesis. Errol L. Montgomery & Associates, Inc., 2006, Hydrologic Study for Demonstration of Adequate Water Supply for the John’s Ranch Parcel Near Gila Bend, Maricopa County, Arizona. Prepared for Arizona Department of Water Resources. Fluid Solutions, 2000, Hydrologic Study, Spring Mountain Ski Ranch, Township 2 South, Range 5 West, East Half Section 35. Prepared for Arizona Department of Water Resources. Gebler, J. B., 1998, Water quality of selected effluent dependent stream reaches in southern Arizona as indicated by concentrations of periphytic chlorophyll a and aquatic invertebrate communities: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 98-4199, 12 p. Huckleberry, G., 1996, Historical geomorphology of the Gila River: AZGS Open –File Report 96-14, 31 p. King, K. A. and D.L. Baker, 1995, Contaminants in fish and wildlife of the middle Gila River, Arizona: USFWS unnumbered report, 17 p. Rascona, S.J., 1996, Maps showing groundwater conditions in the Gila Bend basin, Maricopa County, Arizona 1993: Arizona Department of Water Resources, Hydrologic Map Series Report #29. 146 Section 7.2 Gila Bend Basin Section 7.3 Harquahala Basin 147 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.3.1 Geography of the Harquahala Basin The Harquahala Basin, located in the northeastern part of the planning area, is 766 square miles in area. Geographic features and principal places are shown on Figure 7.3-1. The basin is characterized by a plain bordered by mountain ranges. Vegetation types include Lower Colorado River Valley and Arizona uplands Sonoran desertscrub and a small amount of interior chaparral on the northern basin boundary. (See Figure 7.0-9) • Principal geographic features shown on Figure 7.3-1 are: o Centennial Wash running through the center of the basin o The Harquahala Plain in the center of the basin bordered by the Big Horn Mountains in the east, the Little Harquahala Mountains in the north and the Eagletail Mountains in the west o The highest point in the basin, Big Horn Peak, at 3,480 feet in the Big Horn Mountains o The lowest point in the basin at 1,000 feet where Centennial Wash exits the basin in T4N R12W. 148 Section 7.3 Harquahala Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.3 Harquahala Basin 149 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.3.2 Land Ownership in the Harquahala Basin Land ownership, including the percentage of ownership by category, for the Harquahala Basin is shown in Figure 7.3-2. The principal feature of land ownership in this basin is the large amount of U.S. Bureau of Land Management 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 7.0.4. Land ownership categories are discussed below in the order of largest to smallest percentage in the basin. U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) • 62.2% of the land is federally owned and managed by the Lower Sonoran Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management. • This basin contains 52,800 acres of wilderness. This includes 24,000 acres of the 100,000 acre Eagletail Mountains Wilderness, 18,000 acres of the 21,000 acre Big Horn Mountains Wilderness, 5,500 acres of the 31,000 acre Hummingbird Springs Wilderness and 5,300 acres of the 23,000 acre Harquahala Mountains Wilderness. (see Figure 7.0-11) • Land uses include resource conservation, recreation and grazing. Private • 25.1% of the land is private. • Land uses include domestic, commercial and grazing. State Trust Land • 12.6% of the land is held in trust for the public schools, the Pioneer Home and both the Dept of Corrections and Juvenile Corrections and county bonds under the State Trust Land system. • Primary land use is grazing. Other (Game and Fish, County and Bureau of Reclamation Lands) • 0.1% of the land is federally owned by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBOR) • USBOR lands are located in the western portion of the basin in the vicinity of Interstate 10 where they surround the Central Arizona Project aqueduct. 150 Section 7.3 Harquahala Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.3 Harquahala Basin 151 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.3.3 Climate of the Harquahala Basin Climate data from NOAA/NWS Co-op Network and AZMET stations are complied in Table 7.3-1 and the locations are shown on Figure 7.3-3. Figure 7.3-3 also shows precipitation contour data from the Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS) at Oregon State University. The Harquahala Basin does not contain Evaporation Pan or SNOTEL/ Snowcourse stations. More detailed information on climate in the planning area is found in Section 7.0.3. A description of the climate data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network • Refer to Table 7.3-1A • Temperatures at the two NOAA/NWS Co-op Network stations in the basin range from a maximum monthly temperature of 91.0°F at Salome 17 SE in July to a minimum monthly temperatuer of 48.0°F at Harquahala Plains in January. • Average seasonal rainfall follows a bi-modal pattern with approximately one-third of the average seasonal rainfall occurring in the winter (January-March) season and one-third in the summer (July-September) season. The highest average annual rainfall in the basin is 6.36 inches at the Salome 17 SE station. AZMET • Refer to Table 7.3-1C • There is one AZMET station in the basin, Harquahala. This station is at 1,150 feet and has an annual reference evaportranspiration rate of 82.13 inches. SCAS Precipitation Data • See Figure 7.3-3 • Additional precipitation data shows average annual rainfall as high as 18 inches in the Harquahala Mountains at the northern tip of the basin and as low as four inches in the southern and western portions of the basin. 152 Section 7.3 Harquahala Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.3-1 Climate Data for the Harquahala Basin A. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network: Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Used for Averages Harquahala Plains 1220 Salome 17 SE 1600 Station Name Average Temperature Range (in F) Average Precipitation (in inches) Max/Month Min/Month Winter Spring Summer Fall Annual 1952 - 19791 89.5/Jul 48.0/Jan 2.03 0.31 2.10 1.71 6.14 1987 - 19981 91.0/Jul 49.1/Dec 2.49 0.43 2.06 1.38 6.36 Source: WRCC, 2005 Notes: Average temperature data for period of record shown; precipitation data from 1971-2000 1 B. Evaporation Pan: Station Name Period of Record Used for Averages Elevation (in feet) Avg. Annual Evap (in inches) None C. AZMET: Station Name Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Average Annual Reference Evaportranspiration, in inches (Number of years to calculate averages ) Harquahala 1,150 1999 - current 81.55 (9) 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 Section 7.3 Harquahala Basin 153 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 154 Section 7.3 Harquahala Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.3.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Harquahala Basin Flood ALERT equipment in the basin is shown in Table 7.3-2. Reservoir and stockpond data, including maximum storage or maximum surface area, are shown in Table 7.3-3. The location of flood ALERT equipment and large reservoirs are shown on Figure 7.3-4. There are no USGS streamflow gages or runoff contour 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 7.3-2. • As of October 2005 there were 10 stations in this basin. Reservoirs and Stockponds • Refer to Table 7.3-3. • There are 42 registered stockponds in this basin. Table 7.3-2 Flood ALERT Equipment in the Harquahala Basin Station ID Station Name Station Type Install Date Responsibility 5065 Eagle Eye Rd. @ CAP Precipitation 6/17/2003 Maricopa County FCD 5080 Buckeye @ 547th Ave. Precipitation 6/13/2000 Maricopa County FCD 5085 Baseline @ 547th Ave. Precipitation 5/24/2000 Maricopa County FCD 5110 Saddleback FRS Precipitation/Stage 12/16/1988 Maricopa County FCD 5120 Centennial Levee Precipitation/Stage 3/7/1994 Maricopa County FCD 5125 Harquahala FRS Precipitation/Stage 9/15/1993 Maricopa County FCD 5140 Tiger Wash Fan Weather Station 9/21/1994 Maricopa County FCD 5150 Narrows Damsite Precipitation 9/1/1994 Maricopa County FCD 5160 Tiger Wash Precipitation/Stage 9/15/1999 Maricopa County FCD 5185 Harquahala Mtn. Repeater Repeater/Precipitation 2/11/1994 Maricopa County FCD Source: ADWR 2005a Notes: FCD = Flood Control District FRS = Flood Retention Structure Section 7.3 Harquahala Basin 155 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.3-3 Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Harquahala 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 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) 1 Total number: 1 Total surface area: 17 acres E. Stockponds (up to 15 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 42 Notes: Capacity data is not available to ADWR 1 156 Section 7.3 Harquahala Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.3 Harquahala Basin 157 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.3.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Harquahala Basin The total number of springs in the basin are shown in Table 7.3-4. There are no perennial or intermittent streams and no major or minor springs in the Harquahala Basin. Descriptions of data sources and methods for intermittent and perennial reaches and springs are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. • The total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by the USGS varies from zero to one, depending on the database reference. Table 7.3-4 Springs in the Harquahala Basin A. Major Springs (10 gpm or greater): Map Key Location Name Latitude Longitude Discharge (in gpm) Date Discharge Measured None identified by ADWR at this time B. Minor Springs (1 to 10 gpm): Location Name Latitude Longitude Discharge (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): 0 to 1 158 Section 7.3 Harquahala Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.3.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Harquahala Basin Major aquifers, well yields, estimated water in storage, number of index wells and date of last water-level sweep are shown in Table 7.3-5. Figure 7.3-5 shows aquifer flow direction and waterlevel change between 1990-1991 and 2003-2004. Figure 7.3-6 contains hydrographs for selected wells shown on Figure 7.3-5. Figure 7.3-7 shows well yields in six yield categories. A description of aquifer data sources and methods as well as well data sources and methods, including waterlevel changes and well yields are found in Volume 1, Appendix A Major Aquifers • Refer to Table 7.3-5 and Figure 7.3-5. • The major aquifer in this basin is basin fill. • Flow direction is generally from northwest to southeast and to a cone of depression in the central portion of the basin. • As shown on Figure 7.3-5, the water level in the area of the cone of depression has risen by at least one foot and as much as 30+ feet between 1990-1991 and 2003-2004 due to use of Central Arizona Project (CAP) water in place of groundwater and CAP recharge at the Vidler Recharge Facility west of Centennial. Well Yields • Refer to Table 7.3-5 and Figure 7.3-7 • As shown on Figure 7.3-7, well yields are generally between 1,000 gallons per minute (gpm) to greater than 2,000 gpm. • One source of well yield information, based on 157 reported wells, indicates that the median well yield is 1,620 gpm. Natural Recharge • Refer to Table 7.3-5 • Natural recharge estimates range from less than 1,000 acre-feet per year (AFA) to less than 1,200 AFA. • The largest source of natural recharge is runoff infiltration through the Centennial Wash alluvium (ADWR 1994b). Water in Storage • Refer to Table 7.3-5 • Storage estimates for this basin range from 13 million acre-feet (maf) to 27 maf to a depth of 1,200 feet. Water Level • Refer to Figure 7.3-5. Water levels are shown for wells measured in 2003-2004. • The Department annually measures 34 index wells in this basin. Hydrographs for 11 index wells are shown on Figure 7.3-6. • The deepest water level shown on the map is 561 feet in the southwestern portion of the basin and the shallowest is 25 feet in T1N R8W. Section 7.3 Harquahala Basin 159 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.3-5 Groundwater Data for the Harquahala Basin Basin Area, in square miles: 766 Name and/or Geologic Units Major Aquifer(s): Basin Fill Range 207-3,007 Median 1,613.5 (84 wells measured) Range 7-3,500 Median 1,620 (157 wells reported) Well Yields, in gal/min: Estimated Natural Recharge, in acre-feet/year: Reported on registration forms for large (>10-inch) diameter wells (Wells55) Range 300-3,000 ADWR (1990 and 1994b) Range 0-2,500 Anning and Duet (1994) <1,2001 Anderson and Freethey (1995) 1,000 Freethey and Anderson (1986) 1 Estimated Water Currently in Storage, in acre-feet: Measured by ADWR (GWSI) and/or USGS <1,000 Arizona Water Commission (1975) 15,500,000 (to 1,200 ft) ADWR (1994b) 2 13,000,000 (to 1,200 ft) Freethey and Anderson (1986) 27,000,000 (to 1,200 ft) Arizona Water Commission (1975) Current Number of Index Wells: 34 Date of Last Water-level Sweep: 2004 (115 wells measured) 1 Includes Tiger Wash Basin 2 Predevelopment Estimate 10/16/2009 160 Section 7.3 Harquahala Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.3 Harquahala Basin 161 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Figure 7.3-6 Harquahala Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells 300 A WELL DEPTH: 730 ft USE: UNUSED basin fill B-04-12 05ADA Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 350 400 450 500 1975 275 B 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 420 ft USE: STOCK 2005 basin fill B-03-13 28ADC 325 1975 C 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 980 ft USE: UNUSED 2005 basin fill B-03-11 01BCB 500 550 1975 1985 1995 2005 YEAR 162 Section 7.3 Harquahala Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Figure 7.3-6 (cont’d) Harquahala Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells 575 D WELL DEPTH: 400 FT USE: DOMESTIC basin fill B-03-09 08DDD2 625 Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 1975 325 E 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 765 ft USE: UNUSED 2005 basin fill B-02-10 17DCA 375 1975 450 F 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: UNKNOWN USE: UNUSED 2005 basin fill B-02-09 03BBB 500 550 600 1975 1985 1995 2005 YEAR Section 7.3 Harquahala Basin 163 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Figure 7.3-6 (cont’d) Harquahala Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells 400 G WELL DEPTH: 1560 ft USE: UNUSED basin fill B-02-08 17CAA Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 450 500 550 1975 425 H 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 561 ft USE: UNUSED 2005 basin fill B-01-09 29BCC 475 525 575 1975 1985 1995 2005 YEAR 164 Section 7.3 Harquahala Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Figure 7.3-6 (cont’d) Harquahala Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells 550 I WELL DEPTH: 893 ft USE: UNUSED basin fill C-01-09 18ACB Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 600 650 700 1975 300 J 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: UNKNOWN USE: UNUSED 2005 basin fill C-01-08 06DCC 350 400 450 1975 1985 1995 2005 YEAR Section 7.3 Harquahala Basin 165 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface Figure 7.3-6 (cont’d) Harquahala Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells 125 K WELL DEPTH: 535 ft USE: UNUSED basin fill C-01-08 34BCD 175 225 1975 1985 166 1995 2005 YEAR Section 7.3 Harquahala Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.3 Harquahala Basin 167 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.3.7 Water Quality of the Harquahala Basin Wells, springs and mine sites with parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standard(s), including location and parameter(s) are shown in Table 7.3-6A. There are no impaired lakes or streams in this basin. Figure 7.3-8 shows the location of water quality occurrences keyed to Table 7.3-6. 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 7.3-6A. • Eighty-two wells have parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standards. • The parameter most frequently equaled or exceeded was fluoride. • Other parameters equaled or exceeded include arsenic, lead, chromium, total dissolved solids and nitrates. 168 Section 7.3 Harquahala Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.3-6 Water Quality Exceedences in the Harquahala 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 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 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 Well Well Well Well Well Township Range Section Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water Standard (DWS)2 4 North 4 North 4 North 3 North 3 North 3 North 3 North 3 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 9 West 12 West 12 West 9 West 10 West 11 West 11 West 12 West 8 West 8 West 8 West 8 West 9 West 9 West 9 West 9 West 9 West 9 West 9 West 9 West 9 West 9 West 9 West 10 West 10 West 10 West 11 West 8 West 8 West 8 West 8 West 9 West 9 West 9 West 9 West 9 West 9 West 9 West 9 West 9 West 9 West 9 West 9 West 9 West 9 West 9 West 9 West 9 West 9 West 9 West 9 West 30 9 14 8 31 8 13 19 17 19 28 30 3 11 11 13 14 16 24 26 26 26 35 17 26 26 2 6 7 19 19 4 5 6 11 12 12 13 16 17 17 17 17 18 20 21 21 22 22 23 24 F F NO3 F F F, Hg F F F As F As, NO3 F As NO3 F As, F, NO3, TDS F As F As F, TDS F F F F F F, NO3 F F, NO3, TDS As, F, NO3 F NO3 F F F, NO3 F F F TDS F F F, Pb F F, NO3 F F F F F, NO3 F Section 7.3 Harquahala Basin 169 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.3-6 Water Quality Exceedences in the Harquahala Basin (Cont)1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Site Location Map Key Site Type 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 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 Township Range Section Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water Standard (DWS)2 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 North 1 South 1 South 1 South 1 South 1 South 1 South 1 South 1 South 1 South 1 South 1 South 1 South 1 South 1 South 1 South 1 South 1 South 1 South 1 South 1 South 1 South 1 South 1 South 1 South 1 South 9 West 9 West 9 West 10 West 10 West 10 West 7 West 8 West 8 West 8 West 8 West 8 West 8 West 8 West 8 West 8 West 8 West 8 West 8 West 8 West 8 West 9 West 9 West 9 West 9 West 9 West 9 West 9 West 9 West 9 West 9 West 26 31 36 1 1 12 19 4 6 6 6 8 8 9 14 14 20 22 27 27 27 1 2 2 3 5 7 10 11 11 11 F As, F F F F F F F As, Pb As, F F Cr, F F As, F, Pb F As F F F F F F F NO3 Pb, NO3 F F F F F F Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others B. Lakes and Streams Map Key Site Type Site Name Length of Area of Designated Use Impaired Stream Impaired Lake Standard Reach (in miles) (in acres) Parameter(s) Exceeding Use Standard None identified by ADWR at this time Notes: 1 Water quality samples collected between 1978 and 1991. Listed TDS exceedences indicate "mineralized water" that contains over 3000 milligrams per liter (mg/l) of TDS and would require special well construction procedures (A.A.C. R12-15-812(B)). The secondary drinking water standard for TDS is 500 mg/l. 2 As = Arsenic Cr = Chromium NO3 = Nitrate F = Fluoride Pb = Lead TDS = Total Dissolved Solids 170 Section 7.3 Harquahala Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.3 Harquahala Basin 171 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.3.8 Cultural Water Demands in the Harquahala 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 7.3-7. Figure 7.3-9 shows the location of demand centers. There is no recorded effluent generation in this basin. A description of cultural water demand data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. More detailed information on cultural water demands is found in Section 7.0.7. Cultural Water Demands • Refer to Table 7.3-7 and Figure 7.3-9. • Population in this basin increased from 359 in 1980 to 608 in 2000. • Most cultural water use is for irrigation in the southern and northwestern portions of the basin. • Groundwater use for agriculture increased from 9,500 AFA between 1991-1995 to 36,500 between 2001-2005; however, long-term agricultural groundwater use declined 68% from 1971 to 2005. The entire Harquahala Basin is within an Irrigation Non-Expansion Area (INA). The Harquahala INA was created in 1981; no new agricultural lands can be irrigated with groundwater in an INA. • Surface water use for irrigation began in 1986 with deliveries of Central Arizona Project water to the basin. Agricultural surface water demand increased from 79,000 AFA between 1986-1990 to 85,000 AFA between 1996-2000; but decreased to 69,600 AFA in 20012005. • There was no reported industrial groundwater demand prior to 2001-2005. The Harquahala Generating Project began operating in 2001. This plant used an average of 2,500 AFA from 2001 to 2005. • As of 2005 there were 196 registered wells with a pumping capacity of less than or equal to 35 gpm and 212 wells with a pumping capacity of more than 35 gpm. 172 Section 7.3 Harquahala Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.3-7 Cultural Water Demand in the Harquahala Basin 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 Estimated and Number of Registered Water Supply Wells Drilled Projected Population Q < 35 gpm Q > 35 gpm 1112 359 405 451 498 544 590 636 682 729 775 821 800 779 757 736 715 694 673 651 630 608 642 677 711 745 780 951 1,697 2,443 WELL TOTALS: 1 Average Annual Demand (in acre-feet) Well Pumpage Municipal Surface-Water Diversions Industrial Agricultural Municipal Industrial Agricultural 117,000 NR 111,000 NR Data Source 2 179 ADWR (1994a) USGS (2007) 13 8 79,000 NR 10 6 6,000 79,000 5 3 <300 NR 9,500 NR NR 47,500 19 9 <300 NR 23,500 NR NR 85,000 38 7 <300 2,500 36,500 NR NR 69,600 196 212 USGS (2007) ADWR (2008b) 1 Does not include effluent or evaporation losses from stockponds and reservoirs. Includes all wells through 1980. 3 Industrial demand 1971-1990 includes a small amount of well pumpage in the Tiger Wash Basin. NR - Not reported 2 11/23/2009 Section 7.3 Harquahala Basin 173 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 174 Section 7.3 Harquahala Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.3.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Harquahala Basin Water adequacy determination information including the subdivision name, location, number of lots, adequacy determination, reason for an inadequacy determination, date of determination and subdivision water provider are shown in Table 7.3-8. Figure 7.3-10 shows the general locations of subdivisions (to the section level) 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 Maricopa County. Four water adequacy determinations for 301 lots have been made in this basin through December 2008. Two hundred and one lots in two subdivision, or 67% of lots, were determined to be adequate. One subdivision received a determination of inadequacy because of an insufficient supply and the other because the applicant did not submit the necessary information and/or the available hydrologic data was insufficient to make a determination. There are three Analysis of Adequate Water Supply applications for a total of 8,901 lots. Section 7.3 Harquahala Basin 175 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.3-8 Adequacy Determinations in the Harquahala Basin1 A. Water Adequacy Reports Location Map Key 1 Subdivision Name Big Horn Farms Harquahala Ranches Unit I, II, III Harquahala Ranchitos Units 1 & 2 4 5 7 Rose View Estates 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 No. of Lots Maricopa 1 North 9 West 11 32 53-300288 Inadequate A2 5/12/1997 NA Maricopa 1 South 9 East 5, 6, 7 68 53-700461 Inadequate A1 1/15/2008 Eagletail Water Co. Maricopa 2 North 8 West 22 19 53-300114 Adequate County Maricopa 1 North 8 West 4 182 53-501343 Adequate Section No. of Lots ADWR File 2 No. Date of Determination Water Provider at the Time of Application 770 43-700451 12/5/2007 Centennial Community Facilities District 2/26/1996 Dry Lot Subdivision 4/6/1995 Water Utility of Greater Tonopah B. Analysis of Adequate Water Supply Location Map Key 2 Subdivision Name Centennial Complex Centennial Interchange Development La Paz - K Lazy B Ranch 3 6 County Township Range 3 North 10 West 25 3 North 11 West 24, 30 La Paz 3 North 11 West 26 31 43-402080 9/21/2006 NA La Paz 4 North 12 West 9 8,100 43-402253 11/13/2007 NA La Paz 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 176 Section 7.3 Harquahala Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.3 Harquahala Basin 177 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Harquahala Basin References and Supplemental Reading References A Anderson, T.W. and G.W. Freethey, 1995, Simulation of groundwater flow in alluvial basins in south central Arizona and parts of adjacent states: USGS Professional Paper 1406-D. 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 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. _____, 2005a, Flood warning gages: Database, ADWR Office of Water Engineering. _____, 2005b, Groundwater Site Inventory (GWSI): Database, ADWR Hydrology Division. _____, 2005c, Registry of surface water rights: ADWR Office of Water Management. (Reservoirs and Stockponds Table) _____, 2005d, 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, D.W., January, 16, 1990. 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 January 2006 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/ index.html _____, 2004, Land ownership: GIS cover, accessed in 2004 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/ index.html. Arizona Meteorological Network (AZMET), 2007, Arizona climate stations: Pan evaporation data, accessed December 2005 at http://www.ag.arizona.edu/azmet/locate.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. O Oregon State University, Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS), 2006, Average annual 178 Section 7.3 Harquahala Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 precipitation in Arizona for 1961-1990: PRISM GIS cover, accessed in 2006 at www.ocs. orst.edu/prism. U United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2008 & 2005, National Water Information System (NWIS) data for Arizona: Accessed October 2008 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 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. Anning, D.W., 2002, Estimation and analysis of the uncertainty in stream flow and change in reservoir-content data at selected stream flow-gaging stations in the Lower Colorado River network, 1995-99: University of Arizona, M.S. thesis. Headly, J.D., 1990, Groundwater conditions in the Harquahala Irrigation Non-Expansion area and Tiger Wash Basin, Arizona Department of Water Resources Hydrologic Map Series No. 17 HydroSystems, Inc., 1997, Physical Availability Demonstration For MBT Ranch Properties In Support Of The Transportation Of Groundwater From The Harquahala Irrigation NonExpansion Area. Prepared for Arizona Department of Water Resources. ____, 1998, Additional Regional Groundwater Level Decline Analysis Addendum To: Physical Availability Demonstration For MBT Ranch Properties In Support Of The Transportation Of Groundwater From The Harquahala Irrigation Non-Expansion Area. Prepared for Arizona Department of Water Resources. _____, 1998, Physical Availability Demonstration For Harquahala Valley Farms In Support Section 7.3 Harquahala Basin 179 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Of The Transportation Of Groundwater From The Harquahala Irrigation Non-Expansion Area, Maricopa County, Arizona. Prepared for Arizona Department of Water Resources. Montgomery Watson, 1995, Water Supply Adequacy Report for the Proposed Harquahala Ranchitos Units 1 and 2. Prepared for Arizona Department of Water Resources. _____, 1995, Water Supply Adequacy Report for the Proposed Rose View Estates. Prepared for Arizona Department of Water Resources. Richard, S.M., 1999, Geology of the Socorro Mine –White Marble Mine area, western Harquahala Mountains, west central Arizona: AZGS Open-File Report 99-9, 35 p. 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. Santec Consulting, 1999, Small and minor watercourses analysis for La Paz County, Arizona, Arizona State Land Department, Final Report. 180 Section 7.3 Harquahala Basin Section 7.4 Lower Gila Basin 181 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.4.1 Geography of the Lower Gila Basin The Lower Gila Basin, located in the center of the planning area is 7,309 square miles in area, the largest basin in the planning area. Geographic features and principal communities are shown on Figure 7.4-1. The basin is characterized by plains and valleys surrounded by low elevation mountain ranges. Vegetation types include Lower Colorado River Valley and Arizona uplands Sonoran desertscrub. (See Figure 7.0-9) Riparian vegetation includes tamarisk along the Colorado River and Gila River. • Principal geographic features shown on Figure 7.4-1 are: o The Colorado River on the western basin boundary in the vicinity of Fishers Landing o The Gila River running east to west through the center of the basin o Numerous valleys and plains including Mohawk, San Cristobal, Growler and Childs Valleys in the southern portion of the basin and Castle Dome and Palomas Plains and King and Hyder Valleys in the northern portion of the basin o Mountain ranges including the Cabeza Prieta, Mohawk, Granite and Growler Mountains in the southern portion of the basin and the Castle Dome, Tank, Kofa and Gila Bend Mountains in the northern portion of the basin o The highest point in the basin, Castle Dome Peak, at 3,788 feet in the Castle Dome Mountains west of Fishers Landing o The lowest point in the basin at 160 feet west of Dome where the Gila River exits the basin. 182 Section 7.4 Lower Gila Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.4 Lower Gila Basin 183 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.4.2 Land Ownership in the Lower Gila Basin Land ownership, including the percentage of ownership by category, for the Lower Gila Basin is shown in Figure 7.4-2. Principal features of land ownership in this basin are the large areas of military and national wildlife refuge 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 7.0.4. Land ownership categories are discussed below in the order of largest to smallest percentage in the basin. U.S. Military • 38.8% of the land is federally owned and managed by the U.S. Military. • U.S. Military lands in the basin include the Yuma Proving Ground and the Barry Goldwater Air Force Range. • Primary land use is military activity. Wildlife Refuge • 23.4% of the land is federally owned and managed as National Wildlife Refuges (NWR). • Most of two National Wildlife Refuges are located in this basin, the 665,000 acre Kofa NWR and the 857,000 acre Cabeza Prieta NWR. Part of the Imperial NWR is located along the California State boundary. • Land uses include resource conservation, wildlife protection and recreation. U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) • 20.9% of the land is federally owned and managed by the Lower Sonoran and Yuma Field Offices of the Bureau of Land Management. • This basin contains 138,700 acres of wilderness, including 64,000 acres of the 100,000 acre Eagletail Mountains Wilderness, the 38,000 acre Muggins Mountains Wilderness, 15,000 acres of the 64,000 acre Woolsey Peak Wilderness and 12,000 acres of the 13,000 acre Signal Mountain Wilderness. (See Figure 7.0-12) • Land uses include grazing, resource conservation and recreation. Private • 5.8% of the land is private. • Land uses include agriculture, domestic and commercial. State Trust Land • 4.5% of the land is held in trust for the public schools and five other beneficiaries under the State Trust Land system. • Land uses include agriculture and grazing. National Park Service (NPS) • 3.9% of the land is federally owned and managed by the National Park Service as the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument. • Land uses include resource conservation and recreation. Section 7.4 Lower Gila Basin 184 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Indian Reservation • 2.3% of the land is under tribal ownership as the Tohono O’odham Indian Reservation. • Primary land use is grazing. Other (Game and Fish, County and Bureau of Reclamation Lands) • 0.4% of the land is federally owned and managed by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBOR). • This land contains pump stations for the canals that are operated by the USBOR. 185 Section 7.4 Lower Gila Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.4 Lower GIla Basin 186 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.4.3 Climate of the Lower Gila Basin Climate data from NOAA/NWS Co-op Network and AZMET stations are complied in Table 7.4-1 and the locations are shown on Figure 7.4-3. Figure 7.4-3 also shows precipitation contour data from the Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS) at Oregon State University. The Lower Gila Basin does not contain Evaporation Pan or SNOTEL/ Snowcourse stations. More detailed information on climate in the planning area is found in Section 7.0.4. A description of climate data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network • Refer to Table 7.4-1A • There are eight NOAA/NWS Co-op network climate stations in the basin. The average monthly maximum temperature occurs in July at all stations and ranges between 94.6°F at Mohawk and 89.5°F at Dateland Whitewing R. The average monthly minimum temperature occurs in January or December and ranges between 51.1°F at Wellton to 55.9°F at Kofa Mine. • Highest average seasonal rainfall occurs at most stations in the summer (July-September). For the period of record used, the highest annual rainfall is 7.74 inches at the Ajo station and the lowest is 3.80 inches at Yuma Proving Ground. AZMET • Refer to Table 7.4-1C • There are two AZMET stations in the basin. The stations are at 299 feet and 535 feet and have an average annual reference evapotranspiration of 77.8 inches and 88.06 inches respectively. SCAS Precipitation Data • See Figure 7.4-3 • Additional precipitation data show average annual rainfall as high as 16 inches in the Gunsight Hills south of Why and as low as four inches or less along the Colorado River in the western portion of the basin. Section 7.4 Lower Gila Basin 187 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.4-1 Climate Data for the Lower Gila Basin A. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network: Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Used for Averages Ajo 1,800 Dateland Whitewing R Station Name Average Temperature Range (in F) Average Precipitation (in inches) Max/Month Min/Month Winter Spring Summer Fall Annual 1971 - 2000 89.9/Jul 54.5/Jan 2.10 0.43 3.20 2.01 7.74 550 1971 - 2000 89.5/Jul 53.6/Dec 1.58 0.18 1.59 1.25 4.60 Kofa Mine 1,780 1971 - 2000 91.1/Jul 55.9/Dec, Jan 2.32 0.39 2.69 1.59 6.99 Mohawk 540 1900-1951 94.6/Jul 54.4/Jan 1.16 0.25 1.69 1.15 4.23 Sentinel 690 1899-1960 92.3/Jul 51.7/Dec 1.35 0.37 1.90 1.01 4.63 Tacna 3 NE 320 1971 - 2000 92.1/Jul 51.6/Dec 1.39 0.31 1.60 1.05 4.35 Wellton 260 1922-19801 91.0/Jul 51.1/Jan 1.46 0.30 1.57 1.13 4.44 Yuma Proving Ground 320 1971 - 2000 93.1/Jul 55.3/Dec 1.23 0.26 1.33 0.98 3.80 Source: WRCC, 2005 Notes: Average temperature data from period of record shown; average precipitation data from 1971 - 2000 1 B. Evaporation Pan: Station Name Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Used for Averages Avg. Annual Evap (in inches) None C. AZMET: Station Name Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Average Annual Reference Evaportranspiration, in inches (Number of years to calculate averages) Dateland 535 1990 - 1996 (discontinued) 88.06 (6) Roll 299 1997 - current 77.80 (9) 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 188 Section 7.4 Lower Gila Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.4 Lower Gila Basin 189 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.4.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Lower Gila Basin Streamflow data, including average seasonal flow, average annual flow and other information are shown in Table 7.4-2. Flood ALERT equipment in the basin is shown in Table 7.4-3. Reservoir and stockpond data, including maximum storage or maximum surface area, are shown in Table 7.4-4. The location of streamflow gages identified by USGS number, flood ALERT equipment, USGS runoff contours and large reservoirs are shown on Figure 7.4-4. Descriptions of stream, reservoir and stockpond data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Streamflow Data • Refer to Table 7.4-2. • Data from four stations located at three watercourses are shown in the table and on Figure 7.4-4. Two stations have been discontinued and two are real-time stations. • Average seasonal flow varies at the four stations. At one station, Colorado River below Imperial Dam, the average seasonal flow is similar in all seasons due to releases from Imperial Dam. The Rio Comez station near Ajo, with a small, local drainage area, receives 79% of its average seasonal flow in the summer season (July-September). The Gila River stations report highest average seasonal flow in the spring (April-June) season. • The largest annual flow recorded in the basin is 10 million acre-feet (maf) in 1984 at the Colorado River below Imperial Dam station with a contributing drainage area of 188,500 square miles. Flood ALERT Equipment • Refer to Table 7.4-3. • As of October 2005 there were nine stations in this basin. Reservoirs and Stockponds • Refer to Table 7.4-4. • The basin contains five large reservoirs. The largest, Imperial, has a maximum surface area of 1,402 acres. • Surface water is stored or could be stored in six small reservoirs in the basin. • There are 65 registered stockponds in this basin. Runoff Contour • Refer to Figure 7.4-4. • Average annual runoff is highest, 0.2 inches per year or 10.66 acre-feet per square mile, in the southeastern portion of the basin and decreases to 0.1 inches, or five acre-feet per square mile, in the remainder of the basin. Section 7.4 Lower Gila Basin 190 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.4-2 Streamflow Data for the Lower Gila Basin Drainage Area (in mi2) Gage Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Colorado River below 1 Imperial Dam 188,500 162 9520170 Rio Cornez near Ajo 243 9520280 Gila River near Dateland 9520360 Gila River near Mohawk Station Number USGS Station Name 9429500 Average Seasonal Flow (% of annual flow) Annual Flow/Year (in acre-feet) Years of Annual Flow Maximum Record Winter Spring Summer Fall Minimum Median Mean 1961-current (real time) 24 21 31 24 233,128 (1971) 350,416 1,292,340 10,049,120 (1984) 31 1,309 1/1967-9/1978 (discontinued) 8 1 79 11 615 2,440 3,085 8,543 (1976) 11 55,000 363 10/1993-current (real time) 2 46 18 35 0 (2000, 2001, 2002) 4 69,331 610,467 (1995) 9 55,430 300 2/1966-7/1994 (discontinued) 36 38 15 12 0 (19751976, 19871991) 413 317,233 2,029,309 (1980) 19 (1969) Source: USGS (NWIS) 2005 & 2008 Notes: Station in California Statistics based on Calendar Year Annual Flow statistics based on monthly values Annual Flow/Year statistics were only completed for those gages that had at least 3 year of 12 month records 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 1 191 Section 7.4 Lower Gila Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.4-3 Flood ALERT Equipment in the Lower Gila Basin Station ID Station Name Station Type Install Date Responsibility 5000 Mt. Oatman Repeater/Precipitation 4/1/1981 Maricopa Country FCD 5010 Columbus Wash Precipitation/Stage 9/21/1999 Maricopa County FCD 5030 Copper Wash Precipitation/Stage 2/20/2001 Maricopa County FCD 5040 4th of July Wash Precipitation/Stage 3/14/2002 Maricopa County FCD 5050 Gila Bend Mountains Weather Station 6/1/1988 Maricopa County FCD 7202 Kofa Precipitation 12/6/2001 ADWR 7204 Dateland Precipitation 12/5/2001 ADWR 7210 Wellton Weather Station Weather Station 4/29/2004 ADWR 7220 Cabeza Prieta aka Ajo Weather Station 7/31/2004 ADWR Source: ADWR 2005a Notes: ADWR = Arizona Department of Water Resources FCD = Flood Control District NA = Information is not available at this time Section 7.4 Lower Gila Basin 192 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.4-4 Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Lower Gila 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 Imperial Bureau of Reclamation 160,0002 S,I Federal B. Other Large Reservoirs (50 acre surface area or greater)3 MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME (Name of dam, if different) OWNER/OPERATOR MAXIMUM SURFACE AREA (acres) USE JURISDICTION 2 Martinez Bureau of Reclamation 640 R,F Federal 3 Painted Rock Borrow Pit Bureau of Reclamation 350 F Federal 4 Unnamed 4 USAF 100 NA Federal 5 Unnamed 4 USAF 69 NA Federal 1 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)3 Total number: 6 Total surface area: 70 acres E. Stockponds (up to 15 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 65 Notes: I = Irrigation, S = Water Supply, R = Recreation, F = fish & wildlife pond 2 Much of the storage is in CA. 3 Capacity data is not available to ADWR 4 Dry lake USAF = United States Air Force 1 193 Section 7.4 Lower Gila Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.4 Lower GIla Basin 194 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.4.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Lower Gila Basin The total number of springs in the basin are shown in Table 7.4-5. The locations of perennial streams are shown on Figure 7.4-5. Descriptions of data sources and methods for intermittent and perennial reaches and springs are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. • • • There is one intermittent stream, the Gila River and one perennial stream, the Colorado River. There are no major or minor springs in the basin. The total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by the USGS varies from six to eight, depending on the database reference. Table 7.4-5 Springs in the Lower Gila Basin A. Major Springs (10 gpm or greater): Map Key Name Location Latitude Longitude Discharge (in gpm) Date Discharge Measured None identified by ADWR at this time B. Minor Springs (1 to 10 gpm): Name Location Latitude Longitude Discharge (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): 6 to 8 Section 7.4 Lower Gila Basin 195 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 196 Section 7.4 Lower Gila Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.4 Lower Gila Basin 197 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.4.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Lower Gila Basin Major aquifers, well yields, estimated water in storage, number of index wells and date of last water-level sweep are shown in Table 7.4-6. Figure 7.4-6 shows aquifer flow direction and waterlevel change between 1990-1991 and 2003-2004. Figure 7.4-7 contains hydrographs for selected wells shown on Figure 7.4-6. Figure 7.4-8 shows well yields in five yield categories. A description of aquifer data sources and methods as well as well data sources and methods, including waterlevel changes and well yields are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Major Aquifers • Refer to Table 7.4-6 and Figure 7.4-6 • The major aquifers are recent stream alluvium and basin fill. • The basin contains three sub-basins: Childs Valley, Dendora Valley and Wellton Mohawk. • Predevelopment flow direction was from the north and southeast edges of the basin to the Gila River and downstream to the southwest. Extensive agricultural development has created a series of cones of depression including the Hyder Valley cone that pulls water from the Hyder area to the north and a cone east of Dateland. Well Yields • Refer to Table 7.4-6 and Figure 7.4-8 • As shown on Figure 7.4-8, well yields are generally greater than 1,000 gallons per minute (gpm). • One source of well yield information, based on 597 reported wells, indicates that the median well yield is 1,600 gpm. Natural Recharge • Refer to Table 7.4-6 • Estimates of natural recharge range from greater than 9,000 acre-feet per year (AFA) to 88,000 AFA. • The largest source of natural recharge is runoff in washes and the Gila River floodplain. In the western portion of the basin, “artificial” recharge from infiltration of irrigation water requires pumping of excess groundwater into drainage canals for removal from the basin. (ADWR 1994b) Water in Storage • Refer to Table 7.4-6 • Estimates of water in storage range from 100 million acre-feet (maf) to a depth of 1,200 feet to 246 maf to an unknown depth. Water Level • Refer to Figure 7.4-6. Water levels are shown for wells measured in 2003-2004. • The Department annually measures 33 index wells in this basin. Hydrographs for 10 index wells and one other well (B) are shown on Figure 7.4-7. • The deepest water level shown on the map is 809 feet in the vicinity of Why and the shallowest is five feet northeast of Wellton. Section 7.4 Lower Gila Basin 198 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.4-6 Groundwater Data for the Lower Gila Basin Basin Area, in square miles: 7,309 Name and/or Geologic Units Recent Stream Alluvium Major Aquifer(s): Basin Fill Range 184-5,095 Median 1,823.5 (56 wells measured) Range 10-6,000 Median 1,600 (597 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 100-2,500 ADWR (1990 and 1994b) Range 0-2,500 Anning and Duet (1994) 88,000 Freethey and Anderson (1986) >9,000 Arizona Water Commission (1975) 143,900,000 (to 1,200 ft) ADWR (1990) 100,000,0001 (to 1,200 ft) Freethey and Anderson (1986) 246,000,000 Arizona Water Commission (1975) Estimated Natural Recharge, in acre-feet/year: Estimated Water Currently in Storage, in acre-feet: Current Number of Index Wells: 33 Date of Last Water-level Sweep: 1992 (589 wells measured) 1 Predevelopment Estimate 10/16/2009 199 Section 7.4 Lower Gila Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.4 Lower GIla Basin 200 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Figure 7.4-7 Lower Gila Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells A Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 200 DEPTH: 655 ft USE: UNUSED C-03-08 15CCB UNSURV 250 1975 350 B 400 1975 600 C 1985 1995 DEPTH: 508 ft USE: UNUSED 2005 C-03-11 31DBB 1985 1995 DEPTH: 901 ft USE: INDUSTRIAL 2005 C-05-19 19BCB UNSURV 650 1975 1985 1995 2005 YEAR Section 7.4 Lower Gila Basin 201 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Figure 7.4-7 (cont’d) Lower Gila Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 0 D DEPTH: 111 ft USE: UNUSED 550 0 1975 200 E C-06-12 19BBA 1985 1995 DEPTH: 678 ft USE: IRRIGATION 2005 C-07-11 27DDD 250 300 1975 0 F 1985 1995 DEPTH: UNKNOWN USE: UNUSED 2005 C-07-15 16AAA 550 0 1975 1985 1995 2005 YEAR 202 Section 7.4 Lower Gila Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Figure 7.4-7 (cont’d) Lower Gila Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 0 G DEPTH: 282.6 ft USE: MONITOR C-08-13 28ABD 50 50 1975 0 H 1985 1995 DEPTH: UNKNOWN USE: UNUSED 2005 C-08-17 20DCC 50 50 1975 650 I 1985 1995 DEPTH: 1200 ft USE: PUBLIC SUPPLY 2005 C-11-06 24BDA1 700 1975 800 J 850 1975 1985 1995 DEPTH: 1060 ft USE: PUBLIC SUPPLY 2005 C-13-05 25CBD1 1985 1995 2005 YEAR Section 7.4 Lower Gila Basin 203 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 204 Section 7.4 Lower Gila Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.4 Lower Gila Basin 205 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.4.7 Water Quality of the Lower Gila Basin Wells, springs and mine sites with parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standard(s), including location and parameter(s) are shown in Table 7.4-7A. Impaired lakes and streams with site type, name, length of impaired reach, area of impaired lake, designated use standard and parameter(s) exceeded is shown in Table 7.4-7B. Figure 7.4-9 shows the location of water quality occurrences keyed to Table 7.4-7. 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 7.4-7A. • Two hundred and forty-six wells have parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standards. • The most common parameter equaled or exceeded was fluoride. • Other parameters equaled or exceeded include arsenic, cadmium, lead, nitrate, selenium and total dissolved solids. Lakes and Streams with impaired waters • Refer to Table 7.4-7B. • The water quality standard for boron and selenium was equaled or exceeded in one 28 mile reach of the Gila River, a portion of this reach is also in the Yuma Basin. The standard for organics and dissolved oxygen was equaled or exceeded at Painted Rock Borrow Pit Lake. • Neither the reach of the Gila River nor the lake are part of the ADEQ water quality improvement effort, the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program, at this time. Section 7.4 Lower Gila Basin 206 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.4-7 Water Quality Exceedences in the Lower Gila Basin 1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Map Map Key Location2 1 2 3 M M M 4 M 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M 21 M 22 23 24 25 M M M M 26 M 27 M 28 M 29 30 M M 31 M 32 33 34 35 36 M M M M M 37 M 38 39 40 M M M 41 M 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 M M M M M M M Site Location Site Type 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 Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Township Range Section 1 South 2 South 4 South 4 South 4 South 4 South 4 South 4 South 4 South 4 South 4 South 4 South 4 South 4 South 4 South 4 South 4 South 4 South 4 South 4 South 4 South 4 South 4 South 4 South 4 South 4 South 4 South 4 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 15 West 17 West 8 West 8 West 8 West 8 West 8 West 9 West 10 West 10 West 10 West 10 West 10 West 10 West 10 West 10 West 10 West 11 West 11 West 11 West 11 West 11 West 11 West 11 West 11 West 11 West 11 West 19 West 8 West 8 West 8 West 9 West 9 West 9 West 10 West 10 West 10 West 10 West 10 West 10 West 10 West 11 West 11 West 11 West 12 West 12 West 12 West 12 West 12 West 12 West 13 West 19 West 21 West 8 West 9 West 9 West 18 1 16 33 33 34 35 9 2 5 6 7 8 17 18 19 21 1 2 8 12 21 21 21 29 33 35 21 3 3 6 12 12 13 3 16 16 20 28 32 36 2 15 15 4 5 9 16 16 22 36 5 19 17 5 32 207 Number of Sampling Sites 1 1 1 1 1 2 5 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 75 Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water Standard (DWS)3 F NO3 NO3 As, F F F F As, F As, F F F F F F F F As, F F As, F As F NO3 As, F, NO3 F As, F F F NO3 As F F F As, F F F F As, NO3, TDS F As, F F F F F As, NO3 F F F F As, NO3 As F F As, F F F As, F Section 7.4 Lower Gila Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.4-7 Water Quality Exceedences in the Lower Gila Basin (Cont) 1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Map Map Key Location2 49 M 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M 76 M 77 78 M M 79 M 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 M M M M M M M 87 M 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 M M M I M M I I I I I I I I M Site Location Site Type 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 Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Township Range Section 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 10 West 10 West 12 West 12 West 12 West 12 West 12 West 12 West 12 West 12 West 13 West 14 West 15 West 18 West 20 West 20 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 10 West 10 West 10 West 11 West 11 West 11 West 11 West 11 West 11 West 11 West 11 West 12 West 12 West 12 West 12 West 12 West 12 West 12 West 12 West 12 West 13 West 13 West 13 West 13 West 13 West 14 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 16 West 16 West 16 West 16 West 16 West 17 West 19 West 35 35 8 10 17 18 19 27 30 35 3 22 15 32 21 32 10 23 34 7 22 36 19 24 25 26 28 32 36 36 7 8 13 13 14 17 21 23 25 13 21 24 24 24 24 13 14 20 22 26 29 30 25 26 31 33 34 35 14 Section 7.4 Lower Gila Basin Number of Sampling Sites 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 4 2 2 1 4 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 83 Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water Standard (DWS)3 Pb F F F, TDS F F NO3, TDS F F F As As F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F As, F As, F As, F F As, F F F F F F F F TDS As, F F F TDS TDS TDS TDS As, F, TDS TDS TDS F, TDS TDS F TDS TDS As, NO3, TDS Pb 208 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.4-7 Water Quality Exceedences in the Lower Gila Basin (Cont) 1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Map Map Key Location2 103 M 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 M M M M M M I I I I I 115 I 116 I 117 I 118 I 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 I I I I I I I I 127 I 128 129 130 131 I I I I 132 I 133 134 135 136 137 138 I I I I I I 139 M 140 141 142 M M M 143 M 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 M M M M M I I Site Location Site Type 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 Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Township Range Section 7 South 7 South 7 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 21 West 21 West 21 West 13 West 13 West 13 West 13 West 14 West 16 West 16 West 16 West 16 West 16 West 16 West 16 West 17 West 17 West 17 West 17 West 17 West 17 West 17 West 17 West 17 West 17 West 17 West 17 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 18 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 20 West 20 West 20 West 20 West 20 West 20.5 West 21 West 21 West 6 West 7 West 11.5 West 12 West 12 West 17 West 17 West 10 10 11 6 20 28 34 16 2 4 5 7 9 11 11 1 3 3 3 9 9 10 13 14 17 18 25 14 20 21 21 22 25 26 27 29 29 31 34 36 25 31 36 9 9 9 15 25 6 1 1 23 29 36 16 31 4 9 209 Number of Sampling Sites 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 66 Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water Standard (DWS)3 F As F Pb, TDS NO3, TDS NO3, TDS TDS F As TDS As, TDS NO3 TDS F, NO3 TDS TDS TDS As, NO3 As, F NO3, TDS As, TDS TDS TDS As, F TDS TDS As F, TDS As, TDS F, TDS TDS TDS As TDS TDS F As, TDS TDS As NO3 TDS TDS TDS As, TDS NO3, TDS TDS As, TDS As, TDS TDS TDS As F As F NO3, TDS As, F TDS F Section 7.4 Lower Gila Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.4-7 Water Quality Exceedences in the Lower Gila Basin (Cont) 1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Map Map Key Location2 151 152 153 154 155 I I I I I 156 I 157 I 158 I 159 I 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 I I I M M M M M M M Site Location Site Type Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Township Range Section 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 10 South 10 South 11 South 12 South 12 South 13 South 13 South 18 West 18 West 18 West 18 West 18 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 6 West 8 West 6 West 8 West 8 West 3 West 5 West 6 10 11 19 20 1 1 2 3 3 4 4 6 13 24 30 22 24 1 17 32 25 Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water Standard (DWS)3 F F, NO3, TDS F F, TDS F As, TDS F As TDS As, F As, TDS TDS F, TDS As, F TDS F F As, F NO3 NO3, TDS As As, Cd Number of Sampling Sites 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 25 Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others B. Lakes and Streams Map Key Site Type Site Name a Stream Gila River (Coyote Wash to Fortuna Wash) b Lake Painted Rock Borrow Pit Lake Length of Area of Impaired Designated Use Impaired Stream Reach Lake (in acres) Standard4 (in miles) Parameter(s) Exceeding Use Standard3 28 NA A&W Bo, Se NA 186 A&W, FC DO, Organics Source: ADEQ 2005d Notes: 1 Water quality samples collected between 1978 and 1991. Listed TDS exceedences indicate "mineralized water" that contains over 3000 milligrams per liter (mg/l) of TDS and would require special well construction procedures (A.A.C. R12-15-812(B)). The secondary drinking water 2 M = main map, I = inset 3 As = Arsenic Bo = Boron Cd = Cadmium DO = Dissolved Oxygen F = Fluoride Pb = Lead NO3 = Nitrate Organics = One or more of several volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds and pesticides TDS = Total Dissolved Solids Se = Selenium 4 A&W = Aquatic and Wildlife FC = Fish Consumption Section 7.4 Lower Gila Basin 210 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 211 Section 7.4 Lower Gila Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.4 Lower GIla Basin 212 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.4.8 Cultural Water Demands in the Lower Gila 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 7.4-8. Effluent generation including facility ownership, location, population served and not served, volume treated, disposal method and treatment level is shown in Table 7.4-9. Figure 7.410 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 demands is found in Section 7.0.7. Cultural Water Demands • Refer to Table 7.4-8 and Figure 7.4-10. • Population in this basin increased from 9,873 in 1980 to 11,297 in 2000. • Most cultural water use is for irrigation primarily near the Gila River. • Agricultural groundwater demand decreased from 254,000 AFA in 1991-1995 to 246,000 AFA in 2001-2005. Total agricultural water demand increased from 619,000 AFA in 19911995 to 629,000 AFA in 2001-2005. • Industrial groundwater demand is relatively small but increased from 3,400 AFA in 19911995 to 3,600 AFA in 2001-2005. Industrial uses in the basin include multiple dairies and a large feedlot. • Municipal groundwater demand is relatively small and increased from 1,800 AFA in 1991-1995 to 2,000 AFA in 2001-2005. Municipal surface water use is also minimal but increased from 400 AFA in 1991-1995 to 500 AFA in 2001-2005. • As of 2005 there were 718 registered wells with a pumping capacity of less than or equal to 35 gpm and 850 wells with a pumping capacity of more than 35 gpm. Effluent Generation • Refer to Table 7.4-9. • There are eight known wastewater treatment facilities in this basin. • Information on disposal method was available for seven facilities. Six facilities discharge to evaporation ponds and one facility discharges to golf course irrigation. Section 7.4 Lower Gila Basin 213 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 1 Table 7.4-8 Cultural Water Demand in the Lower Gila Basin 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) Estimated Number of Registered Water and Supply Wells Drilled Well Pumpage Surface-Water Diversions Projected Population Q < 35 gpm Q > 35 gpm Municipal Industrial Agricultural Municipal Industrial Agricultural 3892 9,873 9,813 9,752 9,692 9,632 9,571 9,511 9,451 9,390 9,330 9,270 9,472 9,675 9,878 10,081 10,283 10,486 10,689 10,892 11,094 11,297 11,556 11,816 12,075 12,334 12,594 13,890 17,192 20,967 WELL TOTALS: 360,000 1,251,0005 404,000 1,102,0005 Data Source 5802 ADWR (1994a) 42 96 348,000 1,130,0005 73 79 402,000 1,229,0005 46 28 1,800 3,400 254,000 400 NR 365,000 66 32 1,900 3,500 261,100 400 NR 391,000 102 35 2,000 3,600 246,000 500 NR 383,200 718 850 USGS (2007) ADWR (2008b) ADWR (2008c) 1 Does not include effluent or evaporation losses from stockponds and reservoirs. Includes all wells through 1980. 3 Includes pumpage and diversion of Colorado River Contract Water. 4 Well pumpage for irrigation includes drainage wells. 5 Includes surface-water diversions in Parker and Yuma basins. NR - Not reported 2 10/16/2009 214 Section 7.4 Lower Gila Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.4-9 Effluent Generation in the Lower Gila Basin Facility Name Ownership City/Location Served Population Served Volume Treated/Generated (acre-feet/year) Disposal Method Water course Golf Discharged Evaportion Wildlife Irrigation Course/Turf/ to Another Pond Area Landscape Facility Ajo WWTF Ajo ID Ajo 1,089 144 X Fisher's Landing Private Fishers Landing 72 41 X Links @ Coyote Wash WWTP Private Wellton 190 36 Yuma Proving Ground-Laguna Airfield US Army Airfield US Army Army Base Yuma Proving Ground-Kofa Firing Range Yuma Proving Ground-Garrison Main WWTF US Army Army Base Yuma Proving Ground-Main Adminisitration Area WWTF US Army Army Base Yuma Proving Ground-Material Test Area WWTP US Army Army Base Total NA NA 56 NA 1,000 NA Infiltration Basins Overland flow Current Population Treatment Level Not Served Secondary NA NA X Year of Record 2007 2004 Secondary NA X NA X NA X NA X NA 2007 NA 2,351 277 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 ID: Improvement District Section 7.4 Lower Gila Basin 215 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 216 Section 7.4 Lower Gila Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.4 Lower Gila Basin 217 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.4.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Lower Gila Basin Water adequacy determination information including the subdivision name, location, number of lots, adequacy determination, reason for an inadequacy determination, date of determination and subdivision water provider are shown in Table 7.4-10. Figure 7.4-11 shows the general locations of subdivisions (to the section level) 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. • • • Thirty water adequacy determinations for 3,087 lots have been made in this basin through December 2008. Six determinations of inadequacy have been made; the most common reason for an inadequacy determination was water quality. The number of lots receiving a water adequacy determination, by county, are: Number of Subdivision Lots Number of Lots Determined to be Adequate Percent Adequate Pima County 583 583 100% Yuma County 2,504 2,173 87% County Section 7.4 Lower Gila Basin 218 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.4-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Lower Gila Basin1 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 Time of Application 10/25/2007 Antelope Water Company 2/5/1975 Dry Lot Subdivision 1 Antelope Acres and Antelope Heights Yuma 8 South 17 East 28 72 53-700428 Adequate 2 Arletta Estates Yuma 9 South 19 East 14 8 53-500296 Inadequate 3 Butterfield Bluff Yuma 9 South 18 East 4, 5 201 53-500373 Adequate 10/29/1987 Town of Wellton 4 Butterfield bluff #4 Yuma 9 South 18 East 4 21 53-400385 Adequate 7/25/2000 Town of Wellton 5/19/1975 C 5 Caballo Farms Yuma 6 South 15 East 31 60 53-500375 Inadequate 6 Cameron Place Addition Pima 12 South 6 East 15 97 53-500384 Adequate 12/20/1985 7 Camino Viejo Yuma 9 South 18 East 6 18 53-400480 Adequate 4/25/2001 Dry Lot Subdivision Ajo Improvement Company Town of Wellton 8 Citrus Park Yuma 8 South 16 East 31 656 53-500461 Adequate 6/1/1973 Mohawk Water Co 9 Copper Ridge, Unit A Yuma 9 South 18 East 5 8 53-400197 Adequate 12/13/1999 Town of Wellton Yuma 9 South 18 East 8 80 53-401632 Adequate 3/23/2005 Town of Wellton 10 11 12 Coyote Wash Condominiums Coyote Wash Condominiums Phase 2 Crystal Sands Yuma 9 South 18 East 8 56 53-500092 Adequate Yuma 7 South 13 East 12, 13 15 53-500542 Inadequate C C 9/5/2007 Town of Wellton 7/1/1974 Dry Lot Subdivision 13 Erickson Yuma 9 South 16 East 4 8 53-400426 Adequate 5/12/2001 Town of Wellton 14 Grande Vista Yuma 8 South 17 East 21, 22, 27, 28 20 53-400243 Adequate 2/2/2000 Dry Lot Subdivision 15 Hankins Subdivision Yuma 9 South 18 East 5 17 53-500771 Adequate 7/18/1986 Town of Wellton 16 Jojoba Farms #1 Yuma 7 South 12 East 16 20 53-500821 Adequate 6/23/1983 Dry Lot Subdivision 17 Morisse Yuma 3 South 19 East 29 30 53-501014 Adequate 5/5/1978 18 New Cornelia Addition Pima 12 South 6 East 14, 15, 22, 23 486 53-501046 Adequate 2/14/1986 19 Yuma 8 South 17 East 25 10 53-501047 Inadequate C Yuma 9 South 18 East 3 122 53-501085 Inadequate C 21 New Tacna Townsite Orange Grove Ranch Estates Rio Lindo Shores NA Ajo Improvement Company Tacna Water Company Yuma 11 South 18 East 31 36 53-501305 Adequate 22 Rio Salado Ranches #1&2 Yuma 6 South 11 East 24, 25 116 53-501310 Inadequate 23 Sandpiper, The #1 Sports Valley Condominiums Tacna Manor Yuma 10 South 19 East 15 73 53-501368 Adequate Yuma 10 South 19 East 22 24 53-501444 Adequate 9/1/1982 Graham Water Service Yuma 8 South 17 East 25 16 53-501533 Adequate 8/12/1981 Tacna Water Company The Links at Coyote Wash Yuma 9 South 18 East 7 171 53-401007 Adequate 8/13/2003 Town of Wellton Yuma 9 South 18 East 7 333 53-401286 Adequate 5/18/2004 Town of Wellton 20 24 25 26 27 28 The Links at Coyote Wash Unit #2 The Links at Coyote Wash, Unit 3 D 1/15/1987 1/15/1975 Dry Lot Subdivision 2/29/1980 Graham Water Service 3/14/1974 Dry Lot Subdivision 1/14/1982 Graham Water Service Yuma 9 South 19 East 11, 12, 13, 14 250 53-401820 Adequate 11/2/2005 Town of Wellton 29 Valley View Estates Yuma 9 South 19 East 1 45 53-700201 Adequate 2/1/2007 Town of Wellton 30 VanGelder Subdivision Yuma 9 South 18 East 6 18 53-501606 Adequate 1/24/1986 Town of Wellton 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 available to ADWR at this time 219 Section 7.4 Lower Gila Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.4 Lower GIla Basin 220 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Lower Gila 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 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. _____, 2005b, ADEQWWTP: Data file, received August 2005. _____, 2005c, Azurite: Data file, received September 2005. _____, 2005d, Impaired lakes and reaches: GIS cover, received January 2006. _____, 2005e, WWTP and permit files: Miscellaneous working files, received July 2005. _____, 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. _____, 2005a, Flood warning gages: Database, ADWR Office of Water Engineering. _____, 2005b, Groundwater Site Inventory (GWSI): Database, ADWR Hydrology Division. _____, 2005c, Registry of surface water rights: ADWR Office of Water Management. (Reservoirs and Stockponds Table) _____, 2005d, 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, D.W., January, 16, 1990. Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGF), 2005, Arizona Waterways: Data file, received April 2005. (Reservoirs and Stockponds Table) _____, 1997, Remote Sensing Mapping of Arizona Intermittent Stream Riparian Areas: GIS cover. _____, 1993, Arizona Riparian Inventory and Mapping Project: GIS cover. Section 7.4 Lower Gila Basin 221 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Arizona Land Resource Information System (ALRIS), 2005a, Springs: GIS cover, accessed January 2006 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index.html. _____, 2005, Water features: GIS cover, accessed July 2005 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/ index.html. (Reservoirs and Stockponds Table) _____, 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 2005 at http://www.ag.arizona.edu/azmet/locate.html. Arizona Water Commission, 1975, Summary, Phase I, Arizona State Water Plan, Inventory of resource and uses. E Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 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 (USGS), 2008 & 2005, National Water Information System (NWIS) data for Arizona: Accessed October 2008 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. 222 Section 7.4 Lower Gila Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Supplemental Reading Andersen, Mark, 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., 2002, Estimation and analysis of the uncertainty in stream flow and change in reservoir-content data at selected stream flow-gaging stations in the Lower Colorado River network, 1995-99: University of Arizona, M.S. thesis. Biggs, T. H., Dempsey, K.A., and Pearthree, P.A., 2002, Surficial geology and geomorphology of the Tinajas Altas Area, Barry M. Goldwater Air Force Range, Yuma County, Southwestern Arizona: AZGS Open File Report 02-02, 21 p. Bureau of Reclamation, 2000, Colorado River Interim Surplus Criteria: Final Environmental Impact Statement. Clean Colorado River Alliance, 2006, Recommendations to Address Colorado River Water Quality. Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum, 2005, Water Quality Standards for Salinity: Colorado River System. Cordy, G., 2004, Pharmaceuticals and other organic wastewater compounds in Arizona’s effluent, and its implications for water reuse: in The Value of Water: Proceedings from the 17th annual Arizona Hydrological Society symposium, September 2004, Tucson Arizona. Davey-Cairo Engineering Inc., 2005, Hydrologic Study, Tacna Water Company, Water Service Area Expansion. Prepared for Arizona Department of Water Resources. Harris, R.C. 1999, Bibliography and review of water quality studies in the upper Gila River watershed, Arizona: AZGS Open-File Report 99-25, 67 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. Huckleberry, G., 1996, Historical geomorphology of the Gila River: AZGS Open –File Report 96-14, 31 p. Kepner, W. G., 1987, Organochlorine contaminant investigation of the lower Gila River, Arizona: USWFS unnumbered report, 17 p. Section 7.4 Lower Gila Basin 223 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 King, K. A., and Baker, D. L., 1995, Contaminants in fish and wildlife of the middle Gila River, Arizona: USFWS unnumbered report, 17 p. King, K. A., Andrews, B. J., Martinez, C. T., and Kepner, W. G., 1997, Environmental contaminants in fish and wildlife of the lower Gila River, Arizona: USFWS Project No. 22410-1130-2F30, 71 p. Klawon, J.E., and Pearthree, P.A. 2001, Geomorphology of the western crater range, Barry Goldwater Air Force Range, Southeastern Arizona: AZGS Open File Report 01-03, 19 p. R.B. Williams and Associates, Inc., 1974, Water Report for Orange Grove Ranch Estates, Yuma, Arizona. Prepared for Arizona Department of Water Resources. _____, 1975, Water Report for Arletta Estates Subdivision, Wellton, Arizona. Prepared for Arizona Department of Water Resources. Santec Consulting, 1999, Small and minor watercourses analysis for Yuma County, Arizona, Arizona State Land Department, Final Report. W.S. Gookin & Associates, 1974, Adequacy of Water Supply for Crystal Sands and San Cristobal Subdivisions, Yuma County, Arizona. Prepared for Arizona Department of Water Resources. 224 Section 7.4 Lower Gila Basin Section 7.5 McMullen Valley Basin 225 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.5.1 Geography of the McMullen Valley Basin The McMullen Valley Basin, located in the northeastern part of the planning area, is 649 square miles in area. Geographic features and principal communities are shown on Figure 7.5-1. The basin is characterized by two valleys bordered by mountain ranges. Vegetation types include Lower Colorado River Valley and Arizona uplands Sonoran desertscrub with small amounts of interior chaparral and semi-desert grassland. (See Figure 7.0-9) • Principal geographic features shown on Figure 7.5-1 are: o Centennial Wash running east to west through the center of the basin o McMullen Valley in the western portion of the basin and Aguila Valley in the eastern portion of the basin o Harquahala Mountains along the southern basin boundary and the Harcuvar Mountains on the northern basin boundary with the highest point in the basin at 5,242 feet. o The lowest point in the basin at approximately 1,680 feet where Centennial Wash exits the basin southwest of Salome. 226 Section 7.5 McMullen Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.5 McMullen Valley Basin 227 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.5.2 Land Ownership in the McMullen Valley Basin Land ownership, including the percentage of ownership by category, for the McMullen Valley Basin is shown in Figure 7.5-2. The principal feature of land ownership in this basin is the limited number of land ownership types. 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 7.0.4. Land ownership categories are discussed below in the order of largest to smallest percentage in the basin. U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) • 51.8% of the land is federally owned and managed by the Yuma Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management. • This basin contains 9,000 acres of the 23,000 acre Harquahala Mountains Wilderness and 14,000 acres of the 25,000 acre Harcuvar Mountains Wilderness. (see Figure 7.0-12) • Land uses include grazing, resource conservation and recreation. State Trust Land • 33.4% of the land is held in trust for the public schools under the State Trust Land system. • Land uses include agriculture and grazing. Private • 14.8% of the land is private. • Land uses include agriculture, domestic and commercial. 228 Section 7.5 McMullen Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.5 McMullen Valley Basin 229 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.5.3 Climate of the McMullen Valley Basin Climate data from NOAA/NWS Co-op Network and AZMET stations are complied in Table 7.5-1 and the locations are shown on Figure 7.5-3. Figure 7.5-3 also shows precipitation contour data from the Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS) at Oregon State University. The McMullen Valley Basin does not contain Evaporation Pan or SNOTEL/Snowcourse stations. More detailed information on climate in the planning area is found in Section 7.0.3. A description of climate data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network • Refer to Table 7.5-1A • Temperatures at the two NOAA/NWS Co-op Network stations in the basin range from an average high of 88.1°F in July at Salome 6 SE to an average low of 47.6°F at Aguila in December. • Average seasonal rainfall follows a bi-modal pattern with approximately one-third of the average seasonal rainfall occurring in the winter (January-March) season and one-third in the summer (July-September) season. The highest average annual rainfall in the basin is 8.30 inches at the Aguila station. AZMET • Refer to Table 7.5-1C • There is one AZMET station in the basin, Aguila. This station is at 2,149 feet and has an annual evaporation rate of 83.44 inches. SCAS Precipitation Data • See Figure 7.5-3 • Additional precipitation data shows average annual rainfall as high as 18 inches in the Harcuvar Mountains along the northern basin boundary and as low as eight inches in the middle of the basin. 230 Section 7.5 McMullen Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.5-1 Climate Data for the McMullen Valley Basin A. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network: Station Name Period of Elevation Record Used (in feet) for Averages Average Temperature Range (in F) Average Precipitation (in inches) Max/Month Min/Month Winter Spring Summer Fall Annual Aguila 2,170 1971-2000 85.3/Jul 47.6/Dec 3.20 0.42 2.81 1.87 8.30 Salome 6 SE 1,700 1908-1957 88.1/Jul 48.5/Jan 2.53 0.52 3.09 1.75 7.87 Period of Record Avg. Annual Evap (in inches) Source: WRCC, 2005 B. Evaporation Pan: Station Name Elevation (in feet) None C. AZMET: Station Name Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Average Annual Reference Evaportranspiration, in inches (Number of years to calculate averages ) Aguila 2,149 1999 - current 83.44 (6) 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 Section 7.5 McMullen Valley Basin 231 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 232 Section 7.5 McMullen Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.5.4 Surface Water Conditions in the McMullen Valley Basin Flood ALERT equipment in the basin is shown in Table 7.5-2. Reservoir and stockpond data, including maximum storage or maximum surface area, are shown in Table 7.5-3. Flood ALERT equipment and USGS runoff contours are shown on Figure 7.5-4. There are no USGS streamflow gages in 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 7.5-2. • As of October 2005 there were eight stations in this basin. Reservoirs and Stockponds • Refer to Table 7.5-3. • There are no large reservoirs in this basin. • Surface water is stored or could be stored in two small reservoirs. • There are 146 registered stockponds in this basin. Runoff Contour • Refer to Figure 7.5-4. • Average annual runoff is highest, 0.2 inches per year or 10.66 acre-feet per square mile, in the easternmost portion of the basin and decreases to 0.1 inches, or 5.33 acre-feet per square mile, in the remainder of the basin. Table 7.5-2 Flood ALERT Equipment in the McMullen Valley Basin Station ID Station Name Station Type Install Date Responsibility 5090 Centennial @ Wenden Precipitation/Stage 9/2/1998 Maricopa Country FCD 5155 Grass Wash @ US 60 Precipitation 9/19/2001 Maricopa County FCD 5165 Outlaw Hill Precipitation 5/13/2002 Maricopa County FCD 5170 Gladden Precipitation 8/27/2002 Maricopa County FCD 5175 Centennial near Aguila Precipitation/Stage 6/5/2001 Maricopa County FCD 5180 Centennial Wash Precipitation 11/19/1981 Maricopa County FCD 5190 Smith Peak Precipitation 5/1/1980 Maricopa County FCD 7140 Ritter Dam Precipitation 11/21/2002 Maricopa County FCD Source: ADWR 2005a Notes: FCD = Flood Control District Section 7.5 McMullen Valley Basin 233 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.5-3 Reservoirs and Stockponds in the McMullen 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) USE JURISDICTION USE JURISDICTION None identified by ADWR at this time 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: 1 Total maximum storage: 374 acre-feet D. Other Small Reservoirs (between 5 and 50 acres surface area) 1 Total number: 1 Total surface area: 7 acres E. Stockponds (up to 15 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 146 1 Capacity data is not available to ADWR 234 Section 7.5 McMullen Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.5 McMullen Valley Basin 235 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.5.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the McMullen Valley Basin The total number of springs in the basin are shown in Table 7.5-4. There are no perennial or intermittent streams and no major or minor springs in the McMullen Valley Basin. Descriptions of data sources and methods for intermittent and perennial reaches and springs are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. • The total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by the USGS is two. Table 7.5-4 Springs in the McMullen Valley Basin A. Major Springs (10 gpm or greater): Map Key Name Location Latitude Longitude Discharge (in gpm) Date Discharge Measured None identified by ADWR at this time B. Minor Springs (1 to 10 gpm): Name Location Latitude Longitude Discharge (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): 2 236 Section 7.5 McMullen Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.5.6 Groundwater Conditions of the McMullen Valley Basin Major aquifers, well yields, estimated water in storage, number of index wells and date of last water-level sweep are shown in Table 7.5-5. Figure 7.5-5 shows aquifer flow direction and waterlevel change between 1990-1991 and 2003-2004. Figure 7.5-6 contains hydrographs for selected wells shown on Figure 7.5-5. Figure 7.5-7 shows well yields in five yield categories. A description of aquifer data sources and methods as well as well data sources and methods, including waterlevel changes and well yields are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Major Aquifers • Refer to Table 7.5-5 and Figure 7.5-5. • The major aquifer in this basin is basin fill. • Groundwater flows toward two cones of depression, one in the Wenden/Salome area and the other in the Aguila area. Well Yields • Refer to Table 7.5-5 and Figure 7.5-7. • As shown on Figure 7.5-7, well yields in this basin are generally between 1,000 and 2,000 gallons per minute (gpm). • One source of well yield information, based on 167 reported wells, indicates that the median well yield is 1,500 gpm. Natural Recharge • Refer to Table 7.5-5. • The natural recharge estimate for this basin is 1,000 acre-feet per year (AFA). • The only source of natural recharge is rainfall (ADWR 1994b). Water in Storage • Refer to Table 7.5-5. • Estimates of water in storage for this basin range from 14 million acre-feet (maf) to 15.1 maf to a depth of 1,200 feet. Water Level • Refer to Figure 7.5-5. Water levels are shown for wells measured in 2003-2004. • The Department annually measures 25 index wells in this basin. Hydrographs for eight index wells are shown on Figure 7.5-6. • The deepest water level shown on the map is 636 feet in the vicinity of Aguila and the shallowest is 29 feet west of Wenden. Section 7.5 McMullen Valley Basin 237 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.5-5 Groundwater Data for the McMullen Valley Basin Basin Area, in square miles: 649 Name and/or Geologic Units Major Aquifer(s): Basin Fill Range 150-2,558 Median 1,132 (90 wells measured) Range 9-3,500 Median 1,500 (167 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 150-3,500 ADWR (1994b) Range 0-2,500 Anning and Duet (1994) 1,000 Freethey and Anderson (1986) 1,000 Arizona Water Commission (1975) 15,100,000 (to 1,200 ft) ADWR (1994b) 14,000,0001 (to 1,200 ft) Freethey and Anderson (1986) 14,000,000 (to 1,200 ft) Arizona Water Commission (1975) Estimated Natural Recharge, in acre-feet/year: Estimated Water Currently in Storage, in acre-feet: Current Number of Index Wells: 25 Date of Last Water-level Sweep: 2004 (118 wells measured) 1 Prevelopment Estimate 10/19/2009 238 Section 7.5 McMullen Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.5 McMullen Valley Basin 239 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Figure 7.5-6 McMullen Valley Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells A 475 WELL DEPTH: 800 ft USE: UNUSED basin fill B-08-09 26CC D Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 525 575 1975 B 450 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 660 ft USE: PUBLIC SUPPLY 2005 basin fill B-07-07 17DCC 500 1975 525 C 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 1000 ft USE: UNUSED 2005 basin fill B-07-08 20DDD 575 625 675 1975 1985 1995 2005 YEAR 240 Section 7.5 McMullen Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Figure 7.5-6 (cont’d) McMullen Valley Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 425 D WELL DEPTH: 560 ft USE: STOCK basin fill B-07-11 08DAD2 475 525 1975 200 E 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 340 ft USE: UNUSED 2005 basin fill B-07-11 27ABC 250 300 1975 1985 1995 2005 YEAR Section 7.5 McMullen Valley Basin 241 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Figure 7.5-6 (cont’d) McMullen Valley Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells 225 F WELL DEPTH: 1432 ft USE: UNUSED basin fill B-06-12 15BBB Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 275 325 375 425 1975 350 G 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 702 ft USE: IRRIGATION 2005 basin fill B-05-13 01BDA 400 450 1975 1985 1995 2005 YEAR 242 Section 7.5 McMullen Valley Basin Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Figure 7.5-6 (cont’d) McMullen Valley Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells 50 H WELL DEPTH: UNKNOWN USE: UNUSED recent stream alluvium B-05-12 32ADB 100 150 1975 1985 1995 2005 YEAR Section 7.5 McMullen Valley Basin 243 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 244 Section 7.5 McMullen Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.5.7 Water Quality of the McMullen Valley Basin Wells, springs and mine sites with parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standard(s), including location and parameter(s) are shown in Table 7.5-6A. There are no impaired lakes or streams in this basin. Figure 7.5-8 shows the location of water quality occurrences keyed to Table 7.5-6. A description of water quality data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Not all parameters were measured at all sites; selective sampling for particular constituents is common. Well, Mine or Spring sites that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standards (DWS) • Refer to Table 7.5-6A. • Fifty-eight wells have parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standards. • The most frequently equaled or exceeded parameter was fluoride. Other parameters equaled or exceeded include arsenic, chromium, lead and nitrates. Section 7.5 McMullen Valley Basin 245 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.5-6 Water Quality Exceedences in the McMullen Valley 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 Township Range Section Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water Standard (DWS)2 8 North 8 North 7 North 7 North 7 North 7 North 7 North 7 North 7 North 7 North 7 North 7 North 7 North 7 North 7 North 6 North 6 North 6 North 6 North 6 North 6 North 6 North 6 North 6 North 6 North 6 North 6 North 6 North 6 North 6 North 6 North 6 North 6 North 6 North 6 North 6 North 6 North 6 North 6 North 5 North 5 North 5 North 5 North 5 North 5 North 5 North 5 North 9 West 10 West 7 West 8 West 8 West 8 West 8 West 8 West 8 West 9 West 9 West 9 West 9 West 9 West 9 West 11 West 11 West 12 West 12 West 12 West 12 West 12 West 12 West 12 West 12 West 12 West 12 West 12 West 12 West 12 West 12 West 12 West 12 West 12 West 12 West 13 West 13 West 13 West 13 West 12 West 12 West 13 West 13 West 13 West 13 West 13 West 13 West 32 35 17 16 17 17 17 18 30 4 11 11 12 15 25 5 7 13 13 13 19 19 20 22 22 23 23 30 30 31 31 31 31 32 32 35 36 36 36 5 35 1 1 2 2 2 10 As, F, Pb F F F F F F F As, F, Pb As, F, Pb NO3 F F F F Cr F F F As, F F F F F F As, F As, F F F As, F F F As, F F F F F F F F F F F F F As, F, NO3 NO3 Site Type 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 Well 246 Section 7.5 McMullen Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.5-6 Water Quality Exceedences in the McMullen Valley Basin (Cont)1 Site Location Map Key Township Range Section Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water Standard (DWS)2 5 North 5 North 5 North 5 North 5 North 5 North 5 North 5 North 5 North 5 North 5 North 13 West 13 West 13 West 13 West 13 West 13 West 13 West 13 West 13 West 13 West 13 West 10 10 10 11 11 11 12 12 12 14 14 As, F, NO3 NO3 NO3 NO3 NO3 F, NO3 F NO3 F, TDS As, NO3 NO3 Length of Impaired Stream Reach (in miles) Area of Impaired Lake (in acres) Site Type 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 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 Designated Use Standard Parameter(s) Exceeding Use Standard None identified by ADWR at this time Notes: 1 Water quality samples collected between 1976 and 2001. As = Arsenic Cr = Chromium NO3 = Nitrate F = Fluoride Pb = Lead 2 Section 7.5 McMullen Valley Basin 247 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 248 Section 7.5 McMullen Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.5.8 Cultural Water Demands in the McMullen 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 7.5-7. Figure 7.5-9 shows the location of demand centers. Effluent generation including facility ownership, location, population served and not served, volume treated, disposal method and treatment level is shown in Table 7.5-8. A description of cultural water demand data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. More detailed information on cultural water demands is found in Section 7.0.7. Cultural Water Demands • Refer to Table 7.5-7 and Figure 7.5-9. • Population in this basin increased from 280 in 1980 to 3,426 in 2000. • Most cultural water use is for irrigation located near Wenden/Salome and in the Aguila area. • There is no reported surface water demand in this basin. • Groundwater use for agriculture increased from 77,000 AFA in 1991-1995 to 89,100 AFA in 2001-2005. • Both municipal and industrial groundwater demands are minimal in this basin, less than 800 AFA combined between 1991 and 2005. • As of 2005 there were 339 registered wells with a pumping capacity of less than or equal to 35 gpm and 240 wells with a pumping capacity of more than 35 gpm. Effluent Generation • Refer to Table 7.5-8. • There is one wastewater treatment plant in this basin, Forepaugh WWTP, but no information was available on this facility. Section 7.5 McMullen Valley Basin 249 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.5-7 Cultural Water Demand in the McMullen 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 Estimated Average Annual Demand (in acre-feet) Number of Registered and Water Supply Wells Drilled Well Pumpage Surface-Water Diversions Data Projected Population Q < 35 gpm Q > 35 gpm Municipal Industrial Agricultural Municipal Industrial Agricultural Source 622 280 395 509 624 739 853 968 1,083 1,197 1,312 1,427 1,626 1,826 2,026 2,226 2,426 2,626 2,826 3,026 3,226 3,426 3,539 3,652 3,765 3,878 3,991 4,555 5,696 6,945 WELL TOTALS: 120,000 NR 123,000 NR 2032 ADWR (1994a) 16 11 94,000 NR 36 13 60,000 NR 37 5 450 <300 77,000 NR 75 3 500 <300 79,500 NR 113 5 500 <300 89,100 NR 339 240 USGS (2007) 1 Does not include effluent or evaporation losses from stockponds and reservoirs. Includes all wells through 1980. NR - Not reported 2 11/23/2009 250 Section 7.5 McMullen Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.5-8 Effluent Generation in the McMullen Valley Basin Facility Name Forepaugh WWTP Ownership City/Location Served NA Population Served Volume Treated/Generated (acre-feet) Forepaugh Disposal Method Watercourse Evaporation Irrigation Pond Golf Course Discharged to Wildlife another Area facility Other Infiltration Basins Current Treatment Level Population Not Served Year of Record NA Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others NA: Data not currently available to ADWR WWTP: Waste Water Treatment Plant Section 7.5 McMullen Valley Basin 251 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 252 Section 7.5 McMullen Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.5.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the McMullen Valley Basin Water adequacy determination information including the subdivision name, location, number of lots, adequacy determination, reason for an inadequacy determination, date of determination and subdivision water provider are shown in Table 7.5-9. Figure 7.5-10 shows the general locations of subdivisions (to the section level) 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 La Paz County. Ten water adequacy determinations for 1,716 lots have been made in this basin through December 2008. Fourteen hundred and eighty-three lots in eight subdivisions, or 86% of lots, were determined to be adequate. Reasons for inadequacy include water quality and insufficient data. There is one Analysis of Adequate Water Supply application for 53,484 lots. Section 7.5 McMullen Valley Basin 253 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.5-9 Adequacy Determinations in the McMullen Valley Basin1 A. Water Adequacy Reports Location Map Key Subdivision Name Township Range Section No. of Lots County ADWR File No.2 ADWR Adequacy Determination Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination3 Date of Determination Water Provider at the Time of Application 1/12/2005 Keaton Dev. Co. 7/14/2003 Keaton Dev. Co. 1 Desert Links La Paz 5 North 13 West 21 430 53-401492 Adequate 2 Indian Hills Airpark II La Paz 5 North 13 West 21 126 53-400953 Inadequate 3 Indian Hills Estates La Paz 5 North 13 West 21 95 53-500814 Adequate 8/17/1987 Keaton Dev. Co. La Paz 5 North 13 West 28 31 53-500839 Adequate 2/28/1974 Keaton Water Company La Paz 5 North 13 West 28 233 53-500840 Adequate 8/7/1975 4 5 Keller Retirement Community Keller Retirement Community Unit 6 C 7 Monroe Heights La Paz 5 North 13 West 26 236 53-400388 Adequate 2/26/2001 8 Outback Acres La Paz 5 North 13 West 27 55 53-400391 Adequate 10/17/2000 9 Salome Heights La Paz 5 North 13 West 27 118 53-400390 Adequate 10 Sunshine Acres La Paz 5 North 13 West 27 107 53-500100 Inadequate 3/15/2001 11 Western Sky Airpark La Paz 5 North 13 West 17 285 53-401248 Adequate No. of Lots ADWR File No.2 Date of Determination Water Provider at the Time of Application 53,484 43-500070 9/26/2007 NA A1 Keaton Water Company Salome Heights Development, LLC Salome Heights Development, LLC Dry Lot Subdivision 3/12/2007 Keaton Dev. Co. 3/31/2004 Western Sky Airpark Water Improvement District B. Analysis of Adequate Water Supply Location Map Key 6 Subdivision Name Martori Farms Aguila County Township Range Section 7 North 8 West 8, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 7 North 10 West 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 25, 28 7 North 9 West 3, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 24, 25 8 North 9 West 27, 28, 33, 34, 35 Maricopa 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 254 Section 7.5 McMullen Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.5 McMullen Valley Basin 255 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 McMullen Valley 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, 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 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. _____, 2005a, Flood warning gages: Database, ADWR Office of Water Engineering. _____, 2005b, Groundwater Site Inventory (GWSI): Database, ADWR Hydrology Division. _____, 2005c, Registry of surface water rights: ADWR Office of Water Management. (Reservoirs and Stockponds Table) _____, 2005d, 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, D.W., January, 16, 1990. Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGF), 2005, Arizona Waterways: Data file, received April 2005. (Reservoirs and Stockponds Table) 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 January 2006 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/ index.html _____, 2004, Land ownership: GIS cover, accessed in 2004 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/ index.html. Arizona Meteorological Network (AZMET), 2007, Arizona climate stations: Pan evaporation data, accessed December 2005 at http://www.ag.arizona.edu/azmet/locate.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. 256 Section 7.5 McMullen Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 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 (USGS), 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. Pool, D.R., 1987, Geohydrology of McMullen Valley, west central Arizona: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 87-4041, 51 p. Remick, W.H., 1981, Maps showing groundwater conditions in the McMullen Valley Area, Maricopa, Yavapai and Yuma Counties, Arizona: Arizona Department of Water Resources Hydrologic Map Series #6. 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. Santec Consulting, 1999, Small and minor watercourses analysis for La Paz County, Arizona, Section 7.5 McMullen Valley Basin 257 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Arizona State Land Department, Final Report. Southwest Water and Mineral Resources, 2000, Hydrologic Study Report for the Harrisburg Valley Consortium Subdivisions: Indian Hills Airpark and Indian Hills Airpark II, Indian Hills Estates, Salome Heights, Salome Heights RVS, Outback Acres, Monroe Heights. Prepared for Arizona Department of Water Resources. _____, 2002, Hydrologic Study Report for the Western Sky Airpark Development, La Paz County, Arizona. Prepared for Arizona Department of Water Resources. _____, 2004, Hydrologic Study Report for the Proposed Sunset Links Subdivision, La Paz County, Arizona. Prepared for Arizona Department of Water Resources. 258 Section 7.5 McMullen Valley Basin Section 7.6 Parker Basin 259 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.6.1 Geography of the Parker Basin The Parker Basin, located in the western part of the planning area is 2,229 square miles in area. Geographic features and principal communities are shown on Figure 7.6-1. The basin is characterized by plains and valleys and low elevation mountain ranges. Vegetation types include Lower Colorado River Valley and Arizona Uplands Sonoran desertscrub. (See Figure 7.0-9) Riparian vegetation includes tamarisk, marsh and mesquite along the Colorado River. • Principal geographic features shown on Figure 7.6-1 are: o Plains and valleys including La Posa Plain in the center of the basin, Parker Valley on the northwestern basin boundary and Cactus Plain in the northern portion of the basin o Mountain ranges including the Trigo and Dome Rock Mountains in the center of the basin o The highest point in the basin, Cunningham Mountain, at 3,314 feet in the Dome Rock Mountains east of Ehrenberg and the Kofa Mountains on the eastern basin boundary o The lowest point at 150 feet where the Colorado River exits the basin. 260 Section 7.6 Parker Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.6 Parker Basin 261 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.6.2 Land Ownership in the Parker Basin Land ownership, including the percentage of ownership by category, for the Parker Basin is shown in Figure 7.6-2. The principal feature of land ownership in this basin is the very small proportion of private 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 7.0.4. Land ownership categories are discussed below in the order of largest to smallest percentage in the basin. U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) • 49.7% of the land is federally owned and managed by the Yuma Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management. • This basin includes the 30,000 acre Trigo Mountains Wilderness, the 19,000 acre Gibraltar Mountain Wilderness and the 15,000 acre East Cactus Plain Wilderness. (see Figure 7.012) • Land uses include grazing, resource conservation and recreation. U.S. Military • 19.5% of the land is federally owned and managed by the U.S. Military as the Yuma Proving Ground. • Primary land use is military activity. Indian Reservation • 16.4% of the land is under tribal ownership as the Colorado River Indian Tribes Reservation. • Land uses include domestic, commercial and agriculture. Wildlife Refuge • 9.3% of the land is federally owned and managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as the Kofa National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), Cibola NWR and the Imperial NWR • Land uses include resource conservation, wildlife protection and recreation. State Trust Land • 3.7% of the land is held in trust for the public schools under the State Trust Land system. • Primary land use is agriculture. Private • 1.3% of the land is private. • Small parcels of private land are located in the vicinity of Highway 95, north of Cibola, and at Parker and Cienega Springs • Land uses include domestic, commercial and agriculture. Other (Game and Fish, County and Bureau of Reclamation Lands) • 0.1% of the land is federally owned and managed by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBOR) 262 Section 7.6 Parker Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 • • USBOR lands are located north of Cibola along the Colorado River. Primary land use is unknown. Section 7.6 Parker Basin 263 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 264 Section 7.6 Parker Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.6.3 Climate of the Parker Basin Climate data from NOAA/NWS Co-op Network and AZMET stations are complied in Table 7.6-1 and the locations are shown on Figure 7.6-3. Figure 7.6-3 also shows precipitation contour data from the Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS) at Oregon State University. The Parker Basin does not contain Evaporation Pan or SNOTEL/ Snowcourse stations. More detailed information on climate in the planning area is found in Section 7.0.3. A description of climate data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network • Refer to Table 7.6-1A • There are five NOAA/NWS Co-op network climate stations in the basin. The average monthly maximum temperature occurs in July at all stations and ranges between 94.8°F at Quartzite and 92.2°F at Bouse. The average monthly minimum temperature occurs in January or December and ranges between 49.8°F at Bouse and 54.5°F at Ehrenburg 2E. • Average seasonal rainfall follows a bi-modal pattern with approximately one-third of the average seasonal rainfall occurring in the winter (January-March) season and one-third in the summer (July-September) season. For the period of record used, the highest annual rainfall is is 5.89 inches at the Bouse and the lowest is 3.50 inches at Ehrenburg. AZMET • Refer to Table 7.6-1C • There is one AZMET station in the basin, Parker. This station is at 308 feet and has an annual reference evaportranspiration of 82.91inches. SCAS Precipitation Data • See Figure 7.6-3 • Additional precipitation data shows average annual rainfall as high as 10 inches along the eastern basin boundary and as low as four inches or less along the Colorado River on the western basin boundary. Section 7.6 Parker Basin 265 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.6-1 Climate Data for the Parker Basin A. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network: Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Used for Averages Bouse 930 Ehrenberg 320 Ehrenberg 2E Station Name Average Temperature Range (in F) Average Total Precipitation (in inches) Max/Month Min/Month Winter Spring Summer Fall Annual 1971 - 2000 92.2/Jul 49.8/Dec 2.14 0.38 2.12 1.25 5.89 1948 - 1977 1 93.1/Jul 52.8/Jan 0.94 0.28 1.41 0.90 3.50 460 1971 - 2000 94.4/Jul 54.5/Dec 1.42 0.21 1.69 1.05 4.37 Parker 6 NE 41 1971 - 2000 93.2/Jul 53.9/Dec 2.22 0.28 1.45 1.22 5.17 Quartzsite 870 1971 - 2000 94.8/Jul 51.8/Dec 1.36 0.23 1.18 0.74 3.51 Source: WRCC, 2005 Notes: Average temperature data from period of record shown; average precipitation data from 1971 - 2000 1 B. Evaporation Pan: Station Name Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Avg. Annual Evap Used for Averages (in inches) None C. AZMet: Station Name Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Average Annual Reference Evaportranspiration, in inches (Number of years to calculate averages) Parker 308 1987 - current 82.91 (9) 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 266 Section 7.6 Parker Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.6 Parker Basin 267 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.6.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Parker Basin Streamflow data, including average seasonal flow, average annual flow and other information are shown in Table 7.6-2. Flood ALERT equipment in the basin is shown in Table 7.6-3. Reservoir and stockpond data, including maximum storage or maximum surface area, are shown in Table 7.6-4. The location of streamflow gages identified by USGS number, flood ALERT equipment and large reservoirs are shown on Figure 7.6-4. There are no USGS runoff contour data available for this basin. Descriptions of stream, reservoir and stockpond data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Streamflow Data • Refer to Table 7.6-2. • Data from three stations, two real-time and one discontinued, located on the Colorado River are shown in the table and on Figure 7.6-4. • Average seasonal flow is highest in spring and summer at the three stations and is regulated by scheduled releases from dams. • The largest annual flow recorded in the basin is more than 20 million acre feet (maf) in 1984 at the Colorado River below Parker Dam station with a contributing drainage area of 182,700 square miles. Flood ALERT Equipment • Refer to Table 7.6-3. • As of October 2005 there was one precipitation station in the basin located at Tyson Wash. Reservoirs and Stockponds • Refer to Table 7.6-4. • The basin contains five large reservoirs or dams. The largest, Lake Havasu, with a maximum storage of 651,000 acre-feet, is located in the Upper Colorado River Planning Area but Parker Dam is located at the basin boundary. • Reservoirs in this basin are used for water supply, irrigation, hydroelectric power, recreation and fish and wildlife. • Surface water is stored or could be stored in five small reservoirs in the basin. • There are five registered stockponds in this basin. 268 Section 7.6 Parker Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.6-2 Streamflow Data for the Parker Basin Drainage Area (in mi2) Gage Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Colorado River below Parker Dam1 182,700 350 9429100 Colorado River below Palo 1 Verde Dam 182,200 9429300 Colorado River below Cibola Valley 187,800 Station Number USGS Station Name 9427520 Average Seasonal Flow (% of annual flow) Annual Flow/Year (in acre-feet) Years of Annual Flow Maximum Record Winter Spring Summer Fall Minimum Median Mean 11/1934-current (real time) 23 28 28 20 5,534,256 (1993) 7,229,140 8,918,956 20,409,560 (1984) 61 260 3/1956-curent (real time) 22 31 30 17 4,369,340 (1993) 5,507,468 5,831,096 9,860,880 (1958) 39 200 4/1956-9/1988 (discontinued) 22 28 30 19 5,365,301 (1982) 6,187,223 7,801,072 19,016,442 (1984) 31 Source: USGS (NWIS) 2005 & 2008 Notes: Station in California Statistics based on Calendar Year Annual Flow statistics based on monthly values Annual Flow/Year statistics were only completed for those gages that had at least 3 years of 12 month records 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 7.6-3 Flood ALERT Equipment in the Parker Basin Station ID Station Name Station Type Install Date Responsibility 7203 Quartzite Precipitation 12/5/2001 ADWR Source: ADWR 2005a Notes: ADWR = Arizona Department of Water Resources Section 7.6 Parker Basin 269 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.6-4 Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Parker Basin A. Large Reservoirs (500 acre-feet capacity and greater) MAP RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME (Name KEY of dam, if different) 2 1 Lake Havasu (Parker) 2 Moovalya Lake (Headgate Rock) OWNER/OPERATOR MAXIMUM STORAGE (AF) USE1 JURISDICTION Bureau of Reclamation 651,000 S, I, H Federal Bureau of Reclamation 20,000 I, H, R Federal MAXIMUM SURFACE AREA (acres) USE 400 R,F Federal 220 F Federal 209 F Federal B. Other Large Reservoirs (50 acre surface area or greater) MAP RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME (Name KEY of dam, if different) 3 Cibola 4 Island 5 Adobe OWNER/OPERATOR Bureau of Reclamation/ USFWS Bureau of Reclamation/ USFWS Bureau of Reclamation/ USFWS 3 1 JURISDICTION 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) 3 Total number: 5 Total surface area: 188 acres E. Stockponds (up to 15 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 5 Notes: S = Supply; I = Irrigation; H = Hydroelectric power; F=Fish & wildlife pond; R=Recreation 2 Dam is located in the Parker Basin and lake storage is in the Lake Havasu Basin in the Upper Colorado River Planning Area. 3 Capacity data not available to ADWR USFWS = United States Fish and Wildlife Service 1 270 Section 7.6 Parker Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.6 Parker Basin 271 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.6.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Parker Basin The total number of springs in the basin are shown in Table 7.6-5. The location of a perennial stream is shown on Figure 7.6-5. Descriptions of data sources and methods for intermittent and perennial reaches and springs are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. • • • There are no intermittent streams and one perennial stream, the Colorado River. There are no major or minor springs in the basin. The total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by the USGS varies from 11 to 12, depending on the database reference. Table 7.6-5 Springs in the Parker Basin A. Major Springs (10 gpm or greater): Map Key Name Location Latitude Longitude Discharge (in gpm) Date Discharge Measured None identified by ADWR at this time B. Minor Springs (1 to 10 gpm): Name Location Latitude Longitude Discharge (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): 11 to 12 272 Section 7.6 Parker Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.6 Parker Basin 273 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.6.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Parker Basin Major aquifers, well yields, estimated water in storage, number of index wells and date of last water-level sweep are shown in Table 7.6-6. Figure 7.6-6 shows aquifer flow direction and waterlevel change between 1990-1991 and 2003-2004. Figure 7.6-7 contains hydrographs for selected wells shown on Figure 7.6-6. Figure 7.6-8 shows well yields in five yield categories. A description of aquifer data sources and methods as well as well data sources and methods, including waterlevel changes and well yields are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Major Aquifers • Refer to Table 7.6-6 and Figure 7.6-6. • The major aquifer is recent stream alluvium and sedimentary rock (Bouse Formation). • The basin contains three sub-basins: Cibola Valley, Colorado River Indian Reservation and La Posa Plains. • Groundwater flow is from the south and east toward the Colorado River. Well Yields • Refer to Table 7.6-6 and Figure 7.6-8. • As shown on Figure 7.6-8, well yields are generally less than 100 gallons per minute (gpm) although higher well yields are found near the Colorado River. • One source of well yield information, based on 75 reported wells, indicates that the median well yield is 100 gpm. Natural Recharge • Refer to Table 7.6-6. • The natural recharge estimate for this basin is 241,000 acre-feet per year (AFA). • The largest source of natural recharge is the Colorado River (ADWR 1994). Water in Storage • Refer to Table 7.6-6. • Storage estimates for this basin range from 14 maf to 24 maf to a depth of 1,200 feet. Water Level • Refer to Figure 7.6-6. Water levels are shown for wells measured in 2003-2004. • The Department annually measures six index wells in this basin. Hydrographs for five these wells and two additional wells (B and G) are shown on Figure 7.6-7. • The deepest water level shown on the map is 553 feet north of Quartzsite and the shallowest is 10 feet west of the Cibola Ehrenberg Road near the Colorado River. 274 Section 7.6 Parker Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.6-6 Groundwater Data for the Parker Basin Basin Area, in square miles: 2,229 Name and/or Geologic Units Major Aquifer(s): Recent Stream Alluvium Sedimentary Rock (Bouse Formation) Well Yields, in gal/min: Estimated Natural Recharge, in acre-feet/year: Estimated Water Currently in Storage, in acre-feet: N/A Measured by ADWR (GWSI) and/or USGS Range 2-6,000 Median 100 (75 wells reported) Reported on registration forms for large (>10-inch) diameter wells (Wells55) Range 30-900 ADWR (1990 and 1994b) Range 0-2,500 Anning and Duet (1994) 241,000 Freethey and Anderson (1986) 14,000,000 (to 1,200 ft) ADWR (1994b) 24,000,0001 (to 1,200 ft) Freethey and Anderson (1986) 21,000,000 (to 1,200 ft) Arizona Water Commission (1975) Current Number of Index Wells: 6 Date of Last Water-level Sweep: 1995-97 (348 wells measured) 1 Predevelopment Estimate 10/19/2009 Section 7.6 Parker Basin 275 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 276 Section 7.6 Parker Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Figure 7.6-7 Parker Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 50 5 0 A 100 1975 500 B 550 1975 450 C DEPTH: 281 ft USE: PUBLIC SUPPLY B-09-19 07BBB 1985 1995 DEPTH: 533 ft USE: UNUSED 2005 B-07-19 28CBC 1985 1995 DEPTH: 591 ft USE: PUBLIC SUPPLY 2005 B-04-19 29BCB1 500 1975 1985 1995 2005 YEAR Section 7.6 Parker Basin 277 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Figure 7.6-7 (cont’d) Parker Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells D DEPTH: 180 ft USE: DOMESTIC basin fill B-03-19 29BAB 100 150 Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 1975 E 300 1985 1995 2005 basin fill B-03-21 08ABD DEPTH: 604 ft USE: PUBLIC SUPPLY 350 1975 F 50 2 5 1985 1995 2005 basin fill B-02-18 09DDC DEPTH: UNKNOWN USE: UNUSED 75 75 1975 G 1985 1995 2005 sedimentary rocks B-02-22 16BBA DEPTH: 998 ft USE: UNUSED 0 50 5 0 1975 1985 1995 2005 YEAR 278 Section 7.6 Parker Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.6 Parker Basin 279 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.6.7 Water Quality of the Parker Basin Wells, springs and mine sites with parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standard(s), including location and parameter(s) are shown in Table 7.6-7A. There are no impaired lakes or streams in this basin. Figure 7.6-9 shows the location of water quality occurrences keyed to Table 7.6-7. 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 7.6-7A. • Fifty-two wells have parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standards. • The parameter most frequently equaled or exceeded was nitrate. Other parameters equaled or exceeded include arsenic, chromium, lead, fluoride and organics. 280 Section 7.6 Parker Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.6-7 Water Quality Exceedences in the Parker 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 Township Range Section Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking 2 Water Standard (DWS) 10 North 10 North 10 North 9 North 9 North 6 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 10 West 20 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 27 27 27 7 1 13 16 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 22 22 26 27 27 27 27 27 27 28 28 28 F F F As As F NO3 As As, NO3 NO3 NO3 NO3 NO3 NO3 NO3 NO3 NO3 Organics Organics Organics Organics Organics NO3 Organics Organics Organics Organics Organics Organics Organics Organics Organics NO3 As As As NO3 F NO3 NO3 NO3 NO3 NO3 NO3 Site Type 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 7.6 Parker Basin 281 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.6-7 Water Quality Exceedences in the Parker Basin (Cont)1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Site Location Map Key Township Range Section Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water Standard (DWS)2 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 3 North 1 North 1 South 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 23 West 23 West 28 28 28 29 31 7 33 32 NO3 NO3 NO3 NO3 Pb As TDS TDS Site Type 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 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 Area of Impaired Impaired Stream Lake (in acres) Reach (in miles) Designated Use Standard Parameter(s) Exceeding Use Standard None identified by ADWR at this time Notes: 1 Water quality samples collected between 1978 and 1991. Listed TDS exceedences indicate "mineralized water" that contains over 3000 milligrams per liter (mg/l) of TDS and would require special well construction procedures (A.A.C. R12-15-812(B)). The secondary drinking water standard for TDS is 500 mg/l. 2 As = Arsenic F = Fluoride Pb = Lead Organics = One or more of several volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds and pesticides NO3 = Nitrate/ Nitrite TDS = Total Dissolved Solids 282 Section 7.6 Parker Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.6 Parker Basin 283 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.6.8 Cultural Water Demands in the Parker 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 7.6-8. Effluent generation including facility ownership, location, population served and not served, volume treated, disposal method and treatment level is shown in Table 7.6-9. Figure 7.610 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 demands is found in Section 7.0.7. Cultural Water Demands • Refer to Table 7.6-8 and Figure 7.6-10. • Population in this basin increased from 11,339 in 1980 to 16,155 in 2000. • Most cultural water use is for irrigation on the Colorado River Indian Tribe’s land in the northwestern portion of the basin. • Agricultural surface water demand declined from 1991 to 2005 with 630,600 acre-feet diverted per year on average in 2001-2005. Agricultural groundwater demand decreased slightly between 1991 and 2005. • Municipal demand is relatively small. Groundwater demand increased from 2,900 AFA in 1991-1995 to 3,800 AFA in 2001-2005. Surface water increased from 400 AFA in 19911995 to 500 AFA in 2001-2005. • There is minimal industrial demand in this basin associated with sand and gravel operations. • As of 2005 there were 1,749 registered wells with a pumping capacity of less than or equal to 35 gpm and 191 wells with a pumping capacity of more than 35 gpm. Effluent Generation • Refer to Table 7.6-9. • There are 12 wastewater treatment facilities in this basin. • Information on population served was available for 10 facilities and information on the volume of effluent generated was available for all 12 facilities. These facilities serve almost 12,000 people and generate almost 2,200 acre-feet of effluent per year. • Two facilities discharge to a watercourse, two facilities discharge for irrigation, one facility discharges to a golf course and five discharge to unlined impoundments that recharge the aquifer. 284 Section 7.6 Parker Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.6-8 Cultural Water Demand in the Parker 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 and Water Supply Wells Drilled Well Pumpage Surface-Water Diversions Projected Population Q < 35 gpm Q > 35 gpm Municipal Industrial Agricultural Municipal Industrial Agricultural 8502 11,339 11,398 11,457 11,516 11,575 11,634 11,693 11,752 11,810 11,869 11,928 12,351 12,774 13,196 13,619 14,042 14,464 14,887 15,310 15,732 16,155 16,351 16,548 16,744 16,941 17,137 18,119 20,037 21,775 WELL TOTALS: 9,000 1,251,0004 21,000 1,102,0004 Data Source 1052 ADWR (1994a) 181 26 25,000 1,130,0004 203 26 18,000 1,229,0004 130 7 2,900 NR 1,300 400 NR 662,000 118 8 3,200 NR <1,000 400 NR 667,000 267 19 3,800 <300 <1,000 500 NR 630,600 1,749 191 USGS (2007) ADWR (2008b) ADWR (2008c) 1 Does not include effluent or evaporation losses from stockponds and reservoirs. Includes all wells through 1980. 3 Includes pumpage and diversion of Colorado River Contract Water. 4 Includes surface-water diversions in the Lower Gila and Yuma basins. NR - Not reported 2 10/19/2009 Section 7.6 Parker Basin 285 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.6-9 Effluent Generation in the Parker Basin Disposal Method Facility Name Ownership City/Location Served Population Served Volume Treated/Generated (acre-feet/year) Bouse WWTP Arizona Department of Transportation Rest Area NA 301 Buckskin Mtn. WWTF State of Arizona State Park 240 11 Buckskin/Sandpiper WWTP Buckskin SD Parker 50 6 Colorado River Joint Venture Municipal Parker 5,000 840 Headstart Sewer System Colorado River Tribes School 90 10 Mochem Sewer System Colorado River Tribes Reservation 1,000 Parker WWTP Colorado River Tribes Parker Poston Colorado River Tribes Poston BIA WWTF Bureau of Indian Affairs Poston CRHA Colorado River Housing Authority Quartzsite WWTP Thompson Enterprises Watercourse Golf Evaporation Irrigation Course/Turf/ Pond Landscape Wildlife Area Discharged to Another Facility Infiltration Basins Current Treatment Level Population Not Served Year of Record Other NA 1996 Secondary 1,400 2001 Adv. Trt. I NA 1996 Secondary NA 2005 X Secondary 90 2000 112 X Secondary 125 1999 3,045 336 X Secondary NA 2000 Poston 600 67 X Secondary NA 2000 Poston 489 11 NA Secondary NA 2001 Poston 244 11 NA Secondary 37 2001 Quartzsite Quartzsite 1,000 371 Adv.Trt. I NA 2000 Private RV Park NA 29 11,758 2,106 Total X X X Emerald Canyon X X 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 WWTP: Waste Water Treatment Plant SD: Sanitation District 286 Section 7.6 Parker Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.6 Parker Basin 287 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.6.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Parker Basin Water adequacy determination information including the subdivision name, location, number of lots, adequacy determination, reason for an inadequacy determination, date of determination and subdivision water provider are shown in Table 7.6-10A. Designated water provider information is shown in Table 7.6-10B with date of application, date the designation was issued and projected or annual estimated demand. Figure 7.6-11 shows the general locations of subdivisions (to the section level) 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 La Paz County. Twenty-eight water adequacy determinations have been made in this basin through December 2008. Of the 25 subdivisions for which lot information is available, 1,145 lots in 15 subdivisions, or 73% or lots, were determined to be adequate. The most common reason for a determination of inadequacy was because the applicant chose not to submit necessary information and/or available hydrologic data were insufficient to make a determination. There are two designated providers, Town of Parker and Town of Quartzsite. The total projected or annual estimated demand for the Town of Quartzsite is 602 acre-feet. The Town of Parker does not have a projected or annual estimated demand. 288 Section 7.6 Parker Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.6-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Parker Basin1 A. Water Adequacy Reports Location Map Key Subdivision Name County Township Range Section No. of Lots ADWR File No.2 ADWR Adequacy Determination 1 2 Brandy Hills West College Acres Yuma Yuma 7 North 3 South 17 West 22 East 16 30 92 16 53-500357 53-500481 Inadequate Adequate 3 Emerald Springs Unit I La Paz 3 North 22 West 3, 10 53 53-300299 Adequate La Paz 10 North 19 West 27 17 53-500791 Inadequate Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination3 C Date of Determination Water Provider at Time of Application 2/21/1974 9/18/1974 Dry Lot Subdivision Dry Lot Subdivision 5/7/1997 Ehrenberg Water Company 12/5/1994 Dry Lot Subdivision 5 Highland Estates Amended La Paz Estates Yuma 3 South 22 East 2 159 53-500859 Adequate 5/28/1976 La Paz Water Company 6 La Paz Estates #1 La Paz 3 North 22 West 2 23 53-500860 Adequate 5/9/1988 Ehrenberg Water Company 7 La Paz Valley Acres Lake Moovalya Keys amended La Paz 3 North 19 West 29 20 53-500861 Adequate 6/10/1984 Dry Lot Subdivision La Paz 10 North 19 West 22 NA 53-500889 Inadequate 1/14/1992 Consolidated Water Utility Miraleste Shores Estates La Paz 10 North 19 West 15 46 53-500987 Inadequate 4/4/1994 Consolidated Water Utility 4 8 9 B B 10 Moon Mountain Estates La Paz 4 North 19 West 21 36 53-501009 Inadequate A1 4/10/1980 Dry Lot Subdivision 11 Moon Mountain Estates #2 La Paz 4 North 19 West 21 24 53-501010 Inadequate A1 6/24/1985 Dry Lot Subdivision 12 13 Mountain View Estates Mountain View Resort Mountain View Subdivision Palo Fiero Q Mountain Mobile Home & RV Rainbow Acres Unit 1, Phase 2 Rainbow Acres Unit 3, Phase I Rainbow Acres Unit 3, Phase II La Paz La Paz 10 North 4 North 19 West 19 West 27 21 114 54 53-402249 53-300548 Adequate Inadequate A1 2/22/2007 10/15/1998 Brooke Water Co. Town of Quartzsite Rainbow Acres Unit No. 2 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Rainbow Acres, Unit I, Phases 1,2 Ranchero Estates #1,2 Ranchero Estates Unit One at Holiday Harbour Rivers Edge Estates Subdivision, Tract 0331 Riverview Sunrise Village The Arroyos Quartzsite Vinnedge La Paz 4 North 19 West 21 10 53-300549 Inadequate A1 10/15/1998 Town of Quartzsite La Paz 4 North 19 West 28 11 53-700435 Inadequate A1 10/30/2007 Town of Quartzsite La Paz 4 North 19 West 28 248 53-501232 Adequate 1/11/1991 Q Mountain Water Company La Paz 3 North 19 West 7 63 53-300333 Adequate 9/22/1997 Q Mountain Water Company La Paz 3 North 19 West 7 123 53-400086 Adequate 8/2/1999 Q Mountain Water Company La Paz 3 North 19 West 7 137 53-400247 Adequate 5/8/2000 Q Mountain Water Company La Paz 3 North 19 West 7 113 53-300429 Adequate 9/15/1998 Q Mountain Water Company La Paz 3 North 19 West 7 63 53-501244 Adequate 3/29/1995 Q Mountain Water Company La Paz 11 North 18 West 27 NA 53-501248 Adequate 6/30/1976 La Paz 11 North 18 West 27 5 53-700342 Adequate 6/5/2007 Holiday Harbor Utilities Co. Brooke Water LLC. - Holiday Harbour La Paz 10 North 19 West 11 8 53-700552 Adequate La Paz La Paz La Paz La Paz 10 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 19 West 19 West 19 West 19 West 27 21 23 16 NA 32 103 5 53-501330 53-700457 53-402067 53-501640 Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Section 7.6 Parker Basin D A1 A1 D 9/5/2008 Marina Village 10/22/1974 12/31/2007 4/19/2006 12/8/1975 Consolidated Water Utility Town of Quartzsite Town of Quartzsite Dry Lot Subdivision 289 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.6-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Parker Basin (Cont)1 B. Designated Adequate Water Supply Projected or Annual Estimated Date Application Date Application Received Demand (af/yr) Issued Map Key Provider Name County Designation No. a Town of Parker La Paz 40-900010.0000 No amount designated NA 5/17/1973 b Town of Quartzsite La Paz 40-500041.0000 602 10/26/2006 3/14/2008 Year of Projected or Annual Demand No data, hydrologic study needed 2012 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 = Information not available to ADWR 290 Section 7.6 Parker Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.6 Parker Basin 291 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Parker 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, WWTP and permit files: Miscellaneous working files, received July 2005. (Effluent Generation Table) _____, 2004, Water quality exceedences by watershed: Data file, received June 2004. (Water Quality Map and Table) _____, 2004, 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. _____, 2005a, Flood warning gages: Database, ADWR Office of Water Engineering. _____, 2005b, Groundwater Site Inventory (GWSI): Database, ADWR Hydrology Division. _____, 2005c, Registry of surface water rights: ADWR Office of Water Management. (Reservoirs and Stockponds Table) _____, 2005d, 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, D.W., January, 16, 1990. Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGF), 2005, Arizona Waterways: Data file, received April 2005. (Reservoirs and Stockponds Table) _____, 1997, Remote Sensing Mapping of Arizona Intermittent Stream Riparian Areas: GIS cover. _____, 1993, Arizona 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. 292 Section 7.6 Parker Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 _____, 2005b Streams: GIS cover, accessed January 2006 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/ index.html _____, 2004, Land ownership: GIS cover, accessed in 2004 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/ index.html. Arizona Meteorological Network (AZMET), 2007, Arizona climate stations: Pan evaporation data, accessed December 2005 at http://www.ag.arizona.edu/azmet/locate.html. Arizona Water Commission, 1975, Summary, Phase I, Arizona State Water Plan, Inventory of resource and uses. E Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 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 United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2008 & 2005, National Water Information System (NWIS) data for Arizona: Accessed October 2008 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. Section 7.6 Parker Basin 293 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 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., 2002, Estimation and analysis of the uncertainty in stream flow and change in reservoir-content data at selected stream flow-gaging stations in the Lower Colorado River network, 1995-99: University of Arizona, M.S. thesis. 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. Bureau of Reclamation, 2000, Colorado River Interim Surplus Criteria: Final Environmental Impact Statement. Clean Colorado River Alliance, 2006, Recommendations to Address Colorado River Water Quality. Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum, 2005, Water Quality Standards for Salinity: Colorado River System. Gonzalez, J.L., 1990, An evaluation of the d15N values of nitrate in ground water at Quartzsite, Arizona: University of Arizona, M.S. thesis, 20 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 Kimsey, S.L., 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.121. 294 Section 7.6 Parker Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 R.B. Williams and Associates, 1973, Water Report for La Paz Water Company, Ehrenberg, Arizona. Prepared for Arizona Department of Water Resources. 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 Santec Consulting, 1999, Small and minor watercourses analysis for La Paz County, Arizona, Arizona State Land Department, Final Report. Section 7.6 Parker Basin 295 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 296 Section 7.6 Parker Basin Section 7.7 Ranegras Plain Basin 297 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.7.1 Geography of the Ranegras Plain Basin The Ranegras Plain Basin, located in the northern part of the planning area is 912 square miles in area. Geographic features and principal communities are shown on Figure 7.7-1. The basin is characterized by a plain bordered by mountain ranges. Vegetation types include Lower Colorado River Valley and Arizona uplands Sonoran desertscrub. (See Figure 7.0-9) • Principal geographic features shown on Figure 7.7-1 are: o Bouse Wash in the northern portion of the basin o Ranegras Plain in the center of the basin bordered by the Plomosa, New Water and Little Horn Mountains in the west and the Granite Wash and Little Harquahala Mountains in the east o The highest point in the basin at 2,805 feet in the New Water Mountains o The lowest point in the basin at 930 feet near the Town of Bouse. 298 Section 7.7 Ranegras Plain Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.7 Ranegras Plain Basin 299 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.7.2 Land Ownership in the Ranegras Plain Basin Land ownership, including the percentage of ownership by category, for the Ranegras Plain Basin is shown in Figure 7.7-2. The principal feature of land ownership in this basin is the large proportion of U.S. Bureau of Land Management 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 7.0.4. Land ownership categories are discussed below in the order of largest to smallest percentage in the basin. U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) • 66.3% of the land is federally owned and managed by the Yuma Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management. • This basin includes the 25,000 acre New Water Mountains Wilderness and 12,000 acres of the 100,000 acre Eagletail Mountains Wilderness. (See Figure 7.0-12) • Land uses include grazing, resource conservation and recreation. Wildlife Refuge • 15.5% of the land is federally owned and managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as the Kofa National Wildlife Refuge (NWR). • Land uses include resource conservation, wildlife protection and recreation. Private • 11.1% of the land is private. • Land uses include domestic, commercial and agriculture. State Trust Land • 7.1% of the land is held in trust for the public schools under the State Trust Land system. • Primary land use is grazing and agriculture. 300 Section 7.7 Ranegras Plain Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.7 Ranegras Plain Basin 301 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.7.3 Climate of the Ranegras Plain Basin The Ranegras Plain Basin does not contain NOAA/NWS, Evaporation Pan, AZMET or SNOTEL/ Snowcourse stations. Figure 7.7-3 shows precipitation contour data from the Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS) at Oregon State University. More detailed information on climate in the planning area is found in Section 7.0.3. A description of the climate data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. SCAS Precipitation Data • See Figure 7.7-3 • Average annual rainfall is as high as 14 inches along the eastern basin boundary north of Vicksburg and as low as four inches in the north central portion of the basin. 302 Section 7.7 Ranegras Plain Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.7 Ranegras Plain Basin 303 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.7.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Ranegras Plain Basin There are no streamflow data, flood ALERT equipment or USGS runoff contour data available for this basin. Reservoir and stockpond data, including maximum storage or maximum surface area, are shown in Table 7.7-1. Descriptions of stream, reservoir and stockpond data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Reservoirs and Stockponds • Refer to Table 7.7-1. • There are no large or small reservoirs and 16 registered stockponds in this basin. Table 7.7-1 Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Ranegras Plain 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 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: 16 304 Section 7.7 Ranegras Plain Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.7 Ranegras Plain Basin 305 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.7.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Ranegras Plain Basin The total number of springs in the basin are shown in Table 7.7-2. There are no perennial or intermittent streams and no major or minor springs in the Ranegras Plain Basin. Descriptions of data sources and methods for intermittent and perennial reaches and springs are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. • The total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by the USGS is two. Table 7.7-2 Springs in the Ranegras Plain Basin A. Major Springs (10 gpm or greater): Map Key Name Location Latitude Longitude Discharge (in gpm) Date Discharge Measured None identified by ADWR at this time B. Minor Springs (1 to 10 gpm): Name Location Latitude Longitude Discharge (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): 2 306 Section 7.7 Ranegras Plain Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.7.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Ranegras Plain Basin Major aquifers, well yields, estimated water in storage, number of index wells and date of last water-level sweep are shown in Table 7.7-3. Figure 7.7-5 shows aquifer flow direction and waterlevel change between 1990-1991 and 2003-2004. Figure 7.7-6 contains hydrographs for selected wells shown on Figure 7.7-5. Figure 7.7-7 shows well yields in five yield categories. A description of aquifer data sources and methods as well as well data sources and methods, including waterlevel changes and well yields are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Major Aquifers • Refer to Table 7.7-3 and Figure 7.7-5. • The major aquifer is basin fill. • Groundwater flow is generally from south to north, and to a cone of depression caused by irrigation pumping west of Hope. Well Yields • Refer to Table 7.7-3 and Figure 7.7-7. • As shown on Figure 7.7-7, well yields in this basin are generally greater than 1,000 gallons per minute (gpm). • One source of well yield information, based on 68 reported wells, indicates that the median well yield is 1,150 gpm. Natural Recharge • Refer to Table 7.7-3. • Natural recharge estimates range from less than 1,000 acre-feet per year (AFA) to between 4,550 acre-feet and 6,050 AFA. • The largest source of natural recharge is infiltration of runoff from the Bouse Wash and its tributaries (ADWR 1994b). Water in Storage • Refer to Table 7.7-3. • Storage estimates for this basin range from 9.0 million acre-feet (maf) to 27 maf to a depth of 1,200 feet. Water Level • Refer to Figure 7.7-5. Water levels are shown for wells measured in 2003-2004. • The Department annually measures 19 index wells in this basin. Hydrographs for six index wells are shown on Figure 7.7-6. • The deepest water level shown on the map is 363 feet south of Vicksburg and the shallowest is 75 feet at Bouse. Section 7.7 Ranegras Plain Basin 307 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.7-3 Groundwater Data for the Ranegras Plain Basin Basin Area, in square miles: 912 Major Aquifer(s): Name and/or Geologic Units Basin Fill Range 812-3,310 Median 1,993.5 (14 wells measured) Range 12-4,000 Median 1,150 (68 wells reported) Well Yields, in gal/min: Reported on registration forms for large (>10-inch) diameter wells (Wells55) Range 85-3,310 ADWR (1994b) Range 0-2,500 Anning and Duet (1994) 5,000 ADWR (1994b) 5,500 ADWR (1990) (HMS 18) <1,000 Freethey and Anderson (1986) 1,000 Arizona Water Commission (1975) 4,550 - 6,050 Briggs (1969) 21,700,000 (to 1,200 ft) ADWR (1994b) 9,000,0001 (to 1,200 ft) Freethey and Anderson (1986) 27,000,000 (to 1,200 ft) Arizona Water Commission (1975) 15,400,000 - 22,200,000 Johnson (1990) 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: 19 Date of Last Water-level Sweep: 2004 (124 wells measured) 1 Predevelopment Estimate 308 10/19/2009 Section 7.7 Ranegras Plain Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.7 Ranegras Plain Basin 309 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Figure 7.7-6 Ranegras Plain Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells 50 A WELL DEPTH: 120 ft USE: PUBLIC SUPPLY Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 100 1975 400 450 100 150 250 B 1985 2005 basin fill B-06-15 27BBA 1985 1995 2005 basin fill B-05-16 09BCC WELL DEPTH: 145 ft USE: STOCK 1975 D 1995 WELL DEPTH: 660 ft USE: STOCK 1975 C basin fill B-07-17 23CAC2 1985 1995 2005 basin fill B-05-15 35BDD2 WELL DEPTH: 800 ft USE: UNUSED 300 350 1975 1985 1995 2005 YEAR 310 Section 7.7 Ranegras Plain Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface Figure 7.7-6 (cont’d) Ranegras Plain Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells 250 E WELL DEPTH: 905 ft USE: IRRIGATION basin fill B-04-14 32BAA 300 350 300 350 1975 F 1975 1985 1995 2005 basin fill B-02-14 10CDC WELL DEPTH: 455 ft USE: STOCK 1985 1995 2005 YEAR Section 7.7 Ranegras Plain Basin 311 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 312 Section 7.7 Ranegras Plain Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.7.7 Water Quality of the Ranegras Plain Basin Wells, springs and mine sites with parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standard(s), including location and parameter(s) are shown in Table 7.7-4A. There are no impaired lakes or streams in this basin. Figure 7.7-8 shows the location of water quality occurrences keyed to Table 7.7-4. A description of water quality data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Not all parameters were measured at all sites; selective sampling for particular constituents is common. Well, Mine or Spring sites that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standards (DWS) • Refer to Table 7.7-4A. • Ninety-one wells have parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standards. • The most frequently equaled or exceeded the parameter was fluoride. Other parameters equaled or exceeded include arsenic, barium, chromium, lead, nitrate and total dissolved solids. Section 7.7 Ranegras Plain Basin 313 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.7-4 Water Quality Exceedences in the Ranegras Plain Basin 1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines 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 53 54 55 56 57 58 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 Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Township Range Section Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water Standard (DWS) 2 7 North 7 North 7 North 7 North 7 North 6 North 6 North 6 North 6 North 6 North 6 North 6 North 6 North 6 North 6 North 6 North 6 North 6 North 6 North 6 North 6 North 6 North 6 North 6 North 6 North 6 North 6 North 6 North 6 North 6 North 6 North 6 North 6 North 6 North 6 North 5 North 5 North 5 North 5 North 5 North 5 North 5 North 5 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 17 West 17 West 17 West 17 West 17 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 16 West 16 West 16 West 16 West 16 West 16 West 16 West 16 West 16 West 16 West 16 West 16 West 16 West 16 West 17 West 17 West 17 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 16 West 16 West 14 West 14 West 14 West 14 West 14 West 14 West 14 West 14 West 14 West 14 West 14 West 14 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 22 23 23 23 35 6 6 7 8 8 18 18 30 30 30 32 33 33 12 15 15 16 17 17 17 20 22 23 23 26 32 34 12 12 12 4 4 6 20 21 30 9 10 4 19 19 19 19 29 29 29 30 32 32 32 8 8 9 As, F As, F As, F As, F As, F NO3 NO3 NO3, TDS F F F F As, F As, F As, F As, F Pb As, Pb F Cr Cr, TDS F F As As, F F F As, NO3, TDS F NO3, TDS As, F As, F As, F Ba F As, F As, F F, NO3, TDS As, F F As, F, NO3, TDS As, F, Pb As, F As As, F As, F, NO3 F As, F, NO3 As, F F F As, Cr, F As, Cr, F As, Cr, F, NO3 F F, NO3 As As, NO3 Site Location 314 Section 7.7 Ranegras Plain Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.7-4 Water Quality Exceedences in the Ranegras Plain Basin (Cont) 1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Map Key Site Type 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 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 Township Range Section Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water Standard (DWS) 2 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 4 North 3 North 3 North 3 North 3 North 3 North 2 North 2 North 2 North 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 16 West 16 West 16 West 16 West 16 West 16 West 16 West 16 West 16 West 14 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 13 West 14 West 14 West 10 10 11 11 11 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 18 18 23 28 9 13 13 13 15 18 18 19 19 11 2 2 2 23 19 10 28 F F F As, Cr, F, NO3 F As, Cr, F F As, F F As, F, NO3 As, F, NO3, TDS As As As, F F As, NO3 As, F As As, F As As, F As As As As F As, F, NO3 As, F As, Cr, F As, F As As NO3 Length of Impaired Stream Reach (in miles) Area of Impaired Lake (in acres) Site Location 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 Water quality samples collected between 1978 and 1991. Listed TDS exceedences indicate "mineralized water" that contains over 3000 milligrams per liter (mg/l) of TDS and would require special well construction procedures (A.A.C. R12-15-812(B)). The secondary drinking water standard for TDS is 500 mg/l. 2 As = Arsenic Ba = Barium Cr = Chromium F = Fluoride Pb = Lead NO3 = Nitrate TDS = Total Dissolved Solids Section 7.7 Ranegras Plain Basin 315 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 316 Section 7.7 Ranegras Plain Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.7.8 Cultural Water Demands in the Ranegras Plain 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 7.7-5. Figure 7.7-9 shows the location of demand centers. There is no recorded effluent generation in this basin. A description of cultural water demand data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. More detailed information on cultural water demands is found in Section 7.0.7. Cultural Water Demands • Refer to Table 7.7-5 and Figure 7.7-9. • Population in this basin declined from 1,024 in 1980 to 581 in 1990 but is slowly increasing. The 2000 basin population was 905. • There are no reported surface water diversions in this basin. • Most cultural water use is for irrigation in the northern half of the basin. • Groundwater use for agriculture decreased from 1991 to 2005 with 28,800 AFA on average between 2001 and 2005. • Municipal groundwater demand is relatively small and increased from less than 300 AFA in 1991-1995 to 400 AFA in 2001-2005. • There was no reported industrial groundwater demand from 1991 to 2005. Another dairy began operating in December 2006. • As of 2005 there were 522 registered wells with a pumping capacity of less than or equal to 35 gpm and 138 wells with a pumping capacity of more than 35 gpm. Section 7.7 Ranegras Plain Basin 317 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.7-5 Cultural Water Demand in the Ranegras Plain 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 Estimated and Projected Population Q < 35 gpm 155 1,024 980 935 891 847 802 758 714 669 625 581 613 646 678 710 743 775 808 840 873 905 920 934 949 963 978 1,050 1,128 1,198 WELL TOTALS: Average Annual Demand (in acre-feet) Number of Registered Water Supply Wells Drilled 2 Q > 35 gpm 91 Well Pumpage Surface-Water Diversions Municipal Industrial Agricultural Municipal Industrial Agricultural 18,000 NR 11,000 NR Data Source 2 ADWR (1994a) 43 17 35,000 NR 61 12 31,000 NR 62 3 <300 NR 29,500 NR 96 5 300 NR 32,000 NR 105 10 400 NR 28,800 NR 522 138 USGS (2007) 1 Does not include evaporation losses from stockponds and reservoirs. Includes all wells through 1980. NR - Not reported 2 318 10/19/2009 Section 7.7 Ranegras Plain Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.7 Ranegras Plain Basin 319 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.7.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Ranegras Plain Basin Water adequacy determination information including the subdivision name, location, number of lots, adequacy determination, reason for an inadequacy determination, date of determination and subdivision water provider are shown in Table 7.7-6. Figure 7.7-10 shows the general locations of subdivisions (to the section level) 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 La Paz County. Eight water adequacy determinations for 280 lots have been made in this basin through December 2008. Twenty-six lots in one subdivision, or 9% or lots, were determined to be adequate. The most common reason for a determination of inadequacy is water quality. Table 7.7-6 Adequacy Determinations in the Ranegras Plain Basin1 Map Key Location ADWR File No.2 ADWR Adequacy Determination Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination3 Township Range Section No. of Lots La Paz 6 North 16 West 17 54 53-700293 Inadequate La Paz 6 North 16 West 22 64 53-400809 Inadequate Subdivision Name County 1 Bucksaw 2 Desert Rose Acres (Tract No. 0135) 3 Desert Shadows La Paz 4 North 16 West 19 26 53-500579 Adequate 4 Eden Park Phase 3 La Paz 4 North 15 West 1 67 53-700557 Inadequate La Paz 4 North 15 West 1 16 53-400701 Inadequate Eden Park RV Subdivision Eden Park RV Subdivision Phase 2 5 6 Date of Determination Water Provider at the Time of Application A1,C 4/9/2007 Dry Lot Subdivision C 10/22/2002 Dry Lot Subdivision 1/10/1994 Desert Shadows Water District A1 8/20/2008 Eden Park HOA D 5/8/2002 Eden Park HOA La Paz 4 North 15 West 1 12 53-700294 Inadequate A1 4/12/2007 Eden Park HOA 7 Faybol Subdivision La Paz 6 North 16 West 34 29 53-300247 Inadequate A1,C 1/28/1997 Dry Lot Subdivision 8 Sunnyside, Unit 1 La Paz 7 North 17 West 35 12 53-402075 Inadequate A1 7/26/2006 Undetermined Provider 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 320 Section 7.7 Ranegras Plain Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.7 Ranegras Plain Basin 321 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Ranegras Plain 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 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. _____, 2005a, Groundwater Site Inventory (GWSI): Database, ADWR Hydrology Division. _____, 2005b, Registry of surface water rights: ADWR Office of Water Management. (Reservoirs and Stockponds Table) _____, 2005, 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, D.W., January, 16, 1990. Arizona Land Resource Information System (ALRIS), 2005, Springs: GIS cover, accessed January 2006 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index.html. _____, 2005b Streams: GIS cover, accessed January 2006 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/ index.html _____, 2004, Land ownership: GIS cover, accessed in 2004 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/ index.html. Arizona Water Commission, 1975, Summary, Phase I, Arizona State Water Plan, Inventory of resource and uses. F Freethey, G.W. and Anderson, T.W. 1986, Predevelopment hydrologic conditions in the alluvial basins of Arizona and adjacent parts of California and New Mexico: USGS Hydrologic Investigations Atlas-HA664. J Johnson, B.J., 1990, Maps showing groundwater conditions in the Ranegras Plain Basin: La Paz and Yuma Counties, Arizona: Arizona Department of Water Resources Hydrologic Map Series #18. 322 Section 7.7 Ranegras Plain Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 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 (USGS), 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, 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. 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. Associated Engineers, Inc., 1975, Water Production Report, Caballo Farms, Yuma County, Arizona. Prepared for Arizona Department of Water Resources. Gregor Engineering, Inc., 2002, Hydrology Study for Arizona Department of Water Resources Application for a Water Adequacy Report for Desert Rose Acres, Tract 0135, La Paz County, Arizona. Prepared for Arizona Department of Water Resources. 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. Santec Consulting, 1999, Small and minor watercourses analysis for La Paz County, Arizona, Arizona State Land Department, Final Report. Section 7.7 Ranegras Plain Basin 323 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 324 Section 7.7 Ranegras Plain Basin Section 7.8 San Simon Wash Basin 325 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.8.1 Geography of the San Simon Wash Basin The San Simon Wash Basin, located in the southeastern part of the planning area is 2,284 square miles in area. Geographic features and principal communities are shown on Figure 7.8-1. The basin is characterized by plains and valleys bordered by mountain ranges including the highest elevation mountain range in the planning area. Vegetation types include Lower Colorado River Valley and Arizona uplands Sonoran desertscrub, semi-desert grassland and madrean evergreen woodland along the eastern basin boundary. (See Figure 7.0-9) • Principal geographic features shown on Figure 7.8-1 are: o San Simon Wash running north-south through the center of the basin o Valleys and plains including the Quijotoa Valley in the northern portion of the basin, the Gu Oidak Valley in the center of the basin and the Baboquivari Valley in the southeastern portion of the basin o Mountain ranges including the Ajo Range on the southwestern basin boundary and the Baboquivari Mountains on the southeastern basin boundary o The highest point in the basin at 7,730 feet in the Baboquivari Mountains o The lowest point at about 1,650 feet where San Simon Wash enters Mexico. 326 Section 7.8 San Simon Wash Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.8 San Simon Wash Basin 327 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.8.2 Land Ownership in the San Simon Wash Basin Land ownership, including the percentage of ownership by category, for the San Simon Wash Basin is shown in Figure 7.8-2. The principal feature of land ownership in this basin is the large proportion of tribal lands. A description of land ownership data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Land ownership categories are discussed below in the order of largest to smallest percentage in the basin. Indian Reservation • 99.2% under tribal ownership as the Tohono O’odham Indian Reservation. • Land uses include domestic, commercial, grazing and farming. Private • 0.3% of the land is private. • Small parcels of private land are found in the southern portion of the basin and in the vicinity of Sells. • Land uses include domestic, commercial and grazing. U.S. Bureau of Land Management • 0.2% of the land is federally owned and managed by the Lower Sonoran Field Office of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. • Primary land use is grazing. State Trust Land • 0.2% of the land is held in trust for the public schools under the State Trust Land system. • Primary land use is grazing. National Park Service (NPS) • 0.1% of the land is federally owned and managed by the National Park Service as the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument. • Land uses include resource conservation and recreation. 328 Section 7.8 San Simon Wash Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.8 San Simon Wash Basin 329 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.8.3 Climate of the San Simon Wash Basin Climate data from NOAA/NWS Co-op Network stations are complied in Table 7.8-1 and the locations are shown on Figure 7.8-3. Figure 7.8-3 also shows precipitation contour data from the Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS) at Oregon State University. The San Simon Wash Basin does not contain Evaporation Pan, AZMET or SNOTEL/ Snowcourse stations. More detailed information on climate in the planning area is found in Section 7.0.3. A description of climate data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network • Refer to Table 7.8-1A • There is one NOAA/NWS Co-op Network station in the basin, Sells, with an average high of 86.4°F and an average low of 51.2°F. • Highest average seasonal rainfall, 6.66 inches, occurs in the summer season (JulySeptember) when 55% of the annual average precipitation occurs. SCAS Precipitation Data • See Figure 7.8-3 • Additional precipitation data shows average annual rainfall as high as 32 inches along the eastern basin boundary in the Baboquivari Mountains and as low as eight inches along the border with Mexico and west and south of Hickiwan. 330 Section 7.8 San Simon Wash Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.8-1 Climate Data for the San Simon Wash Basin A. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network: Station Name Sells Period of Elevation Record Used (in feet) for Averages 2380 1948 - 20041 Average Temperature Range (in F) Average Precipitation (in inches) Max/Month Min/Month Winter Spring Summer Fall Annual 86.4/Jul 51.2/Jan 1.46 0.65 6.66 3.31 12.07 Source: WRCC, 2005 Notes: Average temperature data from period of record shown; average precipitation data from 1971 - 2000 1 B. Evaporation Pan: Station Name Period of Elevation Avg. Annual Evap Record Used (in feet) (in inches) for 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 7.8 San Simon Wash Basin 331 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 332 Section 7.8 San Simon Wash Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.8.4 Surface Water Conditions in the San Simon Wash Basin Streamflow data, including average seasonal flow, average annual flow and other information are shown in Table 7.8-2. Reservoir and stockpond data, including maximum storage or maximum surface area, are shown in Table 7.8-3. The location of streamflow gages identified by USGS number, USGS runoff contours and large reservoirs are shown on Figure 7.8-4. There are no flood ALERT stations in this basin. Descriptions of stream, reservoir and stockpond data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Streamflow Data • Refer to Table 7.8-2. • Data from three stations located at two watercourses are shown in the table and on Figure 7.8-4. One station has been discontinued. • Average seasonal flow at all three stations is highest in the summer season (July-September). All three stations report zero average seasonal flow in the spring season (April-June). • The largest annual flow recorded in the basin is 39,684 acre-feet in 1983 at the Vamori Wash at Kom Vo station. Reservoirs and Stockponds • Refer to Table 7.8-3. • The basin contains one large reservoir, Menegers Lake, with a maximum storage of 15,000 acre-feet. This reservoir is used for irrigation. • Surface water is stored or could be stored in 12 small reservoirs. • There are three registered stockponds in this basin. Runoff Contour • Refer to Figure 7.8-4. • Average annual runoff is highest, 0.5 inches per year or 26.65 acre-feet per square mile, in the eastern portion of the basin around Sells and decreases to 0.1 inches, or 5.33 acre-feet per square mile, in the southwest corner of the basin. Section 7.8 San Simon Wash Basin 333 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.8-2 Streamflow Data for the San Simon Wash Basin Drainage Area (in mi2) Gage Elevation (in feet) Period of Record San Simon Wash near Pisinimo 569 1,830 9535295 Vamori Wash at International Boundary near Sells NA 9535300 Vamori Wash at Kom Vo 1,250 Station Number USGS Station Name 9535100 Average Seasonal Flow (% of annual flow) Annual Flow/Year (in acre-feet) Years of Annual Flow Maximum Record Winter Spring Summer Fall Minimum Median Mean 2/1972-current 12 0 70 17 94 (1980) 1,340 2,372 11,007 (1976) 30 NA 7/1995-4/2001 (discontinued) 10 0 72 17 4,452 (1996) 8,905 8,274 11,801 (1998) 5 1,770 2/1972-current 11 0 57 32 941 (1973) 4,334 6,625 39,684 (1983) 28 Source: USGS (NWIS) 2005 & 2008 Notes: NA = Not available Statistics based on Calendar Year Annual Flow statistics based on monthly values Annual Flow/Year statistics were only completed for those gages that had at least 3 years of 12 month records 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 334 Section 7.8 San Simon Wash Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.8-3 Reservoirs and Stockponds in the San Simon Wash 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 Menegers Lake Tohono O'odham 15,000 I Tribal USE JURISDICTION Source: US Army Corps of Engineers 2005 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) 2 Total number: 12 Total surface area: 144 acres E. Stockponds (up to 15 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 3 Notes: I = Irrigation 2 Capacity data not available to ADWR 1 Section 7.8 San Simon Wash Basin 335 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 336 Section 7.8 San Simon Wash Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.8.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the San Simon Wash Basin The total number of springs in the basin are shown in Table 7.8-4. There are no perennial or intermittent streams and no major or minor springs in the San Simon Wash Basin. Descriptions of data sources and methods for intermittent and perennial reaches and springs are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. • The total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by the USGS varies from 11 to 17, depending on the database reference. Table 7.8-4 Springs in the San Simon Wash Basin A. Major Springs (10 gpm or greater): Map Key Name Location Latitude Longitude Discharge (in gpm) Date Discharge Measured None identified by ADWR at this time B. Minor Springs (1 to 10 gpm): Name Location Latitude Longitude Discharge (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): 11 to 17 Section 7.8 San Simon Wash Basin 337 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.8.6 Groundwater Conditions of the San Simon Wash Basin Major aquifers, well yields, estimated water in storage, number of index wells and date of last water-level sweep are shown in Table 7.8-5. Figure 7.8-5 shows aquifer flow direction, data on water-level change between 1990-1991 and 2003-2004 was not available for this basin. Figure 7.8-6 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 7.8-5 and Figure 7.8-5 • The major aquifer in this basin is basin fill. • Groundwater flow is generally from east and north to south. Well Yields • Refer to Table 7.8-5 and Figure 7.8-6 • Well yield data are only available for two wells located in the vicinity of the international boundary. Natural Recharge • Refer to Table 7.8-5 • The natural recharge estimate is 11,000 acre-feet per year (AFA). Water in Storage • Refer to Table 7.8-5 • Storage estimates range from 6.7 million acre-feet (maf) to 45 maf to a depth of 1,200 feet. 338 Section 7.8 San Simon Wash Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.8-5 Groundwater Data for the San Simon Wash Basin Basin Area, in square miles: 2,284 Name and/or Geologic Units Major Aquifer(s): Basin Fill 2,000 (1 well measured) Measured by ADWR (GWSI) and/or USGS 34 (1 well reported) Reported on registration forms for large (>10-inch) diameter wells (Wells55) Range 50-3,000 ADWR (1994b) Range 0-2,500 Anning and Duet (1994) 11,000 Freethey and Anderson (1986) 6,700,000 (to 1,200 ft) ADWR (1990) 21,000,0001 (to 1,200 ft) Freethey and Anderson (1986) 45,000,000 ( 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: 0 Date of Last Water-level Sweep: 1979 (148 wells measured) 1 Predevelopment Estimate 10/19/2009 Section 7.8 San Simon Wash Basin 339 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 340 Section 7.8 San Simon Wash Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.8 San Simon Wash Basin 341 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.8.7 Water Quality of the San Simon Wash Basin Wells, springs and mine sites with parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standard(s), including location and parameter(s) are shown in Table 7.8-6A. There are no impaired lakes or streams in this basin. Figure 7.8-7 shows the location of water quality occurrences keyed to Table 7.8-6. A description of water quality data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Not all parameters were measured at all sites; selective sampling for particular constituents is common. Well, Mine or Spring sites that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standards (DWS) • Refer to Table 7.8-6A. • Fifty-three wells have parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standards. • The parameter for arsenic was equaled or exceeded in eighty-one percent of the wells. • Other parameters equaled or exceeded include chromium, fluoride, mercury, lead, nitrate and total dissolved solids. 342 Section 7.8 San Simon Wash Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.8-6 Water Quality Exceedences in the San Simon Wash Basin1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Township Range Section Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water Standard (DWS)2 12 North 14 North 15 South 16 South 17 South 17 South 17 South 17 South 18 South 18 South 19 South 19 South 19 South 19 South 15 South 15 South 16 South 16 South 16 South 16 South 16 South 17 South 17 South 17 South 17 South 17 South 17 South 18 South 18 South 18 South 19 South 19 South 19 South 19 South 19 South 19 South 19 South 19 South 19 South 19 South 19 South 19 South 19 South 19 South 19 South 19 South 19 South 1 West 1 West 1 West 1 West 1 West 1 West 3 West 3 West 1 West 3 West 1 West 1 West 1 West 2 West 4 East 4 East 1 East 1 East 1 East 2 East 3 East 1 East 2 East 3 East 4 East 5 East 6 East 5 East 5 East 7 East 1 East 1 East 1 East 1 East 1 East 1 East 1 East 1 East 1 East 1 East 1 East 1 East 1 East 2 East 3 East 3.5 East 5 East 25 20 15 10 11 11 35 36 35 34 14 28 36 3 34 36 18 18 18 15 10 3 33 24 30 20 8 5 7 29 5 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 11 17 18 18 28 22 29 1 3 Cd As, Pb As, Pb, NO3 As, Pb As, Hg As, Pb F As, F As, F As As, F As, F As, F TDS As As As As As, F As As As As, Pb As As As Hg As As As F As, F, Pb F As, F As, F F F F As As, F As, F F As, F As As As As 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 Site Type 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 Well Section 7.8 San Simon Wash Basin 343 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.8-6 Water Quality Exceedences in the San Simon Wash Basin (Cont)1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Township Range Section Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water Standard (DWS)2 20 South 20 South 20 South 20 South 20 South 21 South 2 East 3 East 4 East 5 East 7 East 7 East 2 2 2 24 32 7 As As, F As As As As Site Location Map Key Site Type 48 49 50 51 52 53 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 Area of Impaired Designated Impaired Lake Stream Reach Use Standard (in acres) (in miles) Parameter(s) Exceeding Use Standard None identified by ADWR at this time Notes: 1 Water quality samples collected between 1978 and 1991. Listed TDS exceedences indicate "mineralized water" that contains over 3000 milligrams per liter (mg/l) of TDS and would require special well construction procedures (A.A.C. R12-15-812(B)). The secondary drinking water standard for TDS is 500 mg/l. 1 Water quality samples collected between 1977 and 1980. 2 As = Arsenic Cd = Cadmium F = Fluoride Hg = Mercury Pb = Lead NO3 = Nitrate TDS = Total Dissolved Solids 344 Section 7.8 San Simon Wash Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.8 San Simon Wash Basin 345 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.8.8 Cultural Water Demands in the San Simon Wash 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 7.8-7. Effluent generation including facility ownership, location, population served and not served, volume treated, disposal method and treatment level is shown in Table 7.8-8. Figure 7.8-8 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 demands is found in Section 7.0.7. Cultural Water Demands • Refer to Table 7.8-7 and Figure 7.8-8. • Population in this basin increased from 4,852 in 1980 to 5,837 in 2000. • Most cultural water demand is for irrigation south of Pisinemo. • Agricultural groundwater demand remained relatively constant from 1991 to 2005. • Municipal groundwater demand was about 1,000 AFA between 1991 and 2005. • There are no surface water diversions in this basin. • As of 2005 there were seven registered wells with a pumping capacity of less than or equal to 35 gpm and one well with a pumping capacity of more than 35 gpm. • Tribes are not required to register wells with the Department; therefore, Table 7.8-7 does not reflect all of the wells in the basin. Effluent Generation • Refer to Table 7.8-8. • There are two wastewater treatment facilities in this basin. • These facilities serve over 4,600 people and generate over 420 acre-feet of effluent per year. • Both facilities discharge to evaporation ponds. 346 Section 7.8 San Simon Wash Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.8-7 Cultural Water Demand in the San Simon Wash 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 Estimated and Projected Population Number of Registered Water Supply Wells Drilled Q < 35 gpm Q > 35 gpm 52 4,852 4,979 5,106 5,234 5,361 5,488 5,615 5,742 5,870 5,997 6,124 6,095 6,067 6,038 6,009 5,980 5,952 5,923 5,894 5,866 5,837 6,093 6,350 6,606 6,862 7,119 8,400 10,622 13,646 WELL TOTALS Average Annual Demand (in acre-feet) Well Pumpage Surface-Water Diversions 3,000 NR 4,000 NR Data Municipal Industrial Agricultural Municipal Industrial Agricultural Source 12 ADWR (1994a) 0 0 6,000 NR 0 0 7,000 NR 1 0 900 NR 4,000 NR 1 0 950 NR 3,800 NR 0 0 1,000 NR 3,900 NR 7 1 USGS (2007) 1 Does not include effluent or evaporation losses from stockponds and reservoirs. Includes all wells through 1980. NR - Not reported 2 10/19/2009 Section 7.8 San Simon Wash Basin 347 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.8-8 Effluent Generation in the San Simon Wash Basin Facility Name Ownership City/Location Served Population Served Volume Treated/Generated (acre-feet/year) Disposal Method Watercourse Golf Evaporation Irrigation Course/Turf/ Pond Landscape Wildlife Area Discharged to Another Facility Infiltration Basins Other Current Treatment Level Population Not Served Year of Record Santa Lucia Sewer System Tohono O'odham Nation Santa Lucia 810 90 X Secondary NA 2000 Sells WWTF Tohono O'odham Nation Sells 3,858 336 X Secondary NA 2001 4,668 426 Total 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 348 Section 7.8 San Simon Wash Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.8 San Simon Wash Basin 349 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.8.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the San Simon Wash Basin No water adequacy applications for the San Simon Wash Basin were filed with the Department as of December 2008. 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. 350 Section 7.8 San Simon Wash Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 San Simon Wash 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), 2005, Groundwater Site Inventory (GWSI): Database, ADWR Hydrology Division. _____, 2005a, Registry of surface water rights: ADWR Office of Water Management. (Reservoirs and Stockponds Table) _____, 2005b, 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, D.W., January, 16, 1990. 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 January 2006 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/ index.html _____ (ALRIS), 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 Carruth, R.L., Hydrogeology of the Quitobonito Springs and the La Abra Plain area, Organ Pipe National Monument, Arizona and Sonora Mexico:USGS Open File Report 95-4295. (Water Quality Map and Table) E Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 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 Anderson, T.W. 1986, Predevelopment hydrologic conditions in the alluvial Section 7.8 San Simon Wash Basin 351 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 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 (USGS), 2008 & 2005, National Water Information System (NWIS) data for Arizona: Accessed October 2008 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. Brown, B.T., Hendrickson, L.P., Johnson, R., and Werrell, W., 1983, An inventory of surface water resources at Organ Pipe National Monument, Arizona: National Park Service and University of Arizona Technical Report # 10. Fisher, S. G., 1989, Hydrologic and limonlogic features of the Quitobaquito pond and springs, Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument: US Park Service Report. 352 Section 7.8 San Simon Wash Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Goodman, B.S., 1992, Hydrogeology of the Quitobaquito Springs Area, La Abra Plain, and the Rio Sonoita Valley, Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Arizona and Sonora, Mexico: University of Arizona, M.S. thesis. Heindl, L.A., 1976, Availability of groundwater in the Molenitus area, Papago Indian Reservation, Arizona, 1958: USGS Open – File Report 76-716 9 p. Hollett, K.J., 1985, Geohydrology and water resources of the Papago Farms - Great Plain area, Papago Indian Reservation, Arizona, and the upper Rio Sonyota area, Sonora, Arizona: USGS Water Survey Paper 2258 Hollett, K.J., and Garrett, J. M., 1984, Geohydrology of the Papago, San Xavier, and Gila Bend Indian Reservations, Arizona - 1978-81: USGS Hydrologic Investigations Atlas HA-660, scale 1: 250,000. Thomsen, B.W., and Eychaner, J.H., 1991, Predevelopment hydrology of the Gila River Indian Reservation, south central Arizona: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 85-4073, 2 sheets. Thomsen, B.W., and Baldys, S., 1985, Groundwater conditions in and near the Gila River Indian Reservation, south central Arizona: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 85-4073, 2 sheets. Section 7.8 San Simon Wash Basin 353 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 354 Section 7.8 San Simon Wash Basin Section 7.9 Tiger Wash Basin 355 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.9.1 Geography of the Tiger Wash Basin The Tiger Wash Basin, located in the northeastern part of the planning area is 74 square miles in area, the smallest basin in the planning area and the state. Geographic features and principal places are shown on Figure 7.9-1. The basin is characterized by a valley bordered by mountain ranges. Vegetation types include Lower Colorado River Valley and Arizona uplands Sonoran desertscrub and a small amount of southwestern interior chaparral near the northwestern basin boundary. (See Figure 7.0-9) • Principal geographic features shown on Figure 7.9-1 are: o Tiger Wash in the center of the basin o Harquahala Mountains in the northern portion of the basin and the Big Horn Mountains in the southern portion of the basin with the highest point at 2,724 feet. o The lowest point is approximately 1,950 feet where Tiger Wash exits the basin southeast of Ambrosia Mill. 356 Section 7.9 Tiger Wash Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.9 Tiger Wash Basin 357 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.9.2 Land Ownership in the Tiger Wash Basin Land ownership, including the percentage of ownership by category, for the Tiger Wash Basin is shown in Figure 7.9-2. The principal feature of land ownership in this basin is the large proportion 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 7.0.4. Land ownership categories are discussed below in the order of largest to smallest percentage in the basin. U.S. Bureau of Land Management • 97.4% of the land is federally owned and managed by the Lower Sonoran Field Office of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. • This basin contains 8,700 acres of the 23,000 acre Harquahala Mountains Wilderness. (see Figure 7.0-12) • Land use includes grazing, resource conservation and recreation. State Trust Land • 2.3% of the land is held in trust for the public schools under the State Trust Land system. • Primary land use is grazing. Private • 0.3% of the land is private. • Land uses include domestic and grazing. 358 Section 7.9 Tiger Wash Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.9 Tiger Wash Basin 359 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.9.3 Climate of the Tiger Wash Basin The Tiger Wash Basin does not contain NOAA/NWS, Evaporation Pan, AZMET or SNOTEL/ Snowcourse stations. Figure 7.9-3 shows precipitation contour data from the Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS) at Oregon State University. More detailed information on climate in the planning area is found in Section 7.0.3. A description of the climate data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. SCAS Precipitation Data • See Figure 7.9-3 • Average annual rainfall is as high as 18 inches along the northwestern tip of the basin and as low as eight inches in the southwestern portion of the basin. 360 Section 7.9 Tiger Wash Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.9 Tiger Wash Basin 361 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.9.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Tiger Wash Basin Flood ALERT equipment in the basin is shown in Table 7.9-1 and Figure 7.9-4. Reservoir and stockpond data, including maximum storage or maximum surface area, are shown in Table 7.9-2. There are no streamflow data or USGS runoff contour 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 7.9-1 • As of October 2005 there was one station in this basin. Reservoirs and Stockponds • Refer to Table 7.9-2. • There are no large or small reservoirs and nine registered stockponds in this basin. Table 7.9-1 Flood ALERT Equipment in the Tiger Wash Basin Station ID Station Name Station Type Install Date Responsibility 5130 Upper Tiger Wash Precipitation 11/1/1981 Maricopa County FCD Notes: FCD = Flood Control District 362 Section 7.9 Tiger Wash Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.9-2 Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Tiger Wash 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 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: 9 Section 7.9 Tiger Wash Basin 363 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 364 Section 7.9 Tiger Wash Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.9.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Tiger Wash Basin The total number of springs in the basin are shown in Table 7.9-3. The location of an intermittent stream is shown on Figure 7.9-5. Descriptions of data sources and methods for intermittent and perennial reaches and springs are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. • • • There are no perennial streams and one intermittent stream, Browns Canyon Wash. There are no major or minor springs in the basin. The total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by the USGS is three. Table 7.9-3 Springs in the Tiger Wash Basin A. Major Springs (10 gpm or greater): Map Key Name Location Latitude Longitude Discharge (in gpm) Date Discharge Measured None identified by ADWR at this time B. Minor Springs (1 to 10 gpm): Name Location Latitude Longitude Discharge (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 Section 7.9 Tiger Wash Basin 365 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 366 Section 7.9 Tiger Wash Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.9.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Tiger Wash Basin Major aquifers, well yields, estimated water in storage, number of index wells and date of last water-level sweep are shown in Table 7.9-4. Figure 7.9-6 shows aquifer flow direction. Data on water-level change between 1990-1991 and 2003-2004 was not available for this basin. Figure 7.9-7 contains hydrographs for selected wells shown on Figure 7.9-6. 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 7.9-4 and Figure 7.9-6. • The major aquifer in this basin is basin fill. • Groundwater flow is to the northeast and southwest away from the center of the basin. Well Yields • Refer to Table 7.9-4. • The only well yield data available within the basin indicates a well yield range from dry to 500 gallons per minute (gpm). Natural Recharge • Refer to Table 7.9-4. • The natural recharge estimate for this basin is less than 1,000 acre-feet per year (AFA). Water in Storage • Refer to Table 7.9-4. • Storage estimates range from 700,000 acre-feet to 2.0 million acre-feet to a depth of 1,200 feet. Water Level • Refer to Figure 7.9-6. • The Department annually measures two index wells in this basin. Hydrographs for these index wells are shown on Figure 7.9-7. Section 7.9 Tiger Wash Basin 367 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.9-4 Groundwater Data for the Tiger Wash Basin Basin Area, in square miles: 74 Name and/or Geologic Units Major Aquifer(s): Basin Fill 769** (1 well measured) Measured by ADWR (GWSI) and/or USGS N/A Reported on registration forms for large (>10-inch) diameter wells (Wells55) N/A ADWR (1994b) Range 0-500 Anning and Duet (1994) <1,000 Freethey and Anderson (1986) 700,000 (to 1,200 ft) ADWR (1990) 1,000,0001 (to 1,200 ft) Freethey and Anderson (1986) 2,000,000 (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: 2 Date of Last Water-level Sweep: 2004 (5 wells measured) ** well located just outside basin boundary in Phoenix AMA 1 Predevelopment Estimate 10/29/2009 368 Section 7.9 Tiger Wash Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.9 Tiger Wash Basin 369 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface Figure 7.9-7 Tiger Wash Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells 200 250 0 A 1975 B basin fill B-05-09S02BBD WELL DEPTH: 400 ft USE: STOCK 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 235 ft USE: UNUSED 2005 recent stream alluvium B-05-09 19BDD 50 1975 370 1985 1995 2005 YEAR Section 7.9 Tiger Wash Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.9.7 Water Quality of the Tiger Wash Basin Wells, springs and mine sites with parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standard(s), including location and parameter(s) are shown in Table 7.9-5A. There are no impaired lakes or streams in this basin. Figure 7.9-8 shows the location of water quality occurrences keyed to Table 7.9-5. 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 7.9-5A. • Two wells have parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standards. • The parameters exceeded were nitrate and arsenic. Table 7.9-5 Water Quality Exceedences in the Tiger Wash Basin1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Site Location Map Key Site Type Township Range Section Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water Standard (DWS)2 1 Well 5 North 9 West 2 NO3 2 Well 5 North 9 West 19 As 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 Designated Use Impaired Lake Standard (in acres) Parameter(s) Exceeding Use Standard None identified by ADWR at this time Notes: 1 2 Water quality samples collected between 1984 and 2001. As = Arsenic NO3 = Nitrate Section 7.9 Tiger Wash Basin 371 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 372 Section 7.9 Tiger Wash Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.9.8 Cultural Water Demands in the Tiger Wash 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 7.9-6. There is no recorded effluent generation in this basin. The USGS National Gap Analysis Program, the primary source of cultural demand map data, showed no demand centers for this basin. A description of cultural water demand data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. More detailed information on cultural water demands is found in Section 7.0.7. Cultural Water Demands • Refer to Table 7.9-6 • Population in this basin is very small, with less than ten residents in 2000. • There are no recorded surface water uses. All groundwater use is for municipal (domestic) demand and has remained relatively constant since 1971. • As of 2005 there were seven registered wells with a pumping capacity of less than or equal to 35 gpm and one well with a pumping capacity of more than 35 gpm. Section 7.9 Tiger Wash Basin 373 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.9-6 Cultural Water Demand in the Tiger Wash Basin1 Year Number of Registered Average Annual Demand (in acre-feet) Estimated Water Supply Wells Drilled and Well Pumpage Surface-Water Diversions Projected Population Q < 35 gpm Q > 35 gpm Municipal Industrial Agricultural Municipal Industrial Agricultural 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 <10 1981 <10 1982 <10 1983 <10 1984 <10 1985 <10 1986 <10 1987 <10 1988 <10 1989 <10 1990 <10 1991 <10 1992 <10 1993 <10 1994 <10 1995 <10 1996 <10 1997 <10 1998 <10 1999 <10 2000 <10 2001 <10 2002 <10 2003 <10 2004 <10 2005 <10 2010 <10 2020 <10 2030 <10 WELL TOTALS: 62 <500 NR <500 NR Data Source 12 ADWR (1994a) 1 0 <500 NR 0 0 <500 NR 0 0 <300 NR NR NR 0 0 <300 NR NR NR 0 0 <300 NR NR NR 7 1 USGS (2007) 1 Does not include evaporation losses from stockponds and reservoirs. Includes all wells through 1980. NR - Not reported 2 10/29/2009 374 Section 7.9 Tiger Wash Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.9.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Tiger Wash Basin No water adequacy applications for the Tiger Wash Basin were filed with the Department as of December 2008. 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. Section 7.9 Tiger Wash Basin 375 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Tiger Wash 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 Water Resources (ADWR), 2005, Flood warning gages: Database, ADWR Office of Water Engineering. _____, 2005, Groundwater Site Inventory (GWSI): Database, ADWR Hydrology Division. _____, 2005, Registry of surface water rights: ADWR Office of Water Management. (Reservoirs and Stockponds Table) _____, 2005, 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, D.W., January, 16, 1990. Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGF), 1997 & 1993, Statewide riparian inventory and mapping project: GIS cover. Arizona Land Resource Information System (ALRIS), 2005, Springs: GIS cover, accessed January 2006 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index.html. _____ (ALRIS), 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 Anderson, T.W. 1986, Predevelopment hydrologic conditions in the alluvial basins of Arizona and adjacent parts of California and New Mexico: USGS Hydrologic Investigations Atlas-HA664. 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 (USGS), 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. 376 Section 7.9 Tiger Wash Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 _____, 2006. 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. 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. Headly, J.D., 1990, Groundwater conditions in the Harquahala Irrigation Non-Expansion area and Tiger Wash Basin, Arizona Department of Water Resources Hydrologic Map Series No. 17 Klawon, J.E. and P.A. Pearthree, 2000, Field Guide to a dynamic distributary drainage system: Tiger Wash, western Arizona: AZGS Open File Report 00-01, 34 p. Pearthree, P.A., J.E. Klawon and T.W. Lehman, 2004, Geomorphology and hydrology of an alluvial fan flood on Tiger Wash, Maricopa and La Paz Counties, West-Central Arizona: AZGS Open File Report 04-02, 40 p., 2 sheets. Section 7.9 Tiger Wash Basin 377 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 378 Section 7.9 Tiger Wash Basin Section 7.10 Western Mexican Drainage Basin 379 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.10.1 Geography of the Western Mexican Drainage Basin The Western Mexican Drainage Basin, located in the south central part of the planning area is 610 square miles in area. Geographic features and principal communities are shown on Figure 7.10-1. The basin is characterized by desert valleys and low elevation mountain ranges. Vegetation types include Lower Colorado River Valley and Arizona uplands Sonoran desertscrub. (See Figure 7.0-9) • Principal geographic features shown on Figure 7.10-1 are: o Aguajita Wash west of Lukeville o Tule Desert in the western portion of the basin o Ajo Range on the eastern basin boundary and the highest point in the basin at 4,024 feet. o The lowest point in the basin at 680 feet at Las Playas at the international boundary 380 Section 7.10 Western Mexican Drainage Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.10 Western Mexican Drainage Basin 381 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.10.2 Land Ownership in the Western Mexican Drainage Basin Land ownership, including the percentage of ownership by category, for the Western Mexican Drainage Basin is shown in Figure 7.10-2. The principal feature of land ownership in this basin is the large proportion of National Wildlife Refuge 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 7.0.4. Land ownership categories are discussed below in the order of largest to smallest percentage in the basin. Wildlife Refuge • 61.1% of the land is federally owned and managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge. • Land uses include resource protection and recreation. National Park Service (NPS) • 36.3% of the land is federally owned and managed by the National Park Service as the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument. • Land uses include resource conservation and recreation. U.S. Military • 2.2% of the land is federally owned and managed by the U.S. Military as the Barry Goldwater Air Force Range. • Primary land use is military activity. Indian Reservation • 0.2% of the land is under tribal ownership as the Tohono O’odham Indian Reservation. • Tribal lands are located along the eastern basin boundary • Primary land use is grazing. State Trust Land • 0.1% of the land is held in trust for the public schools under the State Trust Land system. • State trust land is found in the eastern portion of the basin surrounded by the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument. • Primary land use is resource conservation. Private • 0.1% of the land is private. • All private land is in the vicinity of Lukeville, however, it cannot be seen at the map scale shown. • Land uses include domestic and commercial. 382 Section 7.10 Western Mexican Drainage Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.10 Western Mexican Drainage Basin 383 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.10.3 Climate of the Western Mexican Drainage Basin Climate data from NOAA/NWS Co-op Network stations are complied in Table 7.10-1 and the locations are shown on Figure 7.10-3. Figure 7.10-3 also shows precipitation contour data from the Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS) at Oregon State University. The Western Mexican Drainage Basin does not contain Evaporation Pan, AZMET or SNOTEL/Snowcourse stations. More detailed information on climate in the planning area is found in Section 7.0.3. A description of climate data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network • Refer to Table 7.10-1A • There is one NOAA/NWS Co-op Network station in the basin, Organ Pipe Cactus N.M., with an average monthly maximum temperature of 89.2°F and an average minimum temperature of 54.7°F. • Highest average seasonal rainfall, 4.38 inches, occurs in the summer season (JulySeptember) when 44% of the annual average precipitation occurs. SCAS Precipitation Data • See Figure 7.10-3 • Additional precipitation data shows average annual rainfall as high as 14 inches along the northeastern basin boundary and as low as four inches in the western portion of the basin. 384 Section 7.10 Western Mexican Drainage Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.10-1 Climate Data for the Western Mexican Drainage Basin A. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network: Station Name Organ Pipe Cactus N.M. Period of Elevation Record Used (in feet) for Averages 1,680 1971 - 2000 Average Temperature Range (in F) Average Precipitation (in inches) Max/Month Min/Month Winter Spring Summer Fall Annual 89.2/Jul 54.7/Jan 2.66 0.32 4.38 2.52 9.88 Source: WRCC, 2005 B. Evaporation Pan: Station Name Period of Elevation Avg. Annual Evap Record Used (in feet) (in inches) for 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 7.10 Western Mexican Drainage Basin 385 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 386 Section 7.10 Western Mexican Drainage Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.10.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Western Mexican Drainage Basin Flood ALERT equipment in the basin is shown in Table 7.10-2 and Figure 7.10-4. There are no streamflow data, reservoirs, stockponds or USGS runoff contour 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 7.10-2 • As of October 2005 there was one station in this basin. Table 7.10-2 Flood ALERT Equipment in the Western Mexican Drainage Basin Station ID Station Name Station Type Install Date Responsibility Organ Pipe Weather Station 7230 Weather Station 7/31/2004 ADWR Source: ADWR 2005a Notes: ADWR = Arizona Department of Water Resources Section 7.10 Western Mexican Drainage Basin 387 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 388 Section 7.10 Western Mexican Drainage Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.10.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Western Mexican Drainage 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 7.10-3. The location of a major spring is shown on Figure 7.10-5. There are no perennial or intermittent streams in the Western Mexican Drainage Basin. Descriptions of data sources and methods for intermittent and perennial reaches and springs are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. • • • There is one major spring with a measured discharge rate of 28 gallons per minute (gpm). This discharge rate may not be indicative of current conditions; the spring was last measured during or prior to 1992. This is the only major spring in the planning area. There are two minor springs in this basin. The total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by the USGS varies from four to six, depending on the database reference. Table 7.10-3 Springs in the Western Mexican Drainage Basin A. Major Springs (10 gpm or greater): Map Key Name 1 Quitobaquito (multiple) Location Latitude Longitude 315640 1130103 Discharge (in gpm)1 Date Discharge Measured 28 During or prior to 1992 Discharge (in gpm)1 Date Discharge Measured B. Minor Springs (1 to 10 gpm): Name Location Latitude Longitude Aguajita 315623 1130037 4 12/13/1976 Unnamed 315700 1130116 1 12/14/1976 Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others C. Total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by USGS (see ALRIS, 2005 and USGS, 2006): 4 to 6 Notes: Most recent measurement identified by ADWR 1 Section 7.10 Western Mexican Drainage Basin 389 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 390 Section 7.10 Western Mexican Drainage Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.10.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Western Mexican Drainage Basin Major aquifers, well yields, estimated water in storage, number of index wells and date of last waterlevel sweep are shown in Table 7.10-4. Figure 7.10-6 shows aquifer flow direction and water-level change between 1990-1991 and 2003-2004. Figure 7.10-7 contains hydrographs for selected wells shown on Figure 7.10-6. Figure 7.10-8 shows well yields in one category. A description of aquifer data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. A description of well data sources and methods, including water-level changes and well yields, is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Major Aquifers • Refer to Table 7.10-4 and Figure 7.10-6. • The major aquifer is basin fill. • Groundwater flow is from north to south. Well Yields • Refer to Table 7.10-4 and Figure 7.10-8. • As shown on Figure 7.10-8, all recorded well yields are less than 100 gpm. • One source of well yield information, based on three reported wells, indicates that the median well yield is 50 gpm. Natural Recharge • Refer to Table 7.10-4. • The natural recharge estimate for this basin is 1,000 acre-feet per year (AFA). Water in Storage • Refer to Table 7.10-4. • Storage estimates range from 3.0 million acre-feet (maf) to 4.1 maf to a depth of 1,200 feet. Water Level • Refer to Figure 7.10-6. Water levels are shown for wells measured in 2003-2004. • The Department annually measures one index well in this basin. Hydrographs for this well (B) and four other wells are shown on Figure 7.10-7. • The deepest water level shown on the map is 337 feet at the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument Headquarters and the shallowest is 27 feet near Puerto Blanco Drive. Section 7.10 Western Mexican Drainage Basin 391 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.10-4 Groundwater Data for the Western Mexican Drainage Basin Basin Area, in square miles: 610 Name and/or Geologic Units Major Aquifer(s): Basin Fill 1.9 (1 well measured ) Measured by ADWR (GWSI) and/or USGS Range 30-50 Median 50 (3 wells reported) Reported on registration forms for large (>10-inch) diameter wells (Wells55) Range 0-500 Anning and Duet (1994) 1,000 Freethey and Anderson (1986) 4,100,000 (to 1,200 ft) ADWR (1994b) 3,000,0001 (to 1,200 ft) Freethey and Anderson (1986) 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: 2004 (6 wells measured) 1 Predevelopment Estimate 10/21/2009 392 Section 7.10 Western Mexican Drainage Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.10 Western Mexican Drainage Basin 393 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Figure 7.10-7 Western Mexican Drainage Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells A basin fill DEPTH: 40 ft USE: STOCK C-16-07 27BAD UNSURV 0 50 5 0 1975 Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 300 B 1985 1995 2005 basin fill C-17-05 17ABC2 UNSURV DEPTH: 420 ft USE: PUBLIC SUPPLY 350 1975 C 1985 1995 DEPTH: 100.8 ft USE: MONITORING 2005 basin fill C-17-08 09ADD UNSURV 25 25 75 75 1975 D 1985 1995 2005 basin fill C-18-04 19AAC UNSURV DEPTH: 278 ft USE: MONITORING 75 75 125 1975 E 1985 1995 2005 basin fill C-18-05 06DBB DEPTH: UNKNOWN USE: UNUSED 75 75 125 1975 1985 1995 2005 YEAR 394 Section 7.10 Western Mexican Drainage Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.10 Western Mexican Drainage Basin 395 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.10.7 Water Quality of the Western Mexican Drainage Basin Wells, springs and mine sites with parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standard(s), including location and parameter(s) are shown in Table 7.10-5A. There are no impaired lakes or streams in this basin. Figure 7.10-9 shows the location of water quality occurrences keyed to Table 7.10-5. 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 7.10-5A. • Six wells have parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standards. • The parameter for fluoride was equaled or exceeded in all wells. Other parameters equaled or exceeded include arsenic and lead. Table 7.10-5 Water Quality Exceedences in the Western Mexican Drainage Basin1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Site Location Map Key Township Range Section Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water Standard (DWS)2 17 South 17 South 17 South 17 South 17 South 17 South 7 West 7 West 7 West 7 West 8 West 8 West 17 17 18 24 9 11 F As, F As, F, Pb F F As, F Length of Impaired Stream Reach (in miles) Area of Impaired Lake (in acres) Site Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 Well Well 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 Water quality samples collected between 1976 and 1988. As = Arsenic F = Fluoride Pb = Lead 396 Section 7.10 Western Mexican Drainage Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.10 Western Mexican Drainage Basin 397 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.10.8 Cultural Water Demands in the Western Mexican Drainage 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 7.10-6. There is no recorded effluent generation in this basin. The USGS National Gap Analysis Program, the primary source of cultural demand map data, showed no demand centers for this basin. A description of cultural water demand data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. More detailed information on cultural water demands is found in Section 7.0.7. Cultural Water Demands • Refer to Table 7.10-6 • Population in this basin is very small, with 33 residents in 2000. • There are no recorded surface water uses. All groundwater use is for municipal demand and has remained relatively constant since 1971. • As of 2005 there were 20 registered wells with a pumping capacity of less than or equal to 35 gpm and five wells with a pumping capacity of more than 35 gpm. 398 Section 7.10 Western Mexican Drainage Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.10-6 Cultural Water Demand in the Western Mexican Drainage 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 Estimated and Projected Population Number of Registered Water Supply Wells Drilled Well Pumpage Surface-Water Diversions Q < 35 gpm Q > 35 gpm Municipal Industrial Agricultural Municipal Industrial Agricultural 182 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 27 28 29 30 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 42 51 59 WELL TOTALS: Average Annual Demand (in acre-feet) 5 <500 NR <500 NR Data Source 2 ADWR (1994a) 0 0 <500 NR 0 0 <500 NR 0 0 <300 NR NR NR 2 0 <300 NR NR NR 0 0 <300 NR NR NR 20 5 USGS (2007) 1 Does not include evaporation losses from stockponds and reservoirs. Includes all wells through 1980. NR - Not reported 2 10/21/2009 Section 7.10 Western Mexican Drainage Basin 399 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.10.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Western Mexican Drainage Basin No water adequacy applications for the Western Mexican Drainage Basin were filed with the Department as of December 2008. 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. 400 Section 7.10 Western Mexican Drainage Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Western Mexican Drainage 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 Water Resources (ADWR), 2005a, Flood warning gages: Database, ADWR Office of Water Engineering. _____, 2005b, Groundwater Site Inventory (GWSI): Database, ADWR Hydrology Division. _____, 2005c, 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. Arizona Land Resource Information System (ALRIS), 2005, Springs: GIS cover, accessed January 2006 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index.html. _____ (ALRIS), 2004, Land ownership: GIS cover, accessed in 2004 at http://www.land.state. az.us/alris/index.html. F Freethey, G.W. and Anderson, T.W. 1986, Predevelopment hydrologic conditions in the alluvial basins of Arizona and adjacent parts of California and New Mexico: USGS Hydrologic Investigations Atlas-HA664. O Oregon State University, Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS), 2006, 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 (USGS), 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, 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. Section 7.10 Western Mexican Drainage Basin 401 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 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. Carruth, R.L., 1996, Hydrogeology of the Quitobaquito Springs and La Abra Plain Area, Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Arizona and Sonora, Mexico: USGS WaterResources Investigations Report 95-4295. ______, 1994, Hydrology of the Quitobaquito Springs area, Arizona and Sonora, Mexico: in the Approaching Millennium -Evolving Perspectives in Water Resources: Proceedings from the 7th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1994, Scottsdale, Arizona, p. 261-262. Fisher, S. G., 1989, Hydrologic and limonlogic features of the Quitobaquito pond and springs, Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument: US Park Service Report. Goodman, B.S., 1992, Hydrogeology of the Quitobaquito Springs Area, La Abra Plain, and the Rio Sonoita Valley, Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Arizona and Sonora, Mexico: University of Arizona, M.S. thesis. Santec Consulting, 1999, Small and minor watercourses analysis for Yuma County, Arizona, Arizona State Land Department, Final Report. 402 Section 7.10 Western Mexican Drainage Basin Section 7.11 Yuma Basin 403 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.11.1 Geography of the Yuma Basin The Yuma Basin, located in the northeastern part of the planning area is 792 square miles in area. Geographic features and principal communities are shown on Figure 7.11-1. The basin is characterized by desert valleys and mountain ranges. Vegetation type is Lower Colorado River Valley Sonoran desertscrub. (See Figure 7.0-9) • Principal geographic features shown on Figure 7.11-1 are: o The Colorado River on the western basin boundary o Yuma Desert in the southern portion of the basin o Tinajas Altas Mountains and the Gila Mountains on the eastern basin boundary with the highest point in the basin at 2,694 feet. o The lowest point in the basin at 70 feet where the Colorado River enters Mexico at the southern international boundary. 404 Section 7.11 Yuma Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.11 Yuma Basin 405 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.11.2 Land Ownership in the Yuma Basin Land ownership, including the percentage of ownership by category, for the Yuma Basin is shown in Figure 7.11-2. The principal feature of land ownership in this basin is the relatively large portion of military 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 7.0.4. Land ownership categories are discussed below in the order of largest to smallest percentage in the basin. U.S. Military • 51.7% of the land is federally owned and managed by the U.S. Military • U.S. Military lands include the Barry Goldwater Air Force Range, the Yuma Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) and the Yuma Proving Grounds. • Primary land use is military activity. Private • 27.8% of the land is private. • Land uses include agriculture, domestic and commercial. U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) • 8.2% of the land is federally owned and managed by the Yuma Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management. • Primary land use is unknown. State Trust Land • 5.9% of the land is held in trust for the public schools under the State Trust Land system. • Primary land use is agriculture. Other (Game and Fish, County and Bureau of Reclamation Lands) • 4.9% of the land is federally owned and managed by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. • Land use is unknown. Indian Reservation • 1.5% of the land is under tribal ownership. • Tribal lands include the Cocopah Indian Reservation in three separate areas in the western portion of the basin and the Fort Yuma-Quechan Indian Reservation west of Laguna Dam Road. • Land uses include domestic, commercial and agriculture. 406 Section 7.11 Yuma Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.11 Yuma Basin 407 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.11.3 Climate of the Yuma Basin Climate data from NOAA/NWS Co-op Network, Evaporation Pan and AZMET stations are complied in Table 7.11-1 and the locations are shown on Figure 7.11-3. Figure 7.11-3 also shows precipitation contour data from the Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS) at Oregon State University. The Yuma Basin does not contain SNOTEL/ Snowcourse stations. More detailed information on climate in the planning area is found in Section 7.0.3. A description of climate data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network • Refer to Table 7.11-1A • 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 94.1°F at Yuma WSO AP and 89.6°F at Yuma Valley. The average monthly minimum temperature occurs in December and ranges between 54.1°F at Yuma Citrus Station and 57.4°F at Yuma WSO AP. • Highest average seasonal rainfall occurs at most stations in the summer (July-September). For the period of record used, the highest annual rainfall is 3.89 inches at the Yuma Citrus Station and the lowest is 2.63 inches at Yuma Valley. • This is the most arid basin in the state. Evaporation Pan • Refer to Table 7.11-1B • There are two evaporation pan stations in the basin at elevations of 210 feet and 190 feet with an average annual evaporation of 122.5 inches and 99.21 inches respectively. AZMET • Refer to Table 7.11-1C • There are three AZMET stations in the basin at elevations ranging from 105 feet to 190 feet with average annual reference evaportranspiration of between 80.54 inches and 83.75 inches. SCAS Precipitation Data • See Figure 7.11-3 • Additional precipitation data shows average annual rainfall of four inches or less in most of the basin and an average annual rainfall as high as six inches along the eastern basin boundary. 408 Section 7.11 Yuma Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.11-1 Climate Data for the Yuma Basin A. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network: Station Name Period of Elevation Record Used (in feet) for Averages Average Temperature Range (in F) Average Precipitation (in inches) Max/Month Min/Month Winter Spring Summer Fall Annual Yuma Citrus Station 190 1971 - 2000 90.8/Jul 54.1/Dec 1.16 0.23 1.51 0.99 3.89 Yuma Valley 120 1971 - 2000 89.6/Jul 54.9/Dec 0.99 0.13 0.82 0.69 2.63 Yuma WSO AP 210 1971 - 2000 94.1/Jul 57.4/Dec 0.93 0.16 1.10 0.82 3.01 Source: WRCC, 2005 B. Evaporation Pan: Station Name Period of Elevation Avg. Annual Evap Record Used (in feet) (in inches) for Averages Yuma AP 210 NA 122.5 Yuma Citrus Station 190 1920 - 2002 99.21 Station Name Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Average Annual Reference Evaportranspiration, in inches (Number of years to calculate averages ) Yuma Mesa 190 1987 - current 81.05 (8) Yuma North Gila 144 1988 - current 80.54 (9) Yuma Valley 105 1987 - current 83.75 (9) Source: WRCC, 2005 Notes: NA = Not available 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 Section 7.11 Yuma Basin 409 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 410 Section 7.11 Yuma Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.11.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Yuma Basin Streamflow data, including average seasonal flow, average annual flow and other information are shown in Table 7.11-2. Reservoir and stockpond data, including maximum storage or maximum surface area, are shown in Table 7.11-3. The location of streamflow gages identified by USGS number and large reservoirs are shown on Figure 7.11-5. There are no flood ALERT stations or USGS runoff contour data available for this basin. Descriptions of stream, reservoir and stockpond data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Streamflow Data • Refer to Table 7.11-2. • Data from seven stations located on two watercourses are shown in the table and on Figure 7.11-5. Four stations have been discontinued and two are real-time stations. • Highest average seasonal flow varies from station to station. Flows are impacted by regulatory releases, diversions and return flow. • The largest annual flow recorded in the basin is almost 26 million acre-feet (maf) in 1909 at the Colorado River at Yuma Station. Mean annual flow at this station is 10.1 maf. The hydrograph of annual flows at this station shows the dramatic drop in river flow during the construction of Hoover Dam from 1931-1935. (See Figure 7.11-4) Reservoirs and Stockponds • Refer to Table 7.11-3. • The basin contains two large reservoirs. The largest, Mittry Lake has a maximum storage of 4,850 acre-feet. This reservoir is used as a fish and wildlife pond and for flood control. • The other large reservoir, Morelos Diversion Dam was constructed by Mexico pursuant to the 1944 Treaty to provide Mexico a mechanism for the utilization of Colorado River water. • Surface water is stored or could be stored in two small reservoirs in the basin. • There are no registered stockponds in this basin. Section 7.11 Yuma Basin 411 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Figure 7.11-4 Annual Flows (acre-feet) at Colorado River near Yuma, water years 19041964 (Station #9521000) 30 million acre-feet 25 20 15 10 5 0 1904 1914 1924 412 1934 1944 1954 1964 Section 7.11 Yuma Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.11-2 Streamflow Data for the Yuma Basin Drainage Area (in mi2) Gage Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Colorado River below Laguna 1 Dam 188,600 121 9520500 Gila River near Dome 57,850 9520700 Gila River near mouth near Yuma 9520701 Station Number USGS Station Name 9429600 Average Seasonal Flow (% of annual flow) Annual Flow/Year (in acre-feet) Years of Annual Flow Maximum Record Winter Spring Summer Fall Minimum Median Mean 12/1971-current (real time) 24 21 31 24 251,952 (1973) 388,788 1,830,996 10,222,880 (1984) 19 139 1/1905-current (real time) 41 35 10 14 0 (1993, 1936, 1940, 1942-1950) 4,772 237,245 4,733,110 (1993) 76 57,950 NA 5/1968-6/1983 (discontinued) 19 34 24 22 56,398 (1978) 6,700 484,103 1,742,614 (1981) 7 Gila River at mouth (flow past gage only) NA NA 10/1975-6/1983 (discontinued) 17 36 27 20 30,769 (1978) 38,371 458,381 1,720,895 (1980) 7 9521000 Colorado River at Yuma 242,900 103 1/1904-11/1983 (discontinued) 17 44 25 14 682,711 (1961) 9,628,539 10,090,123 25,969,073 (1909) 60 9522000 Colorado River @ NIB above Morelos Dam 246,700 0 1/1950-current 28 24 26 21 1,281,480 (1973) 1,671,716 3,496,196 15,392,240 (1984) 48 9522200 Colorado River @ SIB near San Luis 246,700 NA 10/1960-9/1986 (discontinued) 23 21 29 26 9,412 (1982) 149,144 1,880,952 12,655,520 (1984) 24 Source: USGS (NWIS) 2005 & 2008 Notes: Gage located in California 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 1 Section 7.11 Yuma Basin 413 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.11-3 Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Yuma 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 Mittry Lake (Laguna Diversion) Bureau of Reclamation 4,850 F, C Federal 2 Morelos Diversion IBWC 1,160 O 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)2 Total number: 2 Total surface area: 25 acres E. Stockponds (up to 15 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 0 Notes: F = fish & wildlife pond; C = Flood control; O = Other 2 Capacity data is not available to ADWR IBWC = International Boundary Water Commission 1 414 Section 7.11 Yuma Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.11 Yuma Basin 415 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.11.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Yuma Basin The total number of springs in the basin are shown in Table 7.11-4. The locations of perennial streams are shown on Figure 7.11-6. A description of data sources and methods for intermittent and perennial reaches is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Descriptions of data sources and methods for intermittent and perennial reaches and springs are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. • • • There are two perennial streams in this basin, the Colorado River and most of the Gila River. A small reach of the Gila River, located on the eastern basin boundary, is intermittent. There are no major or minor springs in the basin. The total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by the USGS is one. Table 7.11-4 Springs in the Yuma Basin A. Major Springs (10 gpm or greater): Map Key Name Location Latitude Longitude Discharge (in gpm) Date Discharge Measured None identified by ADWR at this time B. Minor Springs (1 to 10 gpm): Name Location Latitude Longitude Discharge (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): 1 416 Section 7.11 Yuma Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.11 Yuma Basin 417 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.11.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Yuma Basin Major aquifers, well yields, estimated water in storage, number of index wells and date of last water-level sweep are shown in Table 7.11-5. Figure 7.11-7 shows aquifer flow direction and water-level change between 1990-1991 and 2003-2004. Figure 7.11-8 contains hydrographs for selected wells shown on Figure 7.11-7. Figure 7.11-9 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 7.11-5 and Figure 7.11-7. • The major aquifer is basin fill. • Flow direction is generally toward the Colorado River and south toward Mexico. Well Yields • Refer to Table 7.11-5 and Figure 7.11-9. • As shown on Figure 7.11-9, well yields are generally greater than 2,000 gallons per minute (gpm). • One source of well yield information, based on 327 reported wells, indicates that the median well yield is 2,456 gpm. • The line of wells along the international boundary is the 242 Well Field. These wells collect groundwater and deliver it via the 242 Lateral to Mexico to meet a portion of the International treaty obligations (see Appendix D). Natural Recharge • Refer to Table 7.11-5. • The natural recharge estimate is 213,000 acre-feet per year (AFA). Water in Storage • Refer to Table 7.11-5. • Storage estimates range from 34 maf to 49 maf to a depth of 1,200 feet. Water Level • Refer to Figure 7.11-7. Water levels are shown for wells measured in 2003-2004. • The Department annually measures 11 index wells in this basin. Hydrographs for 10 of these wells are shown on Figure 7.11-8. • The deepest water level shown on the map is 152 feet on the Mexican border and the shallowest is nine feet east of Yuma. 418 Section 7.11 Yuma Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.11-5 Groundwater Data for the Yuma Basin Basin Area, in square miles: 792 Major Aquifer(s): Well Yields, in gal/min: Estimated Natural Recharge, in acre-feet/year: Estimated Water Currently in Storage, in acre-feet: Name and/or Geologic Units Basin Fill Range 3,186-5,271 Median 5,098 (3 well reported) Range 10-7,000 Median 2,456 (327 wells reported ) Measured by ADWR (GWSI) and/or USGS Reported on registration forms for large (>10-inch) diameter wells (Wells55) Range 500-3,000 ADWR (1994b) Range 0-2,500 Anning and Duet (1994) 213,000 Freethey and Anderson (1986) 49,000,000 (to 1,200 ft) ADWR (1994b) 34,000,0001 (to 1,200 ft) Freethey and Anderson (1986) 35,000,000 (to 1,200 ft) Arizona Water Commission (1975) Current Number of Index Wells: 11 Date of Last Water-level Sweep: 1992 (587 wells measured) 1 Predevelopment Estimate 10/21/2009 Section 7.11 Yuma Basin 419 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 420 Section 7.11 Yuma Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Figure 7.11-8 Yuma Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells A 0 50 1975 B Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 0 50 1975 C 0 50 1975 125 175 50 D 1985 1995 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 163 ft USE: UNUSED 1995 WELL DEPTH: 401 ft USE: UNUSED E WELL DEPTH: 191 ft USE: UNUSED 1985 2005 basin fill C-08-23 27DDD1 1985 1985 2005 basin fill C-08-22 25DAC3 WELL DEPTH: 84 ft USE: UNUSED 1975 100 1975 basin fill C-08-21 21BCA WELL DEPTH: 137 ft USE: UNUSED 2005 basin fill C-09-21 07AAD 1995 2005 basin fill C-09-22 17DCA YEAR Section 7.11 Yuma Basin 1995 2005 421 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Figure 7.11-8 (cont’d) Yuma Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells F 0 50 1975 G 75 Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface WELL DEPTH: 1201 ft USE: UNUSED 1985 0 50 75 125 1995 WELL DEPTH: 202 ft USE: MONITORING 175 1975 1985 422 2005 basin fill C-11-24 23BCB WELL DEPTH: 1038 ft USE: MONITORING J 2005 recent stream alluvium C-10-25 26CDB 1985 1985 125 1995 WELL DEPTH: 320 ft USE: UNUSED 1975 2005 recent stream alluvium C-10-23 31BBB1 1985 1975 I 1995 WELL DEPTH: 120 ft USE: UNUSED 100 1975 H basin fill C-09-25 35CBD 1995 2005 basin fill C-12-22 06DAA YEAR 1995 2005 Section 7.11 Yuma Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.11 Yuma Basin 423 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.11.7 Water Quality of the Yuma Basin Wells, springs and mine sites with parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standard(s), including location and parameter(s) are shown in Table 7.11-6A. Impaired lakes and streams with site type, name, length of impaired reach, area of impaired lake, designated use standard and parameter(s) exceeded is shown in Table 7.11-6B. Figure 7.11-10 shows the location of water quality occurrences keyed to Table 7.11-6. 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 7.11-6A • One hundred and three wells have parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standards. • Parameters frequently equaled or exceeded include arsenic, organics, lead and total dissolved solids. Other parameters equaled or exceeded include antimony, beryllium, cadmium, thallium and nitrate. Lakes and Streams with impaired waters • Refer to Table 7.11-6B • The water quality standard for boron and selenium was equaled or exceeded in one 28 mile reach of the Gila River; a portion of this reach is also in the Lower Gila Basin. • This reach of the Gila River is not part of the ADEQ water quality improvement effort, the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program, at this time. 424 Section 7.11 Yuma Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.11-6 Water Quality Exceedences in the Yuma Basin1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines 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 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 Township Range Section Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water Standard (DWS)2 7 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 22 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 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 23 West 23 West 23 West 23 West 24 West 24 West 24 West 24 West 24 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 27 4 18 18 21 21 21 21 29 29 29 3 10 13 13 14 21 22 25 26 27 28 28 28 30 32 32 33 34 25 27 27 32 22 24 36 27 27 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 Organics TDS TDS TDS As, NO3, TDS TDS NO3 NO3, Th NO3 As, NO3 NO3 TDS NO3 As, TDS TDS As As NO3, TDS As As As As As As, Organics TDS As As, Be, F, Pb, NO3, TDS As As, NO3, Organics, TDS Organics As, TDS Organics, TDS Organics Be, Cd Organics Organics Pb Organics Pb As, Pb Pb Pb Pb Pb As Site Location Section 7.11 Yuma Basin 425 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.11-6 Water Quality Exceedences in the Yuma Basin (Cont)1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Map Key Site Type 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 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 Township Range Section Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water Standard (DWS)2 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 10 South 10 South 10 South 10 South 10 South 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 22 West 22 West 22 West 23 West 23 West 23 West 23 West 23 West 23 West 23 West 24 West 24 West 24 West 24 West 24 West 24 West 24 West 24 West 24 West 24 West 24 West 21 West 23 West 23 West 23 West 24 West 4 4 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 17 22 7 7 31 5 24 24 28 29 33 36 1 10 11 13 15 16 17 19 21 24 36 9 5 6 10 1 As As As Pb Pb Pb Pb Pb Pb Pb Pb Pb Pb As Pb Pb As, Pb As Pb NO3 NO3 Organics TDS Cd Cd Pb Organics NO3 Organics TDS As TDS NO3, TDS Organics Organics Organics Pb NO3, Organics As, TDS Organics As, Pb F, TDS Organics Organics Organics Site Location 426 Section 7.11 Yuma Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.11-6 Water Quality Exceedences in the Yuma Basin (Cont)1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Map Key Site Type 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Township Range Section Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water Standard (DWS)2 10 South 10 South 10 South 10 South 10 South 10 South 10 South 10 South 10 South 10 South 10 South 10 South 11 South 24 West 24 West 24 West 24 West 24 West 24 West 24 West 24 West 24 West 24 West 25 West 25 West 23 West 1 1 1 9 9 10 10 18 31 31 2 36 20 Sb Be Organics NO3 Organics NO3, TDS NO3 Organics Organics Organics Pb NO3 Organics Site Location Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others B. Lakes and Streams Map Key a Site Type Site Name Stream Gila River (Coyote Wash to Fortuna Wash) Length of Area of Impaired Designated Use Impaired Stream Lake (in acres) Standard3 Reach (in miles) 28 NA A&W Parameter(s) Exceeding Use Standard2 B, Se Source: ADEQ 2005c Notes: 1 Water quality samples collected between 1978 and 1991. Listed TDS exceedences indicate "mineralized water" that contains over 3000 milligrams per liter (mg/l) of TDS and would require special well construction procedures (A.A.C. R12-15-812(B)). The secondary drinking water standard for TDS is 500 mg/l. 1 Water quality samples collected between 1975 and 2004. 2 As = Arsenic B = Boron Be = Beryllium Cd = Cadmium F = Fluoride NO3 = Nitrate Organics = One or more of several volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds and pesticides Sb = Antimony Se = Selenium TDS = Total Dissolved Solids Th = Thallium 3 A&W = Aquatic and Wildlife Section 7.11 Yuma Basin 427 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 428 Section 7.11 Yuma Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.11.8 Cultural Water Demands in the Yuma 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 7.11-7. Effluent generation including facility ownership, location, population served and not served, volume treated, disposal method and treatment level is shown in Table 7.11-8. Figure 7.1111 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 demands is found in Section 5.0.7. Cultural Water Demands • Refer to Table 7.11-7 and Figure 7.11-11. • Population in this basin increased from 73,319 in 1980 to 152,928 in 2000. • Most cultural water use is for irrigation in the western portion of the basin. • Agricultural groundwater demand increased 12%, and agricultural surface water demand increased 7% between 1991 and 2005. This basin has the largest agricultural water demand in the planning area, with 232,200 acre-feet of groundwater demand and 762,000 acre-feet of surface water demand on average per year in 2001-2005. • Municipal groundwater demand decreased during 2001-2005 compared to the 1996-2000 time period. Municipal surface water demand increased slightly from 31,000 AFA in 19962000 to 32,000 AFA in 2001-2005. • Industrial groundwater demand has remained relatively constant and industrial surface water demand decreased from 3,900 AFA in 1996-2000 to 2,000 AFA in 2001-2005. • As of 2005 there were 2,689 registered wells with a pumping capacity of less than or equal to 35 gallons per minute and 693 wells with a pumping capacity of more than 35 gallons per minute. Effluent Generation • Refer to Table 7.11-8. • There are 24 wastewater treatment facilities in this basin. • Information on population served was available for 19 facilities and information on the volume of effluent generated was available for 16 facilities. These facilities serve over 127,000 people and generate over 13,000 acre-feet of effluent per year. • Three facilities discharge to the Colorado River, three discharge to evaporation ponds, two discharge for irrigation, three discharge to golf courses, three discharge to another facility and seven discharge to unlined impoundments that recharge the aquifer. Section 7.11 Yuma Basin 429 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.11-7 Cultural Water Demand in the Yuma 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 and Water Supply Wells Drilled Projected Well Pumpage Surface-Water Diversions Data Population Source Q < 35 gpm Q > 35 gpm Municipal Industrial Agricultural Municipal Industrial Agricultural 9592 73,319 76,123 78,926 81,730 84,533 87,337 90,140 92,944 95,748 98,551 101,355 106,512 111,669 116,827 121,984 127,141 132,299 137,456 142,613 147,771 152,928 158,662 164,397 170,131 175,866 181,600 210,272 261,091 305,904 WELL TOTALS: 253,000 1,251,0005 229,000 1,102,0005 3672 ADWR (1994a) 175 88 224,000 1,130,0005 276 59 211,000 1,229,0005 351 70 8,100 400 206,000 25,500 3,100 711,000 438 61 10,500 500 218,000 31,000 3,800 771,000 490 48 8,300 500 232,200 32,000 2,000 762,000 2,689 693 USGS (2007) ADWR (2008b) ADWR (2008c) 1 Does not include evaporation losses from stockponds and reservoirs. Includes all wells through 1980. 3 Includes pumpage and diversion of Colorado River Contract Water. 4 Well pumpage for irrigation includes drainage wells and the 242 well field. 5 Includes surface-water diversions in Parker and Yuma basins. 2 430 10/21/2009 Section 7.11 Yuma Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.11-8 Effluent Generation in the Yuma Basin Facility Name Ownership City/Location Served Population Served Volume Treated/Generated (acre-feet/year) Cocopah North Community Cocopah Tribe Reservation 140 17 Del Oro WWTF Far West Water & Sewer Yuma 1,240 Del Pueblo RV & Tennis Resort Private RV Park 700 Desert Dunes/East Mesa NA Yuma NA Donavan Estates Yuma County Yuma 400 1,2 Disposal Method Watercourse Evaporation Irrigation Pond Golf Course/Turf/ Landscape Discharged to Another Facility Wildlife Area Infiltration Basins Other X 160 Fortuna del Rey Current Treatment Level Population Not Served Year of Record Secondary 140 2000 Secondary NA 2007 NA 112 NA X Yuma Figueroa NA 2004 NA Gadsen WWTP Gadsen SD Gadsen 888 NA Jack Rabbit Mesa WPCF Yuma Yuma 2,200 224 Marine Corps Air Station-Main WWTP US Marines Yuma NA NA Marine Corps Air StationRecreation Area WWTF US Marines Yuma Marwood WWTF Far West Water & Sewer Yuma 4,000 1,2 246 Foothills Executive Secondary NA 2007 Mesa del Ray Far West Water & Sewer Yuma 140 1,2 14 Mesa del Sol Secondary NA 2007 1,2 Secondary NA 2007 Adv. Trt. I NA 2003 Palm Shadows WWTP Far West Water & Sewer Yuma Pioneer Center Private Yuma San Luis SBR San Luis San Luis San Luis SBR X Secondary 2001 NA NA Desert Dunes 2004 2004 NA 680 224 X NA 20,888 1,680 1,2 68 X Seasons RV Village Far West Water & Sewer Yuma 740 Section 14 WWTP Far West Water & Sewer Yuma 880 1,2 92 Somerton WWTF Somerton Somerton 7,355 612 Sweetwater Creek Utilities WWTF Private Yuma 590 106 Villa Royale WWTF Far West Water & Sewer Yuma 60 1,2 5 Windhaven RV Park Private RV Park 120 NA 2004 Yuma County Housing WWTP Yuma County Yuma 160 NA 2004 YUMA Figueroa WPCF Yuma Yuma 84,130 9,521 Yuma, Jones & Main WTP Yuma Yuma NA 34 Yuma WWTP State of Arizona Prison Total 2,100 336 127,411 13,450 X Colorado River X Secondary NA 2007 X Secondary NA 2007 X X X Colorado River Colorado River Adv. Trt. I NA 2003 Secondary NA 2007 Secondary NA 2007 Adv. Trt. I 15,305 NA X X NA 2001 2000 NA 2003 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 WPCF: Water Pollution Control Facility Section 7.11 Yuma Basin 431 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 432 Section 7.11 Yuma Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 7.11.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Yuma Basin Water adequacy determination information including the subdivision name, location, number of lots, adequacy determination, reason for an inadequacy determination, date of determination and subdivision water provider are shown in Table 7.11-9A and B for water reports and analysis of adequate water supply. Designated water provider information is shown in Table 7.11-9C with date of application, date the designation was issued and projected or annual estimated demand. Figure 7.11-12 shows the general locations of subdivisions (to the section level) 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 Yuma County. Two hundred and sixty-two water adequacy determinations for 29,264 lots have been made in this basin through December 2008. Twenty-seven thousand, five hundred and twenty-three lots in 241 subdivisions, or 94% of lots, were determined to be adequate. The most common reason for a determination of inadequacy was because the applicant chose not to submit necessary information and/or available hydrologic data were insufficient to make a determination. There is one analysis of adequate water supply for 54 lots. There is one designated provider, City of Yuma. The designation does not have a projected or annual estimated demand. Section 7.11 Yuma Basin 433 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.11-9 Adequacy Determinations in the Yuma Basin1 A. Water Adequacy Reports Map Key Subdivision Name County 1 4E Industrial Park 2 Yuma 4 Alborada Araby Eight Commercial Estates Arroyo De Fortuna 5 Bienestar Estates 6 Location No. of Lots ADWR File No.2 ADWR Adequacy Determination Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination3 Date of Determination Water Provider at Time of Application A1 9/26/2007 Dry Lot Subdivision Township Range Section Yuma 9 South 23 West 13 15 53-700287 Inadequate Yuma 10 South 24 West 4 12 53-402215 Adequate 9/11/2006 City of Somerton 9 South 22 West 4 12 53-500281 Adequate 7/20/1973 Dry Lot Subdivision Yuma 9 South 21 West 15 123 53-402282 Adequate 10/13/2006 Far West Water Company Yuma 11 South 25 West 12 448 53-500330 Adequate 9/29/1982 City of San Luis Bienestar Estates #2 Yuma 11 South 24 West 7 450 53-500331 Adequate 9/26/1989 City of San Luis 7 Bienestar Estates #3 Yuma 11 South 24 West 7 291 53-500332 Adequate 12/17/1991 City of San Luis 8 Bienestar Estates #4 Yuma 11 South 25 West 1 303 53-500333 Adequate 12/15/1994 City of San Luis 9 Bienestar Estates #5 Yuma 11 South 24 West 6 281 53-500334 Adequate 3/9/1995 City of San Luis 10 Bienestar Estates #6 Yuma 11 South 24 West 7 364 53-300489 Adequate 7/7/1998 City of San Luis 11 Bienstar Estates 6A Yuma 11 South 24 West 7 23 53-400687 Adequate 8/8/2002 City of San Luis 12 Bienestar Estates 7C Yuma 11 South 24 West 6 20 53-401842 Adequate 11/14/2005 City of San Luis 13 Bienestar Estates No. 7a & 7b Yuma 11 South 24 West 6 318 53-400677 Adequate 8/8/2002 City of San Luis 14 Bienestar Estates 8A & 8B Yuma 11 South 24 West 7 403 53-401721 Adequate 7/8/2005 City of San Luis 15 Bienestar Estates 8A & 8B Yuma 11 South 24 West 7 404 53-401843 Adequate 9/28/2005 City of San Luis 16 Bienestar Estates 9A Ph. 1 & 2 Yuma 11 South 24 West 10 396 53-700388 Adequate 1/28/2008 City of San Luis 17 Bienestar Estates 9B Yuma 11 South 24 West 9 630 53-700389 Adequate 18 Blaisdell Yuma 8 South 21 West 21 10 53-500343 Inadequate 3 1/28/2008 City of San Luis C 2/26/1975 Dry Lot Subdivision 2/21/1974 Dry Lot Subdivision 9/26/2007 Dry Lot Subdivision 19 Bradley Estates Yuma 9 South 24 West 11 32 53-500351 Adequate 20 Calli Maya Development Yuma 9 South 22 West 22 10 53-500064 Inadequate A1 A1 21 Camarillo Estates Yuma 9 South 24 West 34 30 53-401310 Inadequate 22 Casa Del Sol Phase 1 Yuma 9 South 21 West 4 9 53-401869 Adequate 8/5/2005 City of Somerton 11/1/2005 Far West Water Company 23 Casa del Sol Townhouses #1 Yuma 9 South 21 West 4 26 53-500405 Adequate 24 Citrus Business Park Yuma 9 South 23 West 13 7 53-402241 Inadequate A1 12/18/1984 8/28/2006 Far West Water Company Dry Lot Subdivision 25 Citrus Business Park Unit 2 Yuma 9 South 23 West 13 27 53-700517 Inadequate A1 6/9/2008 Dry Lot Subdivision Far West Water Company 26 Corcovado Townhouses Yuma 9 South 21 West 10 37 53-500507 Adequate 12/22/1981 27 D J Ranch Yuma 9 South 23 West 35 18 53-400458 Adequate 1/29/2001 Dry Lot Subdivision 28 Daybreak Yuma 9 South 21 West 4 48 53-400134 Adequate 7/21/1999 Far West Water Company 29 Debra Jean Estates Yuma 9 South 23 West 17 15 53-500544 Adequate 2/10/1978 Dry Lot Subdivision 30 Del Rey Estates Yuma 9 South 21 West 6 31 53-401215 Adequate 6/16/2004 Far West Water Company 31 Del Sur Yuma 9 South 22 West 12 64 53-500547 Adequate 7/17/1973 Subdivision wells 32 Desert Air Mobile Estates #1,2 Yuma 9 South 22 West 11 100 53-500551 Adequate 1/30/1978 Desert Air Water Company 33 Desert Fairways Yuma 9 South 21 West 4 80 53-500554 Adequate 12/14/1993 Far West Water Company 34 Desert Foothills Estates #2 Yuma 9 South 21 West 8 49 53-500556 Adequate 12/3/1980 Far West Water Company 434 Section 7.11 Yuma Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.11-9 Adequacy Determinations in the Yuma Basin (Cont)1 A. Water Adequacy Reports Map Key Subdivision Name County Location Township Range Section No. of Lots ADWR File No.2 ADWR Adequacy Determination Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination3 Date of Determination Water Provider at Time of Application 35 Desert Foothills Estates #3 Yuma 9 South 21 West 10 22 53-500557 Adequate 8/30/1982 Far West Water Company 36 Desert Foothills Estates #4 Yuma 9 South 21 West 10 20 53-500558 Adequate 9/1/1982 Far West Water Company 37 Desert Foothills #5 Yuma 9 South 21 West 10 39 53-500555 Adequate 4/27/1990 Far West Water Company 38 Desert Foothills Estates #6 Yuma 9 South 21 West 10 18 53-500560 Adequate 4/29/1992 Far West Water Company 39 Desert Foothills Estates #7 Yuma 9 South 21 West 10 61 53-500561 Inadequate 9/28/1994 Far West Water Company 40 Desert Foothills Estates #8 Yuma 9 South 21 West 10 28 53-400634 Adequate 2/12/2002 Far West Water Company 41 Yuma 9 South 22 West 23 32 53-500574 Adequate 1/27/1975 Yuma 9 South 23 West 24 19 53-400592 Adequate 1/17/2002 43 Desert Ranchos Desert Star Estates Subdivision Desert Valley Estates Yuma 10 South 24 West 3 104 53-400906 Adequate 3/31/2003 Dry Lot Subdivision Tierra Mesa Estate Water Co. Inc. City of Somerton 44 Desert Valley Estates Phase II Yuma 10 South 24 West 3 96 53-401635 Inadequate A1 8/4/2005 City of Somerton A1 6/28/2007 City of Somerton 3/1/1999 Dry Lot Subdivision Far West Water Company 42 C 45 Desert Valley Estates, Phase 3 Yuma 10 South 24 West 3 104 53-700326 Inadequate 46 Donley Estates Yuma 10 South 23 West 8 14 53-400020 Adequate 47 El Camino Casitas Yuma 9 South 21 West 4 40 53-500600 Adequate 6/15/1981 48 El Pedregal Yuma 9 South 24 West 34 8 53-402004 Adequate 1/22/2007 City of Somerton 49 El Prado Estates Yuma 8 South 22 West 28 259 53-500607 Adequate 6/19/1992 El Prado Water Company 50 Escondido Beach 1 & 2 Yuma 11 South 25 West 1, 2 26 53-500618 Adequate 11/19/1973 Fortuna Water Company 51 Estrella at Mesa Del Sol Unit 1 Yuma 9 South 21 West 4, 6 149 53-400978 Adequate 7/7/2003 Far West Water Company 52 Estrella at Mesa Del Sol Unit 2 Yuma 9 South 21 West 5 126 53-401421 Adequate 11/5/2004 Far West Water Company 53 Estrella At Mesa Del Sol Unit 3 Yuma 9 South 21 West 5 156 53-402283 Adequate 10/17/2006 Far West Water Company 54 Foothills #05B Yuma 9 South 21 West 9 16 53-500640 Adequate 8/28/1973 Far West Water Company 55 Foothills #05C Yuma 9 South 21 West 9 69 53-500641 Adequate 9/23/1976 Far West Water Company 56 Foothills #05D Yuma 9 South 21 West 9 18 53-500642 Adequate 8/17/1987 Far West Water Company 57 Foothills Mobile Estates Yuma 9 South 21 West 15 343 53-500644 Adequate 2/1/1978 Far West Water Company 58 Foothills Mobile Estates #02 Yuma 9 South 21 West 15 98 53-500646 Adequate 8/8/1978 Far West Water Company 59 Foothills Mobile Estates #03 Yuma 9 South 21 West 15 343 53-500645 Adequate 12/28/1979 Far West Water Company 60 Foothills Mobile #04 Yuma 9 South 21 West 15 176 53-500643 Adequate 3/28/1980 Far West Water Company 61 Foothills Mobile Estates #05 Yuma 9 South 21 West 15 192 53-500647 Adequate 7/9/1981 Far West Water Company 62 Foothills Mobile Estates #06 Yuma 9 South 21 West 9 142 53-500648 Adequate 8/30/1982 Far West Water Company 63 Foothills Mobile Estates #07 Yuma 9 South 21 West 14, 15 214 53-500649 Adequate 10/25/1982 Far West Water Company 64 Foothills Mobile Estates #08 Yuma 9 South 21 West 15 17 53-500650 Adequate 9/1/1982 Far West Water Company 65 Foothills Mobile Estates #09 Yuma 9 South 21 West 22 284 53-500651 Adequate 3/8/1984 Far West Water Company 66 Foothills Mobile Estates #10 Yuma 9 South 21 West 9 91 53-500652 Adequate 12/22/1982 Far West Water Company 67 Foothills Mobile Estates #11 Yuma 9 South 21 West 22 240 53-500653 Adequate 2/10/1984 Far West Water Company Section 7.11 Yuma Basin 435 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.11-9 Adequacy Determinations in the Yuma Basin (Cont)1 A. Water Adequacy Reports Location Water Provider at Time of Application Adequate 3/6/1985 Far West Water Company Adequate 5/18/1989 Far West Water Company 53-500656 Adequate 1/29/1986 Far West Water Company 276 53-500657 Adequate 5/12/1994 Far West Water Company 15 188 53-500658 Adequate 10/6/1993 Far West Water Company 21 West 22, 23 302 53-500659 Adequate 1/27/1995 Far West Water Company 9 South 21 West 22, 23 267 53-300094 Adequate 2/15/1996 Far West Water Company Yuma 9 South 21 West 22, 23 151 53-300132 Adequate 4/17/1996 Far West Water Company Foothills Mobile Estates #19A Yuma 9 South 21 West 23 13 53-400145 Adequate 10/19/1999 Far West Water Company 77 Foothills Mobile Estates #20 Yuma 9 South 21 West 22 264 53-300212 Adequate 10/18/1996 Far West Water Company 78 Foothills Mobile Estates #21 Yuma 9 South 21 West 22 196 53-300277 Adequate 5/1/1997 Far West Water Company 79 Foothills Mobile Estates #22 Yuma 9 South 21 West 22 172 53-300376 Adequate 12/9/1997 Far West Water Company 80 Foothills Mobile Estates #23 Yuma 9 South 21 West 22 45 53-300325 Adequate 7/28/1997 Far West Water Company 81 Foothills Mobile Estates #24 Yuma 9 South 21 West 22 203 53-300468 Adequate 6/9/1998 Far West Water Company 82 Foothills Mobile Estates #25 Yuma 9 South 21 West 16 294 53-300520 Adequate 9/8/1998 Far West Water Company 83 Foothills Mobile Estates #26 Yuma 9 South 21 West 16 288 53-300589 Adequate 2/17/1999 Far West Water Company 84 Foothills Mobile Estates #27 Yuma 9 South 21 West 23 248 53-400155 Adequate 8/18/1999 Far West Water Company 85 Foothills Mobile Estates #27A Yuma 9 South 21 West 23 10 53-400486 Adequate 4/6/2001 Far West Water Company 86 Foothills Mobile Estates # 27B Yuma 9 South 21 West 23 10 53-400796 Adequate 11/21/2002 Far West Water Company 87 Foothills Mobile Estates #28 Yuma 9 South 21 West 23 264 53-400485 Adequate 4/16/2001 Far West Water Company 88 Foothills Mobile Estates #29 Yuma 9 South 21 West 23 361 53-400559 Adequate 12/17/2001 Far West Water Company 89 Foothills Mobile Estates #30 Yuma 9 South 21 West 23 348 53-400754 Adequate 7/2/2002 Far West Water Company 90 Foothills Mobile Estates #31 Yuma 9 South 21 West 14 152 53-400911 Adequate 3/31/2003 Far West Water Company 91 Foothills Mountain Estates Yuma 9 South 21 West 9 66 53-500660 Adequate 10/10/1974 Far West Water Company 92 Foothills North #2 Yuma 9 South 21 West 3 98 53-500662 Adequate 2/1/1978 Far West Water Company Subdivision Name County 68 Foothills Mobile Estates #12 69 Foothills Mobile Estates #13 70 Section No. of Lots ADWR File No.2 ADWR Adequacy Determination Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination3 Date of Determination Map Key Township Range Yuma 9 South 21 West 22 278 53-500654 Yuma 9 South 21 West 22, 23 311 53-500655 Foothills Mobile Estates #14 Yuma 9 South 21 West 9 365 71 Foothills Mobile Estates #15 Yuma 9 South 21 West 22, 23 72 Foothills Mobile Estates #16 Yuma 9 South 21 West 73 Foothills Mobile Estates #17 Yuma 9 South 74 Foothills Mobile Estates #18 Yuma 75 Foothills Mobile Estates #19 76 93 Foothills North #3 Yuma 9 South 21 West 2 313 53-500663 Adequate 11/13/1984 Far West Water Company 94 Foothills North #4 Yuma 9 South 21 West 2 211 53-500664 Adequate 5/18/1994 Far West Water Company 95 Fortuna Golf Units 2 & 3 Yuma 9 South 21 West 3 32 53-401829 Adequate 11/1/2005 Far West Water Company 96 Fortuna Heights Yuma 9 South 21 West 6 260 53-500677 Adequate 2/27/1974 Far West Water Company 97 Fortuna Hills Yuma 9 South 21 West 2 63 53-300312 Adequate 5/16/1997 Far West Water Company 98 Fortuna Road Commercial Yuma 9 South 21 West 8 6 53-500678 Adequate 3/30/1994 Far West Water Company 99 Fortuna Road Commercial #2 Yuma 9 South 21 West 8 15 53-300026 Adequate 6/27/1995 Far West Water Company 100 Fortuna Trails Yuma 9 South 21 West 15 142 53-500679 Adequate 10/25/1984 Far West Water Company 101 Frontera Estates Unit No. 2 Yuma 11 South 25 West 12 87 53-700414 Inadequate 10/2/2007 City of San Luis 102 Frontera Estates Unit No. 2 Yuma 11 South 25 West 12 87 53-700459 Adequate 5/5/2008 City of San Luis 436 A1 Section 7.11 Yuma Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.11-9 Adequacy Determinations in the Yuma Basin (Cont)1 A. Water Adequacy Reports Map Key Subdivision Name County 103 Gadsden Estates #2 104 Gila Acres 105 Location No. of Lots ADWR File No.2 ADWR Adequacy Determination Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination3 Date of Determination Water Provider at Time of Application 3/30/1981 Gadsden Water Company A1 10/17/1973 Dry Lot Subdivision Township Range Section Yuma 10 South 25 West 13 56 53-500691 Adequate Yuma 8 South 23 West 26 29 53-500703 Inadequate Gold Cup Estates Yuma 10 South 23 West 7 8 53-500707 Adequate 10/16/1974 Dry Lot Subdivision 106 Goldwater Ranch Yuma 9 South 22 West 29 10 53-400457 Adequate 1/30/2001 Dry Lot Subdivision 107 Green Acres #2 Yuma 9 South 23 West 20 77 53-500729 Adequate 108 Heritage Park Yuma 9 South 22 West 18 39 53-500030 Inadequate 109 Yuma 9 South 21 West 22 7 53-401684 Yuma 9 South 21 West 3 9 53-500820 111 J&S Jess Gomez' Mountain View Estates Jones Resubdivision Yuma 9 South 22 West 12 24 53-500822 Adequate 2/11/1977 Dry Lot Subdivision 112 King Ranch Yuma 9 South 23 West 24 10 53-400219 Adequate 1/18/2000 Dry Lot Subdivision 113 La Quinta Estates Yuma 9 South 24 West 25 23 53-500865 Adequate 9/19/1978 Dry Lot Subdivision 114 Lackner Estates Yuma 9 South 24 West 34 17 53-500868 Adequate 3/11/1993 City of Somerton 115 Las Barrancas # 1 Yuma 9 South 21 West 14 230 53-401609 Adequate 9/19/2005 Far West Water Company 116 Las Barrancas No. 2 Yuma 9 South 21 West 14 105 53-401920 Adequate 6/15/2007 Far West Water Company 117 Yuma 11 South 25 West 1 150 53-700382 Adequate 11/13/2007 City of San Luis Yuma 10 South 24 West 3 283 53-700281 Inadequate A1 4/4/2007 City of Somerton 119 Las Brisas Las Estrellas Unit No. 4 (South) Las Estrellas Unit No. 5 Yuma 10 South 24 West 3 147 53-700488 Inadequate A1 3/25/2008 City of Somerton 120 Las Fuentes Yuma 11 South 24 West 7 132 53-300576 Adequate 4/19/1999 City of San Luis 121 Yuma 9 South 24 West 34 76 53-400204 Adequate 11/22/1999 City of Somerton 123 Las Haciendas Las Quintas De San Luis, Phase 1&2 Las Terrazzas 124 Las Villas de San Luis, # 1 & 2 Yuma 11 South 24 West 7 202 125 Los Alamos Yuma 10 South 24 West 32 381 110 118 122 6/23/1980 Green Acres Water 1/17/2007 Dry Lot Subdivision Adequate 4/6/2005 Far West Water Company Adequate 2/3/1994 Far West Water Company A1 Yuma 11 South 24 West 6 207 53-400521 Adequate 6/20/2001 City of San Luis Yuma 11 South 24 West 7 37 53-500899 Adequate 10/4/1991 City of San Luis 53-400005 Adequate 4/19/1999 City of San Luis 53-402037 Adequate 6/6/2006 City of San Luis 126 Los Amigos Yuma 9 South 21 West 6 206 53-500917 Adequate 1/20/1981 Far West Water Company 127 Los Jardines de la Plaza Yuma 11 South 25 West 11 313 53-500918 Adequate 7/7/1992 City of San Luis 128 Los Olivos Yuma 11 South 24 West 7 256 53-401722 Adequate 7/6/2005 City of San Luis 129 Los Portales de Alamo #2 Yuma 11 South 25 West 2 49 53-500921 Adequate 5/8/1980 City of San Luis 130 Los Portales del Alamo #3 Yuma 11 South 25 West 2 46 53-500923 Adequate 10/15/1980 City of San Luis 131 Los Portales del Alamo #4 Los Portales del Alamo #4, Phases 4&5 Yuma 11 South 25 West 2 239 53-500924 Adequate 1/10/1992 City of San Luis Yuma 11 South 25 West 2 183 53-400208 Adequate 12/20/1999 City of San Luis Los Portales del Alamo #6 Yuma 11 South 25 West 2 6 53-500925 Adequate 10/31/1982 City of San Luis Yuma 11 South 25 West 2 40 53-500926 Adequate 9/1/1989 City of San Luis 132 133 134 135 136 Los Portales del Alamo Unit IV, Phase I Los Portales del Alamo Unit IV, Phase II Lucky Lou Subdivision Yuma 11 South 25 West 2 50 53-500927 Adequate 11/8/1989 City of San Luis Yuma 10 South 23 West 7 14 53-400066 Adequate 5/3/1999 Dry Lot Subdivision Section 7.11 Yuma Basin 437 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.11-9 Adequacy Determinations in the Yuma Basin (Cont)1 A. Water Adequacy Reports Map Key Subdivision Name County Location Township Range Section No. of Lots ADWR File No.2 ADWR Adequacy Determination Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination3 Date of Determination Water Provider at Time of Application 137 Mesa Dunes Estates Yuma 9 South 22 West 22 32 53-500966 Adequate 7/26/1976 Dry Lot Subdivision 138 Mesa View Yuma 9 South 22 West 17 48 53-400518 Adequate 6/14/2001 Far West Water Company 139 Mesa del Sol #1 Yuma 9 South 21 West 4 72 53-500955 Adequate 8/24/1979 Far West Water Company 140 Mesa del Sol #1 Yuma 9 South 21 West 5 7 53-500956 Adequate 3/15/1993 Far West Water Company 141 Mesa del Sol #2 Yuma 9 South 21 West 4 121 53-500957 Adequate 1/23/1980 Far West Water Company 142 Mesa del Sol #3 Yuma 9 South 21 West 5 156 53-500958 Adequate 2/24/1981 Far West Water Company 143 Mesa del Sol #4 Yuma 9 South 21 West 4 32 53-500960 Adequate 5/4/1984 Far West Water Company 144 Mesa del Sol #5 Yuma 9 South 21 West 4 5 53-500961 Adequate 5/2/1984 Far West Water Company 145 Mesa del Sol #6 Yuma 9 South 21 West 5 65 53-500962 Adequate 1/3/1985 Far West Water Company 146 Mesa del Sol #7 Yuma 9 South 21 West 5 74 53-500963 Adequate 1/3/1985 Far West Water Company 147 Mesa del Sol #8 Yuma 9 South 21 West 4, 5 40 53-500964 Adequate 10/23/1991 Far West Water Company 148 Mesa del Sol #9 Yuma 9 South 21 West 5 54 53-500965 Adequate 1/17/1995 Far West Water Company 149 Mesa Del Sol Unit # 10 Yuma 9 South 21 West 5 52 53-400484 Adequate 7/6/2001 Far West Water Company 150 Mesa Del Sol Unit # 11 Yuma 9 South 21 West 5 50 53-400483 Adequate 2/15/2001 Far West Water Company 151 Mesa Del Sol Unit 12 Yuma 9 South 21 West 5 135 53-401488 Adequate 9/9/2004 Far West Water Company 153 Mesa del Sol Estates Yuma 9 South 21 West 4 11 53-401911 Adequate 11/19/2005 Far West Water Company 154 Mountain Shadows #3 Yuma 9 South 21 West 4 59 53-501023 Adequate 4/13/1994 Far West Water Company 155 Mountain Shadows #4 Yuma 9 South 21 West 4 34 53-300155 Adequate 10/18/1996 Far West Water Company 156 Mountain View Estates #4 Yuma 9 South 21 West 4 23 53-501029 Adequate 8/2/1988 Far West Water Company 157 Mountain View Unit No 1 Yuma 9 South 21 West 5 83 53-400636 Adequate 1/3/2002 Far West Water Company 158 Mountain View Unit No. 2 Yuma 9 South 21 West 5 132 53-400897 Adequate 3/7/2003 Far West Water Company 159 Mountain View Unit 3 Yuma 9 South 21 West 5 180 53-401218 Adequate 5/25/2004 Far West Water Company 160 Mountain Vista Estates #1,2 Yuma 9 South 21 West 4 40 53-501038 Adequate 8/1/1983 Far West Water Company 161 Mountain Vista Estates #3,3A Yuma 9 South 21 West 4 32 53-501039 Adequate 10/8/1985 Far West Water Company 162 Mountain Vista Estates Unit 5 Yuma 9 South 21 West 4 44 53-401427 Adequate 9/30/2004 Far West Water Company 163 Oasis del Este #2 Yuma 9 South 21 West 8 87 53-501070 Adequate 12/12/1983 Far West Water Company 164 Oasis del Este #3 Yuma 9 South 21 West 8 34 53-501071 Adequate 5/13/1986 Far West Water Company 165 Oasis del Este #4 Yuma 9 South 21 West 8 90 53-501072 Adequate 5/13/1986 Far West Water Company 166 Oasis del Oeste Yuma 9 South 21 West 8 52 53-501073 Adequate 7/9/1981 Far West Water Company 167 Orange Grove Mobile Manor Orange Grove Mobile Manor #2 Orange Grove Mobile Manor #3 Orange Grove Mobile Manor #4 Orange Grove Mobile Manor #5 Yuma 9 South 23 West 31 21 53-501079 Adequate 11/6/1973 Orange Grove Water Co. Yuma 9 South 23 West 31 29 53-501080 Adequate 7/8/1975 Orange Grove Water Co. Yuma 9 South 23 West 31 27 53-501081 Adequate 10/11/1977 Orange Grove Water Co. Yuma 9 South 23 West 31 29 53-501082 Adequate 2/20/1979 Orange Grove Water Co. Yuma 9 South 23 West 31 63 53-501083 Adequate 10/15/1980 Orange Grove Water Co. 168 169 170 171 438 Section 7.11 Yuma Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.11-9 Adequacy Determinations in the Yuma Basin (Cont)1 A. Water Adequacy Reports Map Key Subdivision Name County Location Township Range Section No. of Lots ADWR File No.2 ADWR Adequacy Determination Reason(s) for Inadequacy 3 Determination Date of Determination Water Provider at Time of Application A1 10/18/2007 Dry Lot Subdivision Yuma 9 South 23 West 12 519 53-700415 Inadequate 173 Premier Storage Condominiums of Yuma Unit II L.L.C. Puerta Bonita Subdivision Yuma 9 South 21 West 10 31 53-500055 Adequate 2/20/2007 Far West Water Company 174 Purple Mountain Subdivision Yuma 9 South 22 West 31 10 53-401312 Adequate 12/20/2004 Dry Lot Subdivision 175 R Circle J Estates Yuma 9 South 22 West 12 46 53-501242 Adequate 6/26/1975 Dry Lot Subdivision 176 Rancheros Bonitos Yuma 9 South 22 West 30 24 53-501249 Adequate 3/11/1978 Ranchos Bonitos Water Co. 177 Rancheros Bonitos #2 Yuma 9 South 22 West 30 24 53-300136 Adequate 11/21/1996 Ranchos Bonitos Water Co. 178 Rancho Bonitos Co-op Park Yuma 9 South 22 West 30 121 53-501252 Inadequate 2/15/1987 Ranchos Bonitos Water Co. 179 Rancho Del Oro No. 2 Phases I & II Yuma 9 South 21 West 5 97 53-400382 Adequate 8/18/2000 Far West Water Company 180 Rancho Del Sol Yuma 8 South 23 West 8 15 53-400151 Adequate 8/18/1999 Dry Lot Subdivision 181 Yuma 11 South 24 West 7 57 53-300131 Adequate 11/13/1996 City of San Luis Yuma 9 South 21 West 21 220 53-700239 Adequate 5/15/2007 Far West Water Company 183 Rancho Don Carlos Rancho Encantado Phases 1 & 2 Rancho Los Oros Yuma 11 South 25 West 2 183 53-400006 Adequate 4/19/1999 City of San Luis 184 Rancho Mesa Verde Yuma 9 South 23 West 6 53 53-501266 Adequate 4/21/1984 Orange Grove Water Co. 185 Rancho Mesa Verde #2 Yuma 10 South 23 West 6 54 53-501267 Adequate 7/17/1986 Orange Grove Water Co. 186 Rancho Mesa Verde #3 Yuma 10 South 23 West 6 56 53-501268 Adequate 3/23/1989 Orange Grove Water Co. 187 Rancho San Luis Yuma 11 South 25 West 2 143 53-501270 Adequate 9/1/1989 City of San Luis 188 Ranchos el Toreo Yuma 9 South 22 West 12 28 53-501283 Adequate 8/22/1979 Dry Lot Subdivision 189 The Ravines #2 Yuma 9 South 21 West 14 212 53-401610 Adequate 9/19/2005 Far West Water Company 190 The Ravines #3 Yuma 9 South 21 West 14 210 53-401608 Adequate 9/19/2005 Far West Water Company 191 Riebe Ranchettes Yuma 9 South 22 West 30 8 53-501297 Adequate 12/4/1984 Dry Lot Subdivision 192 Rio Sereno Subdivision Yuma 11 South 25 West 2 95 53-400341 Adequate 6/9/2000 City of San Luis 193 Rivera Estates Yuma 9 South 24 West 34 24 53-400013 Adequate 3/2/1999 City of Somerton 172 182 B 194 Sandy Ranch Subdivision Yuma 9 South 22 West 18 34 53-700252 Inadequate 9/27/2007 Dry Lot Subdivision 195 Santa Clara Estates Phase 1 Yuma 10 South 24 West 3 15 53-400535 Adequate A1 5/31/2001 City of Somerton 196 Santa Clara Estates Phase 2 Yuma 10 South 24 West 3 22 53-400534 Adequate 6/27/2001 City of Somerton 197 Santa Clara Estates Phase 3 Yuma 10 North 24 West 3 76 53-400782 Adequate 10/9/2002 City of Somerton 198 Schechert Estates Yuma 9 South 21 West 23 16 53-400913 Adequate 3/31/2003 Far West Water Company 199 Scottsdale West Estates Yuma 9 South 21 West 8 114 53-401187 Adequate 7/20/2004 Far West Water Company 200 Seasons RV Village Unit I, The Yuma 9 South 21 West 6 157 53-400009 Adequate 2/5/1999 Far West Water Company Yuma 9 South 21 West 6 136 53-400309 Adequate 4/5/2000 Far West Water Company 202 Seasons RV Village Unit 2, The Seasons RV Village Unit 3 Yuma 9 South 21 West 6 125 53-400547 Adequate 10/10/2001 Far West Water Company 203 Seasons RV Village Unit 4 Yuma 9 South 21 West 6 133 53-400967 Adequate 6/17/2003 Far West Water Company 204 Seasons RV Village Unit 5 Yuma 9 South 21 West 6 133 53-400966 Adequate 6/17/2003 Far West Water Company 201 Section 7.11 Yuma Basin 439 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.11-9 Adequacy Determinations in the Yuma Basin (Cont)1 A. Water Adequacy Reports Map Key Subdivision Name County 205 Sienna at Mesa Del Sol 206 Sierra Ridge 207 208 Location No. of Lots ADWR File No.2 ADWR Adequacy Determination Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination3 Date of Determination Water Provider at Time of Application Adequate 7/3/2002 Far West Water Company Adequate 8/16/2004 Far West Water Company Township Range Section Yuma 9 South 21 West 5 60 53-400724 Yuma 9 South 21 West 9 171 53-401419 Sierra Sands Yuma 9 South 22 West 30 32 53-300197 Adequate 10/16/1996 Dry Lot Subdivision Sierra Sands, Phase 2 Yuma 9 South 22 West 31 8 53-700338 Inadequate 9/14/2007 Dry Lot Subdivision 209 Sinclair Ranch Yuma 9 South 23 West 13 8 53-501416 Adequate 6/24/1991 Dry Lot Subdivision 210 Somerton Heights Yuma 10 South 24 West 3 102 53-501435 Adequate 8/18/1976 City of Somerton 211 Yuma 9 South 24 West 34 111 53-501436 Adequate 9/10/1987 City of Somerton Yuma 9 South 21 West 6 51 53-501443 Adequate 10/11/1985 Far West Water Company 213 Somerton Villa Southern Sands Mobile Estates Sun Leisure Estates Yuma 9 South 23 West 28 152 53-501480 Adequate 7/14/1978 Private 214 Sunburst Estates Yuma 9 South 24 West 10 42 53-501494 Adequate 7/2/1976 Dry Lot Subdivision 212 A1 215 Taub Subdivision Yuma 9 South 22 West 20 31 53-400057 Adequate 4/14/1999 Dry Lot Subdivision 216 Tierra Bonita Subdivision Yuma 9 South 23 West 24 15 53-400637 Adequate 2/11/2002 Tierra Mesa Estate Water Co. Inc. 217 Tierra Mesa Estates 1-5 Yuma 9 South 23 West 24 126 53-501554 Adequate 9/15/1978 218 Tierra Mesa Estates 6-9 Yuma 9 South 23 West 24 97 53-501555 Adequate 5/4/1989 219 Tuscan Ranch Yuma 9 South 23 West 36 36 53-500035 Inadequate 1/29/2007 Improvement District Tierra Mesa Estate Water Co. Inc. Dry Lot Subdivision 220 Tuscan Ranch Phase II Yuma 9 South 23 West 36 32 53-700465 Adequate 9/4/2008 Dry Lot Subdivision 221 Valle Del Sol Phase 1 & 2 Yuma 10 South 24 West 3 201 53-401720 Adequate 9/8/2005 City of Somerton 222 Valle Sereno Yuma 10 South 24 West 3 80 53-400342 Adequate 6/9/2000 City of Somerton 223 Valle Sereno Estates Phase 3 Yuma 10 South 24 West 3 18 53-400900 Adequate 3/20/2003 City of Somerton 224 Valle Sereno Estates Phase 4 Yuma 10 South 24 West 3 55 53-400910 Adequate 3/31/2003 City of Somerton 225 Valle Sereno Estates Phase 5 Yuma 10 South 24 West 3 39 53-401247 Adequate 6/16/2004 City of Somerton 226 Valle Sereno Estates Phase 6 Yuma 10 South 24 West 3 41 53-401287 Adequate 3/18/2005 City of Somerton 227 Valle del Sol Phase 3 Yuma 10 South 24 West 3 15 53-402213 Adequate 9/11/2006 City of Somerton 228 Valley Citrus Estates Yuma 8 South 24 West 25 33 53-501598 Adequate 11/5/1973 Dry Lot Subdivision A1 229 Vargas Estates Yuma 9 South 24 West 34 77 53-400834 Adequate 10/17/2002 City of Somerton 230 Venezia Yuma 9 South 24 West 34 180 53-402041 Adequate 8/7/2006 City of Somerton 231 Veranda Estates Subdivision Yuma 9 South 24 West 34 69 53-500076 Inadequate 1/29/2007 City of Somerton 232 Villa Chaparral No. 1 Yuma 9 South 21 West 7 118 53-400783 Adequate 8/16/2002 Far West Water Company 233 Villa Chaparral No. 2 Yuma 9 South 21 West 7 59 53-401238 Adequate 5/25/2004 Far West Water Company 234 Villa Chaparral No. 3 Yuma 9 South 21 West 7 141 53-401288 Adequate 7/20/2004 Far West Water Company 235 Villa Chaparral No. 4 Yuma 9 South 21 West 7 157 53-401655 Adequate 4/8/2005 Far West Water Company 236 Villa Royale Townhouses Yuma 9 South 21 West 4 35 53-501629 Adequate 5/20/1980 Far West Water Company 237 Villa de Coronado Yuma 9 South 21 West 4 41 53-501618 Adequate 9/23/1983 Far West Water Company 238 Villa del Rey Townhouses Yuma 9 South 21 West 4 144 53-501619 Adequate 8/8/1980 Far West Water Company 440 A1 Section 7.11 Yuma Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.11-9 Adequacy Determinations in the Yuma Basin (Cont)1 A. Water Adequacy Reports Map Key Subdivision Name County 239 241 Villas, The Vista Del Sol Subdivision-Unit No.1 Vista Montana #1 242 243 Location ADWR File No.2 ADWR Adequacy Determination Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination3 Date of Determination Water Provider at Time of Application Adequate 9/27/1991 Far West Water Company Adequate 8/17/1998 Far West Water Company 53-501651 Adequate 5/8/1978 Far West Water Company 44 53-501652 Adequate 1/17/1979 Far West Water Company 344 53-402214 Adequate 3/27/2007 City of Somerton 53-400236 Adequate 12/29/1999 City of Somerton Township Range Yuma 9 South 21 West 8 62 53-501639 Yuma 9 South 22 West 12 107 53-300510 Yuma 9 South 21 West 15 44 Vista Montana #2 Yuma 9 South 21 West 15 Yuma 9 South 24 West 34 Yuma 9 South 24 West 34 16 245 Vizcaya Westhoff Manor Condominiums Yuma West #2 Yuma 9 South 21 West 8 127 53-501710 Adequate 5/16/1979 Far West Water Company 246 Yuma West #3,4 Yuma 9 South 21 West 10 506 53-501711 Adequate 12/3/1980 Far West Water Company 247 Yuma West #5 Yuma 9 South 21 West 7 87 53-501712 Adequate 4/23/1985 Far West Water Company 248 Yuma West #6 Yuma 9 South 21 West 8 22 53-501713 Adequate 3/30/1994 Far West Water Company 249 Yuma West Estates #1 Yuma 9 South 21 West 7 175 53-501714 Adequate 8/3/1994 Far West Water Company 250 Yuma West Estates #2 Yuma West Estates No. 5 & No. 6 Yuma 9 South 21 West 7 137 53-300477 Adequate 6/11/1998 Far West Water Company Yuma 9 South 21 West 7 105 53-400915 Adequate 5/23/2003 Far West Water Company 252 Yuma West Estates No. 7 & 8 Yuma 9 South 21 West 7 130 53-401278 Adequate 7/20/2004 Far West Water Company 253 Yuma West Estates No. 9 & 10 Yuma 9 South 21 West 7 122 53-401656 Adequate 4/8/2005 Far West Water Company Yuma 9 South 21 West 7 104 53-400629 Adequate 2/12/2002 Far West Water Company 255 Yuma West Estates Phase 3 & Phase 4 Yuma Meadows Unit III Yuma 9 South 21 West 7 58 53-400673 Adequate 4/11/2002 Far West Water Company 256 Yuma Meadows Units I & II Yuma 9 South 21 West 7 111 53-400435 Adequate 10/31/2000 Far West Water Company 257 Yuma Meadows, Unit IV Yuma 9 South 21 West 7 91 53-400873 Adequate 2/12/2003 Far West Water Company 258 Yuma Mesa West Yuma 9 South 21 West 8 52 53-501715 Adequate 11/9/1978 Far West Water Company 259 Yuma Venture Yuma 9 South 21 West 9 125 53-501716 Adequate 12/5/1983 Far West Water Company 260 Yuma Vineyards Yuma 9 South 23 West 36 9 53-402242 Inadequate 8/31/2006 Dry Lot Subdivision 261 Zocalo Gardens #01 Yuma 10 South 24 West 3 68 53-501718 Adequate 3/10/1981 City of Somerton 262 Zocalo Gardens #03 Yuma 10 South 24 West 3 40 53-501719 Adequate 11/15/1983 City of Somerton 263 Zocalo Gardens #04 Yuma 10 South 24 West 3 100 53-501720 Adequate 2/3/1989 City of Somerton 240 244 251 254 Section No. of Lots B. Analysis of Adequate Water Supply Map Key Subdivision Name County 152 Mesa Del Sol Unit 12 Phase I Yuma Location Township Range Section No. of Lots ADWR File No. Date of Determination 9 South 21 West 5 54 43-401385 7/20/2004 Section 7.11 Yuma Basin 2 A1 Water Provider at the Time of Application Far West Water Company 441 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table 7.11-9 Adequacy Determinations in the Yuma Basin (Cont)1 C. Designated Adequate Water Supply Map Key Provider Name County Designation No. a City of Yuma Yuma 40-900019 Projected or Annual Estimated Date Application Received Demand (af/yr) No amount designated Date Application Issued NA 5/17/1973 Year of Projected or Annual Demand No data, hydrologic study needed Source: ADWR 2008a Notes: 1 2 Each determination of the adequacy of water supplies available to a subdivision is based on the information available to ADWR and the standards of review and policies in effect at the time the determination was made. In some cases, ADWR might make a different determination if a similar application were submitted today, based on the hydrologic data and other information currently available, as well as current rules and policies. 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 442 Section 7.11 Yuma Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Section 7.11 Yuma Basin 443 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Yuma 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, Impaired lakes and reaches: GIS cover, received January 2006. _____, 2005d, WWTP and permit files: Miscellaneous working files, received July 2005. _____, 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) _____, 2004c, Water quality data base-Yuma Basin - 1/1900 to 6/2/04. (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. _____, 2005a, Flood warning gages: Database, ADWR Office of Water Engineering. _____, 2005b, Groundwater Site Inventory (GWSI): Database, ADWR Hydrology Division. _____, 2005c, 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) _____, 1994, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. I, Inventory and Analysis. _____, 1994, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. II, Hydrologic Summary. Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGF), 1997 & 1993, Statewide riparian inventory and mapping project: GIS cover. Arizona Land Resource Information System (ALRIS), 2005, Springs: GIS cover, accessed January 2006 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index.html. _____, 2004, Land ownership: GIS cover, accessed in 2004 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/ index.html. Arizona Meteorological Network (AZMET), 2007, Arizona climate stations: Pan evaporation data, accessed December 2005 at http://www.ag.arizona.edu/azmet/locate.html. Section 7.11 Yuma Basin 444 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Arizona Water Commission, 1975, Summary, Phase I, Arizona State Water Plan, Inventory of resource and uses. E Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 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 Anderson, T.W. 1986, Predevelopment hydrologic conditions in the alluvial basins of Arizona and adjacent parts of California and New Mexico: USGS Hydrologic Investigations Atlas-HA664. O Oregon State University, Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS), 2006, Average annual precipitation in Arizona for 1961-1990: PRISM GIS cover, accessed in 2006 at www.ocs. orst.edu/prism. T Tadayon, S., King, K and others, 1998, Field screening of water quality, bottom sediment and biota associated with irrigation drainage in the Yuma Valley, Arizona, 1995: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 97-4236. (Water Quality Map and Table) U United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2008 & 2005, National Water Information System (NWIS) data for Arizona: Accessed October 2008 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 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. 445 Section 7.11 Yuma Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Supplemental Reading Alavi, N., 2000, Groundwater investigation and remedial actions for operable Unit 1 at the Marine Corps Air Station, Yuma, Arizona: in Environmental Technologies for the 21st Century: Proceedings from the 13th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 2000, Phoenix, Arizona, p.78. 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. Bureau of Reclamation, 2006, Final Environmental Assessment for the Laguna Reservoir Restoration Project. Prepared by SAIC. _____, 2000, Colorado River Interim Surplus Criteria: Final Environmental Impact Statement. Carollo Engineers, 2007, Yuma System Water Plan: Submitted to the Arizona Department of Water Resources, January 2007. Carpio-Obeso, M.P., 1998, Study of toxic substances in the Lower Colorado River: in Water at the Confluence of Science, Law and Public Policy: Proceedings from the 11th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1998, Tucson, Arizona, p. 181. City of Somerton, 2006, Water Supply Plan: Submitted to the Arizona Department of Water Resources, December 2006. City of Yuma, 2002, General Plan: Public Services Element. Clean Colorado River Alliance, 2006, Recommendations to Address Colorado River Water Quality. Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum, 2005, Water Quality Standards for Salinity: Colorado River System. Coriolis, 2006, Far West Water and Sewer, Inc. Water Supply and Drought Preparedness Plan, Submitted to the Arizona Department of Water Resources December 2006. Dickinson, J., M. Land, C. Faunt, S.A. Leake, E. Reichard, J.B Fleming, D.R Pool, 2006, Hydrogeologic framework refinement, ground-water flow and storage, waterchemistry analyses, and water-budget components of the Yuma area, southwestern Arizona and southeastern California, USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5135. Section 7.11 Yuma Basin 446 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 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. Hill, B. M., 1993, Hydrogeology, numerical model and scenario simulations of the Yuma area groundwater flow model, Arizona, California and Mexico: Arizona Department of Water Resources, Groundwater Modeling Section, Final Report 115 p. Jacobson Companies, 1976, Water Report for the Town of Somerton, Somerton, Arizona. Prepared for Arizona Department of Water Resources. _____, 1979, Water Report for the Fortuna Water Co., San Luis, Arizona. Prepared for Arizona Department of Water Resources. 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. Overby, A., 1997, Maps showing groundwater conditions in the Yuma basin, Yuma County, Arizona 1992: Arizona Department of Water Resources, Hydrologic Map Series #30. 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. Owen-Joyce, S.J., R.P. Wilson, M.C. Carpenter and J.B. Funk, 2000, Method to identify wells that yield water that will be replaced by water from the Colorado River downstream from Laguna Dam in Arizona and California: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 00-4085, 31 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’sAdaptations 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 adjacent \ parts of Nevada, New Mexico and California: USGS Professional Paper 1406-C. Santec Consulting, 1999, Small and minor watercourses analysis for Yuma County, Arizona, Arizona State Land Department, Final Report. SWCA Environmental Consultants, 2005, Hydrologic Report and Physical Availability Demonstration, Los Olivos Development, San Luis, Yuma County, Arizona. Prepared for Arizona Department of Water Resources. 447 Section 7.11 Yuma Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 _____, 2005, Hydrologic Report and Physical Availability Demonstration, Valle del Sol development, Somerton, Yuma County, Arizona. Prepared for Arizona Department of Water Resources. Towne, D. 1998, Ambient groundwater quality in the Yuma basin: a 1995 baseline study, ADEQ Open File Report 98-7. Yuma County, 2001, Yuma County 2010 Comprehensive Plan: Water Resources. Yuma Desalting Plant/Cienega de Santa Clara Workgroup, 2005, Balancing Water Needs on the Colorado River: Recommendations of the Yuma Desalting Plant/Cienega de Santa Clara Workgroup. Section 7.11 Yuma Basin 448 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 449 Section 7.11 Yuma Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS AAWS Analysis of Adequate Water Supply ACC Arizona Corporation Commission ADWR Arizona Department of Water Resources ADEQ Arizona Department of Environmental Quality ADOC Arizona Department of Commerce AFA Acre-feet per year (annum) ALERT Automated Local Evaluation in Real Time ALRIS Arizona Land Resource Information System AMA Active Management Area APS Arizona Public Service ARS Arizona Revised Statute ASDM Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum ASLD Arizona State Land Department AWBAArizona Water Banking Authority AWPF Arizona Water Protection Fund AZDA Arizona Department of Agriculture AZGF Arizona Game and Fish Department AZMET Arizona Meteorological Network BCPA Boulder Canyon Project Act BECC Border Environment Cooperation Commission BLM United States Bureau of Land Management bls below land surface CAP Central Arizona Project CFR Code of Federal Regulations CLIMAS Climate Assessment for the Southwest CNWR Cibola National Wildlife Refuge CRIT Colorado River Indian Tribes CVCA Cibola Valley Conservation Area CVIDD Cibola Valley Irrigation and Drainage District CWR Certificate of Water Right DES Arizona Department of Economic Security DOD United States Department of Defense DWID Domestic Water Improvement District EIS Environmental Impact Statement EIR Environmental Impact Report EPA Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act GIS Geographic Information System gpm Gallons per minute GSF Groundwater Savings Facility GWSI Groundwater Site Inventory System HSR Hydrographic Survey Report HUC Hydrologic Unit Code Lower Colorado River Planning Area Appendices 450 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 HVID ID IDD IGA INA INWR IOPP ITCA LCR MSCP LDIG LUST MCWA maf mg/L M&I MOD MODE NHD NIB NOAA NPL NPS NWIS NWR NWS Pan ET PCE PG&E P.L. POD ppm RCRA ROD SB SIB SNOTEL SOC sq. mi. TCE TDS TON TOUA USBOR USDOI USF Harquahala Valley Irrigation District Irrigation District Irrigation and Drainage District Intergovernmental Agreement Irrigation Non-Expansion Area Imperial National Wildlife Refuge Inadvertent Overrun and Payback Policy Intertribal Council of Arizona Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program Local Drought Impact Group Leaking Underground Storage Tank Mohave County Water Authority million acre-feet milligrams per liter Municipal and Industrial Main Outlet Drain Main Outlet Drain Extension National Hydrography Dataset Northerly International Boundary National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Priorities List (Superfund) United States National Park Service National Water Information System National Wildlife Refuge National Weather Service Pan Evaportranspiration Tetrachloroethene Pacific Gas and Electric Company public law point of diversion parts per million Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Record of Decision Senate Bill Southerly International Boundary SNOpack TELemetry Statement of Claimant square mile Trichloroethylene Total Dissolved Solids Tohono O’odham Nation Tohono O’odham Utility Authority United States Bureau of Reclamation United States Department of Interior Underground Storage Facility 451 Lower Colorado River Planning Area Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 USFS USFWS USGS VRP WDA WMIDD WQARF WRCC WWTF WWTP YCWUA YDP YMCAS United States Forest Service United States Fish and Wildlife Service United States Geological Survey Voluntary Remediation Program Water Delivery Agreement Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund Western Regional Climate Center Wastewater Treatment Facility Wastewater Treatment Plant Yuma County Water Users Association Yuma Desalting Plant Yuma Marine Corps Air Station Lower Colorado River Planning Area Appendices 452 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 453 Lower Colorado River Planning Area Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 APPENDIX A Lower Colorado River Planning Area Appendices 454 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 APPENDIX A Arizona Water Appendix Protection A Fund Projects In the Lower Colorado River Area through Fiscal Year 2008 AWPFPlanning Funded Projects in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area through FY 2008 LOWER COLORADO RIVER PLANNING AREA Groundwater Basin Map Number AWPF Grant # Parker 92 96-0016 ‘Ahakhav Tribal Preserve Project Title Project Category Habitat Restoration & Revegetation Exotic Species Control & Revegetation Parker 162 97-032 ‘Ahakhav Tribal Preserve – Deer Island Revegetation Yuma 109 96-0011 Lower Colorado River – Imperial Division Restoration Yuma 115 96-0023 Watershed Restoration at the Yuma Conservation Gardens Yuma 301 04-124 Yuma East Wetlands Riparian Revegetation Project Exotic Species Control & Revegetation Yuma 317 05-134 Quechan Indian Nation Yuma East Wetlands Restoration Project – Phase I Exotic Species Control & Revegetation Yuma 327 06-140 Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area Yuma East Wetlands Restoration Project – Phase I Wetland Restoration Yuma 340 07-147 The Effects of Restoration on Wildlife Recovery at the Yuma East Wetlands Restoration Project Research Yuma 341 07-148 South Channel Phase II Restoration Project Wetland Restoration Yuma 350 08-152 AWPF Yuma East Wetlands 68-Acre Riparian Revegetation Wetland Restoration Yuma 351 08-153 The Effects of Restoration on Herpetophaunal and Mammalian Community Recovery Project Yuma 354 08-156 Cocopah Colorado River Restoration 455 Wetland Restoration Watershed Restoration Research Habitat & Stream Restoration Lower Colorado River Planning Area Appendices Page 1 of 6 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 APPENDIX B Lower Colorado River Planning Area Appendices 456 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 APPENDIX B: Community Water System Annual Report Data 2006-2007 and Submitted Plans FACILITY 91-000207.0000 GILA BEND, TOWN OF GIL 91-000262.0000 PALOMA RANCH EAGLETAIL WATER CO, L.C. AJO DWID GIL 359 HAR 26 91-000193.0000 91-000456.0000 91-000707.0000 Basin 2006 Withdrawn PCC 2006 Diverted 2006 Received 2006 Total Demand 2006 Delivered 2006 Delivered 2007 to Withdrawn NR LGB 557 557 CUSTOMER 359 CUSTOMER 18 CUSTOMER 24 4 CUSTOMER 26 4 46 46 46 CUSTOMER 182 182 157 CUSTOMER 91-000718.0000 DATELAND WATER L.L.C. LGB 91-000720.0000 FISHERS LANDING INC LGB 91-000717.0000 MOHAWK UTILITY CO LGB 91-000410.0000 91-000712.0000 PHELPS DODGE - AJO IMPROVEMENT CO SHEPARD WATER CO INC NR LGB NR TACNA WATER CO LGB 91-000715.0000 LGB 91-000752.0000 WELLTON, TOWN OF WELLTON-MOHAWK IRRIGATIO WHY UTILITY CORPORATION KEATON DEVELOPMENT CO SALOME WATER COMPANY WENDEN, TOWN OF BOUSE WORLEY WATER SYSTEM CIENEGA WATER COMPANY, INC. HOLIDAY HARBOR 91-000742.0000 91-000743.0000 91-000441.0000 91-000749.0000 91-000745.0000 91-000746.0000 91-000750.0000 91-000740.0000 63 LGB 91-000714.0000 91-000733.0000 NR 3 3 3 CUSTOMER 61 63 61/2 CUSTOMER CUSTOMER/ OTHER 24 10 CUSTOMER 4 4 4 CUSTOMER 54 54 CUSTOMER 177 177 159 CUSTOMER 33 33 33 CUSTOMER 4 4 4 CUSTOMER 64 64 CUSTOMER 517 291/226 CUSTOMER/ SYSTEM 54 NR 64 517 NR NR 1 LGB NR 314 315 311 CUSTOMER 345 345 345 CUSTOMER 97 97 13 CUSTOMER 87 87 87 CUSTOMER LGB 50 50 41 CUSTOMER 5 5 4 CUSTOMER MMU 89 89 89 CUSTOMER 83 83 83 CUSTOMER 16 16 CUSTOMER 8 8 CUSTOMER MMU NR NR MMU NR NR PKB 16 16 16 CUSTOMER NR PKB 16 8 PKB 84 84 59 CUSTOMER NR LAKESIDE PKB 163 163 137 CUSTOMER NR MARINA VILLAGE PKB 50 50 43 CUSTOMER NR 91-000741.0000 MOOVALYA KEYS PKB 107 107 80 CUSTOMER NR 91-000748.0000 PARKER DAM PKB 47 47 40 CUSTOMER 91-000744.0000 PARKER, TOWN OF PKB 988 988 844 CUSTOMER 91-000756.0000 Q MOUNTAIN HOA Q-MOUNTAIN WATER COMPANY PKB 2,517 2,517 2,517 CUSTOMER PKB 57 57 51 CUSTOMER 91-000753.0000 2007 Delivered to 359 LGB LGB 2007 Delivered 557 LGB 91-000708.0000 2007 Total Demand 359 359 ANTELOPE WATER CO AZ WATER CO - AJO WATER SYSTEM DATELAND PUBLIC SERVICE 91-000412.0000 2007 Received CUSTOMER 359 4 2007 Diverted Lower Colorado River Planning Area Appendices NR 936 2,517 936 859 CUSTOMER 2,517 2517 CUSTOMER NR 457 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 APPENDIX B: Community Water System Annual Report Data 2006-2007 and Submitted Plans (Cont) 2006 Diverted 2006 Received 2006 Total Demand 2006 Delivered 2006 Delivered 2007 to Withdrawn FACILITY 91-000754.0000 QUARTZSITE, TOWN OF PKB 91-000751.0000 91-000036.0000 91-000728.0000 RIO LINDO DRAGOON WATER CO ASPC YUMA EHRENBERG IMPROVEMENT ASSN EL PRADO WATER COMPANY PKB SSW YUM 91-000709.0000 FAR WEST WATER CO YUM 1,654 91-000739.0000 91-000719.0000 G & L MOBILE PARK GADSDEN WC GREEN ACRES WATER CO HIDDEN SHORES RV VILLAGE JONES COOP WATER ASSOC LAGUNA MHP LEMON TREE TRAILER PARK LUCKY PARK DEL S ORANGE GROVE WATER CO INC RANCHEROS BONITOS YUM YUM 78 591 SAN LUIS, CITY OF SIERRA PACIFIC MOBILE MAN SOMERTON, CITY OF SUN LEISURE EST UTIL CO SUN-SET MOBILE TRAILER P TIERRA MESA ESTATES WTR YUM 3,366 3,366 2,027 CUSTOMER YUM 8 8 8 CUSTOMER YUM 1,403 1,403 588 CUSTOMER 1,359 YUM 11 11 11 CUSTOMER 91-000755.0000 91-000737.0000 91-000721.0000 91-000730.0000 91-000722.0000 91-000729.0000 91-000731.0000 91-000736.0000 91-000732.0000 91-000723.0000 91-000710.0000 91-000727.0000 91-000713.0000 91-000724.0000 91-000738.0000 91-000725.0000 Basin 2006 Withdrawn PCC 476 5,006 39 YUM NR NR 4 803 YUM NR NR YUM 91-000734.0000 YUM 91-000716.0000 YUMA, CITY OF YUM YUM CUSTOMER 168 1,612 6,660 4776/446 78 591 78 590 CUSTOMER 461 360 CUSTOMER 6 38 CUSTOMER 5,931 5576/517 78 598 78 598 CUSTOMER/ OTHER CUSTOMER CUSTOMER 9 9 CUSTOMER 102 102 CUSTOMER 3,195 3280 CUSTOMER 1,359 1203 CUSTOMER 14 14 13 CUSTOMER 1 1 1 CUSTOMER 673 673 106 CUSTOMER 83 83 83 CUSTOMER 2 2 CUSTOMER 18,819 18,814/64 CUSTOMER/ SYSTEM 461 CUSTOMER/ OTHER CUSTOMER CUSTOMER 2,195 3,736 78 598 NR 39 NR CUSTOMER 9 NR 4 NR CUSTOMER NR 803 CUSTOMER 102 NR 1,780 CUSTOMER 62 26/21 CUSTOMER/ OTHER 20,421 16,116/64 CUSTOMER/ SYSTEM NR 4,241 16,180 3,195 NR NR 1,780 62 2007 Delivered to 32 6 803 NR 2007 Delivered 44 NR NR YUM VALLEY VISTA WATER CO YUMA WEST MHP 382 4 YUM USMC-AIR STATION-MAIN 476 NR 44 NR YUM 91-000726.0000 CUSTOMER CUSTOMER 435 YUM YUM 6 35 NR 396 2007 Total Demand NR 7 37 NR YUM US ARMY YPG - MAIN ADMINISTRATIVE AREA 458 NR YUM 91-000735.0000 91-000711.0000 37 7 YUM YUM 2007 Received NR YUM YUM 2007 Diverted NR 2 4,390 14,429 Lower Colorado River Planning Area Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Community Water Systems that have submitted a plan to the Department as of 12/2008 PCC 91-000207 91-000262 91-000193 91-000410 91-000412 91-000441 91-000707 91-000708 91-000715 91-000718 91-000720 91-000733 91-000749 91-000741 91-000742 91-000743 91-000744 91-000747 91-000748 91-000750 91-000751 91-000752 91-000754 91-000756 91-000036 91-000709 91-000711 91-000713 91-000716 91-000719 91-000726 91-000727 91-000728 91-000731 91-000735 91-000739 91-000755 NAME GILA BEND, TOWN OF PALOMA RANCH EAGLETAIL WATER CO, L.C. PHELPS DODGE - AJO IMPROVEMENT CO AZ WATER CO - AJO WATER SYSTEM WHY UTILITY CORPORATION ANTELOPE WATER CO DATELAND PUBLIC SERVICE WELLTON, TOWN OF DATELAND WATER L.L.C. FISHERS LANDING INC WELLTON-MOHAWK IRRIGATION KEATON DEVELOPMENT CO MOOVALYA KEYS LAKESIDE MARINA VILLAGE PARKER, TOWN OF HILLCREST WATER COMPANY PARKER DAM BOUSE WORLEY WATER SYSTEM RIO LINDO HOLIDAY HARBOR QUARTZSITE, TOWN OF Q MOUNTAIN HOA DRAGOON WATER CO FAR WEST WATER CO VALLEY VISTA WATER CO SOMERTON, CITY OF YUMA, CITY OF GADSDEN WC USMC-AIR STATION-MAIN SIERRA PACIFIC MOBILE MANOR ASPC YUMA LEMON TREE TRAILER PARK US ARMY YPG - MAIN ADMINISTRATIVE AREA G & L MOBILE PARK EHRENBERG IMPROVEMENT ASSN 459 Basin Gila Bend Gila Bend Harquahala Lower Gila Lower Gila Lower Gila Lower Gila Lower Gila Lower Gila Lower Gila Lower Gila Lower Gila McMullen Valley Parker Parker Parker Parker Parker Parker Parker Parker Parker Parker Parker San Simon Wash Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Lower Colorado River Planning Area Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 APPENDIX C Lower Colorado River Planning Area Appendices 460 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Appendix C: Arizona Colorado River Water Use: Present Perfected Right Holders Arizona Colorado River Water Use Present Perfected Right Holders and Contractors Listed for the Lower and Priority 1-6 Contractors in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area Colorado River Planning Area Entity Type of Entitlement Priority Date Annual Diversion Entitlement Annual Consumptive Use Entitlement (Acre-Feet) (Acre-Feet) 1 1 PRIORITY 1 Satisfaction of Present Perfected Rights (PPRs) as defined and provided for in the Arizona v. California Decree (2006 Consolidated). Federal Cocopah Indian Reservation PPR No. 1 9/27/1917 7,681 PPR No. 8 1915 1,140 PPR No. 2 3/3/1865 358,400 11/22/1873 252,016 Total Colorado River Indian Tribes Reservation Fort Yuma Indian Reservation PPR No. 3a 8,821 11/16/1874 51,986 Total 662,402 1/9/1884 Total 6,350 677,573 Water Projects Yuma County Water Users' Association (also has unquantified water right certificates) PPR No. 4 1901 Unit "B" Irrigation and Drainage District (also has unquantified water right certificates) PPR No. 5 7/8/1905 6,800 North Gila Valley Irrigation District (also has 3rd Priority consumptive use entitlement of 41,203 AF) PPR No. 6 7/8/1905 24,500 Total 254,200 285,500 Miscellaneous PPRs Powers PPR No. 7 1915 960 Molina PPR No. 15 1928 318 Gila Monster Farms, Inc. (also has 6,285 AF of 3rd priority, 1,435 AF of 4th priority, 656 AF of 5th priority and an undetermined amount of 6th priority water - Contract No. 6-07-30-W0337) PPR No. 16 1925 780 Phillips, Milton and Jean PPR No. 19 1900 42 Parker, Town of (also has 1,030 AF of 4th priority and 2,000 AF of 5th and/or 6th priority water) PPR No. 20 1905 630 400 Yuma, City of (also has a 3rd Priority consumptive use entitlement 48,522 AF) PPR No. 21 1893 2,333 1,478 5,063 1,878 Total PRIORITIES 2 and 3 Second and third priorities are coequal. Priority 2 - Satisfaction of Federal Reservations and Perfected Rights established or effective prior to September 30, 1968 Priority 3 - Satisfaction of Entitlements pursuant to contracts between the United States and water users in Arizona executed on or before September 30, 1968 Federal Ak-Chin Indian Community Cibola National Wildlife Refuge Department of the Navy - Marine Corps Air Station - Yuma Department of the Army - Yuma Proving Grounds Imperial National Wildlife Refuge Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community AK-CHIN121180A 1/1/1956 50,000 Secretarial Reservation 8/21/1964 34,500 Contract No. 14-06-300-937 1/1/1959 3,000 Contract No. I76r-696 6/12/1951 1,129 1964 Supreme Court Decree 2/14/1941 28,000 SRPMIC021288N 3/4/1952 22,000 Total 1 160,629 16,793 23,000 39,793 For Priorities 1 through 3 and Priorities 5 and 6, the totals for diversion and consumptive use entitlements are not additive. AzCRPrioritiesListing-Priority 12-2007_UpperandLowerCRPlanning Areas 461 Page 1 of 4 10/21/2009 Lower Colorado River Planning Area Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Appendix C: Arizona Colorado River Water Use: Present Perfected Right Holders Arizona Colorado Water Use Present Perfected Holders and Contractors ListedArea for the(Cont) Lower and Priority 1-6River Contractors in the LowerRight Colorado River Planning Colorado River Planning Area Entity Type of Entitlement Priority Date Annual Diversion Entitlement Annual Consumptive Use Entitlement (Acre-Feet) (Acre-Feet) 1 1 PRIORITIES 2 and 3 (Continued) Water Projects Unit "B" Irrigation and Drainage District (also has PPR for 6,800 AF) North Gila Valley Irrigation District (also has a PPR for 24,500 AF) Water right certificates Contract No. 14-06-300-44 12/22/1952 41,203 Contract Nos.14-06-W-54 14-06-W-102 14-06-300-1270 (These 3 Districts share a consumptive use entitlement of 250,000 AF, which 1/1/1956 Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District Contract No. 1-07-30-W0021 3/4/1952 Yuma County Water Users' Association (also has a PPR for 254,200 AF) Water right certificates Contract No. 14-06-300-621 4/1/1957 Yuma Irrigation District Yuma Mesa Irrigation and Drainage District Unquantified water right certificates 67,278 141,519 278,000 Unquantified water right certificates Total 528,000 Others Arizona, University of Contract No. 14-06-300-144 1/1/1954 C. Allec Company, Inc. (formerly Allec, Camille) Desert Lawn Memorial Park Association (Cemetery in Yuma) (also has 360 AF of 4th priority water for undeveloped land near Unit B) Gila Monster Farms, Inc. (also has 780 AF of 1st priority, 1,435 AF of 4th priority and 656 AF of 5th priority and an undetermined amount of 6th priority water) Kaman, Inc. Union Pacific Railroad Company (formerly Southern Pacific Railroad Company) Contract No. 14-06-303-528 12/23/1953 120 Contract No. 14-06-303-1079 5/1/1956 200 Contract No. 6-07-30-W0337 1/1/1952 6,285 Yuma, City of (also has a PPR for 1,478 AF consumptive use) 1,088 Contract No. 14-06-303-1555 12/2/1959 2 Contract No. 14-06-303-1524 12/21/1959 48 Contract No. 14-06-W-106 11/12/1959 Yuma, City of (Cemetery) Contract No. 14-06-303-1078 5/1/1956 Yuma Mesa Fruit Growers Association Contract No. 14-06-303-1196 1/1/1956 15 Yuma Union High School Contract No. 14-06-303-179 5/3/1960 200 Total 48,522 60 8,018 48,522 PRIORITY 4 Satisfaction of Entitlements pursuant to: (i) contracts, Secretarial Reservations, and other arrangements between the United States and water users in the State of Arizona entered into or established subsequent to September 30, 1968, for use on Federal, State, or privately owned lands in the State of Arizona (for a total quantity of not to exceed 164,652 acre-feet of diversions annually); and (ii) Contract No. 14-06-W-245 dated December 15, 1972, as amended, between the United States and the Central Arizona Water Conservation District for the delivery of Mainstream Water for the Central Arizona Project, including use of Mainstream Water on Indian lands. Municipal and Industrial Arizona Game and Fish Commission (entitlement is available for domestic & irrigation use. Also has 750 AF of fifth priority and 1,000 AF of sixth priority water) Arizona State Land Department B & F Investments, LLC Bureau of Land Management Contract No. 07-XX-30-W0509 9/25/2007 1,419 Contract No. 7-07-30-W0358 2/2/2004 1,534 Contract No. 06-XX-30-W0453 10/25/2006 Secretarial Reservations and IGA No. 8-07-30-W0373 60 8/30/1973 800 9/29/1981 1,280 4/27/1987 1,930 6/13/2000 Total Central Arizona Water Conservation District (CAP) (Balance of Arizona Colorado River allocation, approximately 1.5 MAF/Year) Desert Lawn Memorial Park Association (Cemetery in Yuma) (also has 200 AF of 3rd priority water) Ehrenberg Improvement Association Fisher Landing Water and Sewer 1 Contract No. 14-06-W-245 4,010 12/01/1988 Contract No. 14-06-300-2587 5/30/1975 360 Contract No. 8-07-30-W0006 10/14/1977 500 53 Contract No. 06-XX-30-W0450 12/21/2006 Gold Dome Mining Company Contract No. 0-07-30-W0250 6/6/1990 7 Gold Standard Mines Corporation Contract No. 3-07-30-W0038 8/25/1983 75 For Priorities 1 through 3 and Priorities 5 and 6, the totals for diversion and consumptive use entitlements are not additive. AzCRPrioritiesListing-Priority 12-2007_UpperandLowerCRPlanning Areas Page 2 of 4 Lower Colorado River Planning Area Appendices 10/21/2009 462 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Appendix C: Arizona Colorado River Water Use: Present Perfected Right Arizona Colorado River Water Use Present Perfected Right Holders and Contractors Listed for theHolders Lower and Priority 1-6 Contractors Colorado in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area River Planning Area (Cont) Entity Type of Entitlement Priority Date Annual Diversion Entitlement Annual Consumptive Use Entitlement (Acre-Feet) (Acre-Feet) 1 1 PRIORITY 4 (Continued) Municipal and Industrial (Continued) Parker, Town of (also has a PPR for 630 acre-feet, and 2,000 acre-feet of Priority 5 and/or Priority 6 water) Contract No. 2-07-30-W0025 1/6/1998 1,030 Quartzsite, Town of Contract No. 7-07-30-W0353 1/28/1999 1,070 Roy, Edward P. Contract No. 9-07-30-W0124 2/24/1986 1 Smucker Park Contract No. 14-06-303-2702 11/12/1969 33 Somerton, City of Contract No. 3-XX-30-W0419 2/8/2006 750 Verizon California, Inc. (formerly Continental Telephone of California) Contract No. 14-06-300-2506 2/5/1974 1 Water reserved by the Secretary for use in Indian settlements 3,500 Total 10,393 4,010 Municipal and Industrial Recommendations Martinez Lake cabin sites - (had 87 AF of which 53 AF was allocated to Fisher Water and Sewer; 8 AF to Shepard Water; and 3 AF to ASLD) 23 Shepard Water Company 50 Total 73 Agricultural Arizona State Land Department (also has 9,097 AF of 5th and/or 6th priority water) Contract No. 4-07-30-W0317 6/28/1999 6,607 Beattie Farms Southwest Contract No. 5-XX-30-W0446 2/17/2006 1,110 Cibola Valley Irrigation and Drainage District (includes 300 AF for M&I use and also has 1,500 AF of 5th priority and 2,000 AF of 6th priority water) Contract No. 2-07-30-W0028 1/31/1983 12,066 Cocopah Indian Reservation (lands south of Morelos Dam) Contract No. 6-07-30-W0346 Supreme Court Decree 6/24/1974 2,026 Curtis, Armon Contract No. 3-07-30-W0037 8/29/1983 300 Gila Monster Farms, Inc. (also has a PPR for 780 AF, 6,285 AF of 3rd priority, 656 AFof 5th priority and an undetermined amount of 6th priority water) Contract No. 6-07-30-W0337 PPR No. 16 7/28/1997 1,435 Hopi Tribe (also has 750 AF of 5th priority and 1,000 AF of 6th priority water) Contract No. 4-XX-30-W0432 1/31/1983 5,997 JRJ Partners LLC (formerly part of Dulin Farms) Contract No. 06-XX-30-W0448 9/25/2007 1,080 North Baja, LLC (formerly Jamar Produce) (408 AF for agricultural use; 72 AF for M&I use) Contract No. 5-07-30-W0066 12/3/1984 480 George Ogram, Ogram Farms Contract No. 1-XX-30-W0398 9/4/2003 480 Ogram Boys Enterprises (formerly known as GOBO Farms) Contract No. 4-XX-30-W0402 7/1/2005 924 Pasquinelli, Gary J. (Hall contract assigned and amended from 510 to 486 AF) Contract No. 5-07-30-W0065 3/27/2003 486 Rayner Ranches Contract No. 5-07-30-W0064 10/29/1984 4,500 Total 37,491 Agricultural Recommendations CHA CHA, LLC (Amended contract includes: Auza Farms - 960 AF, Dulin Farms-West portion - 936 AF, and Youmans - 204 AF) 2,100 Peach, John (formerly Bruce Church) 456 Phillips, Milton and Jean 18 Total 1 2,574 For Priorities 1 through 3 and Priorities 5 and 6, the totals for diversion and consumptive use entitlements are not additive. AzCRPrioritiesListing-Priority 12-2007_UpperandLowerCRPlanning Areas 463 Page 3 of 4 10/21/2009 Lower Colorado River Planning Area Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Appendix C: Arizona Colorado River Water Use: Present Perfected Right Holders Colorado River Water Use Present Right HoldersRiver and Contractors Listed for the Lower andArizona Priority 1-6 Contractors in the Perfected Lower Colorado Planning Area (Cont) Colorado River Planning Area Entity Type of Entitlement Priority Date Annual Diversion Entitlement Annual Consumptive Use Entitlement (Acre-Feet) (Acre-Feet) 1 1 PRIORITY 5 AND 6 Priority 5 - Satisfaction of Entitlements to any Unused Arizona Entitlement Priority 6 - Satisfaction of Entitlements to Surplus Apportionment Water Priority 5 Arizona Game and Fish Commission (also has 1,419 AF of fourth priority and 1,000 AF of sixth priority water) Cibola Valley Irrigation and Drainage District (also has 12,066 acre-feet of 4th priority water and 2,000 AF of 6th Priority water) Hopi Tribe (also has 5,997 AF of 4th Priority water and 1,000 AF of 6th Priority water) Gila Monster Farms, Inc. - 5th priority (also has a PPR for 780 AF, 6,285 AF of 3rd priority, 1,435 AF of 4th priority water) Contract No. 07-XX-30-W0509 9/25/2007 750 Contract No. 2-07-30-W0028 1/31/1983 1,500 Contract No. 04-XX-30-W0432 1/31/1983 750 Contract No. 6-07-30-W0337 7/28/1997 656 Contract No. 6-07-30-W0336 10/3/2000 1,500 Contract No. 4-07-30-W0317 6/28/1999 9,067 Contract No. 2-07-30-W0025 1/6/1998 2,000 Contract No. 07-XX-30-W0509 9/25/2007 1,000 Contract No. 2-07-30-W0028 1/31/1983 2,000 Contract No. 6-07-30-W0337 7/28/1997 unspecified Contract No. 04-XX-30-W0432 1/31/1983 Prioirty 5 and/or 6 Arizona Public Service (Yucca Power Plant) Arizona State Land Department (also has 6,607 acre-feet of 4th priority water) Parker, Town of (also has PPR for 630 AF and 1,030 AF of 4th priority) Priority 6 Arizona Game and Fish Commission (also has 1,419 AF of fourth priority and 750 AF of fifth priority water) Cibola Valley Irrigation and Drainage District (also has 12,066 AF of 4th Priority water and 1,500 AF of 5th priority water) Gila Monster Farms, Inc. - 6th priority (also has a PPR for 780 AF, 6,285 AFof 3rd priority, 1,435 AFof 4th priority) Hopi Tribe (also has 5,997 AF of 4th Priority water and 750 AF of 5th Priority water) Total 1,000 20,223 COLOR KEY A portion of the contractor lands are located in the Upper Colorado River Planning Area 1 For Priorities 1 through 3 and Priorities 5 and 6, the totals for diversion and consumptive use entitlements are not additive. AzCRPrioritiesListing-Priority 12-2007_UpperandLowerCRPlanning Areas Page 4 of 4 Lower Colorado River Planning Area Appendices 10/21/2009 464 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 465 Lower Colorado River Planning Area Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 APPENDIX D Lower Colorado River Planning Area Appendices 466 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 APPENDIX D Colorado River Management The “Law of the River” as described briefly below, is a collection of federal and state laws, interstate compacts, Supreme Court decisions and international treaties that govern the operation and use of the Colorado River. In the Lower Colorado River Basin, the United States Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) is the Watermaster. Acting through the Bureau of Reclamation, the Secretary operates Colorado River dams and accounts for water use on an annual basis. Pursuant to Section V of the Boulder Canyon Project Act, the Secretary contracts with water users in the Lower Basin for water up to the total amount of each state’s apportionment. Colorado River Compact – 1922 In 1921, the seven Colorado River Basin states authorized the appointment of commissioners to negotiate a compact for the apportionment of the water supply of the Colorado River. Although the states were unable to negotiate an allocation of water for each state, an agreement was signed in November 1922, the Colorado River Compact (Compact) that divided the Colorado River Basin into the Upper Basin and the Lower Basin. The Compact apportioned to the Upper Basin (Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and a portion of Arizona) and to the Lower Basin (Arizona, California, and Nevada) the exclusive beneficial consumptive use of 7.5 million acre-feet of water to each basin annually. Because the Colorado River Basin includes a portion of Mexico, the Compact recognized Mexico’s right to use River water. Water for this purpose was to be met from surplus water supplies in excess of the amounts apportioned to the Upper and Lower Basins. Any burden that might arise because of a water treaty with Mexico was to be shared equally by the two basins. The Compact recognized that the ability of the Upper Basin to meet the requirement to deliver 7.5 million acre-feet to the Lower Basin could be impacted by climatic factors, therefore the Compact only required the Upper Basin to restrict its use so that delivery to the Lower Basin would not be depleted below an aggregate of 75,000,000 acre-feet for any period of ten consecutive years. Boulder Canyon Project Act - 1928 The Boulder Canyon Project Act (Project Act) authorized construction of the Hoover Dam and Power Plant and the All-American Canal. It also authorized Arizona, California and Nevada to enter into an agreement whereby the 7.5 million acre-feet of water apportioned to the Lower Basin by the Colorado River Compact would be apportioned as follows: to California, 4.4 million acrefeet per year; to Arizona, 2.8 million acre-feet per year; and to Nevada, 0.3 million acre-feet per year. Treaty between the U.S. and Mexico – 1944 The water treaty between the United States and Mexico involving waters of the Colorado River (and the Rio Grande and Tijuana Rivers) was signed in 1944 and became effective November 8, 1945. The Treaty allocated to Mexico 1.5 million acre-feet of Colorado River system waters annually. The Treaty also provided an additional 200,000 acre-feet in years of supply surplus. In years of extraordinary drought, Mexico’s entitlement is to be reduced in the same proportion as consumptive uses in the U.S. are reduced. 467 Lower Colorado River Planning Area Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Minute 242 was adopted and executed in 1973 in response to Mexico’s concerns regarding the quality of Colorado River water being delivered to the Mexicali Valley. Minute 242 obligates the United States to implement measures that will maintain the salinity of the Colorado River waters delivered to Mexico at nearly the same quality as that diverted at Imperial Dam for use within the United States. The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act was signed into law on June 24, 1974, providing for the physical works necessary to implement Minute 242 without permanent loss of water to the Colorado River Basin states. Upper Colorado River Basin Compact - 1948 This Compact divided the water apportioned to the Upper Basin by the Colorado River Compact between the five states with territory in the Upper Basin. Arizona was allocated 50,000 acre-feet per year with the remainder of the Upper Basin entitlement divided according to the following percentages: Colorado, 51.75; New Mexico, 11.25; Utah, 23.00; and Wyoming, 14.00. Arizona v. California - 1964, U.S. Supreme Court Decree (Consolidated 2006) On August 13, 1952, the State of Arizona filed a complaint with the U.S. Supreme Court against California and seven agencies within that state to resolve the contention by California that the Central Arizona Project should not be authorized. At California’s insistence, the U.S. Congress would not authorize the Central Arizona Project until Arizona’s right to the necessary Colorado River entitlement was clarified. The Decree, handed down in 1964, confirmed that Congress had already apportioned, through the Boulder Canyon Project Act, the entitlement of water to the three Lower Basin states as follows: Arizona, 2.8 million acre-feet; California, 4.4 million acre-feet; and Nevada, 300,000 acre-feet. Any surplus above 7.5 million acre-feet was apportioned 50 percent to California and 50 percent to Arizona, except that Nevada was given the right to contract for 4 percent of the excess, which would come out of Arizona’s share. The Decree also confirmed each of the Lower Basin state’s entitlements to the flow of the tributaries within their boundaries, supporting Arizona’s utilization of water from its in-state rivers, separate from its entitlement to its full 2.8 million acre-feet of Colorado River water. The Decree left shortage allocation to the discretion of the Secretary after providing for satisfaction of present perfected rights in the order of their priority dates. These rights were defined as rights existing and used prior to the effective date of the Boulder Canyon Project Act. The allocation of shortages was later determined by Congress in the Colorado River Basin Project Act (1968). Colorado River Basin Project Act - 1968 The Colorado River Basin Project Act on September 30, 1968 authorized construction of the Central Arizona Project and other water development projects in the Upper Basin. A significant concession was a provision that allowed existing California, Arizona, and Nevada Colorado River contractors to receive a priority over the Central Arizona project in times when the useable supply from the River was inadequate to provide 7.5 million acre-feet to the Lower Basin states, with California’s priority limited to its 4.4 million acre-foot entitlement. Lower Colorado River Planning Area Appendices 468 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 The Act directed the Secretary to propose criteria for the “coordinated long-range operation of the reservoirs” in the Upper Basin with the operation of the reservoirs in the Lower Basin. To accomplish this, the Act required the development of an Annual Operating Plan, in consultation with representatives of the seven Basin states. Current Colorado River Issues Shortage Criteria In December 2007, the Secretary of the Interior signed the Record of Decision (ROD) on interim operating criteria (2008-2026) including the coordinated operation of Lakes Powell and Mead and criteria for implementing shortage reductions in the Lower Basin. At this time Lake Powell and Lake Mead are operated independently; annual Lake Powell water releases are determined based on applicable law and relevant factors contained in the Long-Range Operating Criteria. Proposed coordinated operation of the reservoirs would address two goals: avoid Lower Basin shortages and avoid curtailment of Upper Basin water use. If regional drought conditions continue shortage operations could begin as early as 2011. In May 2005, Arizona water users asked ADWR to convene a stakeholder technical workgroup to develop a recommendation regarding appropriate Lower Basin shortage criteria and a strategy for apportioning shortage reductions between the Central Arizona Project (CAP) and equivalent priority mainstream Colorado River water users. In October, 2006 the Workgroup forwarded their recommendation to the Director, and with minor modifications it has been incorporated into the Reclamation Environmental Impact Study as part of the Basin States Alternative. The modified shortage recommendation implements shortage reductions when Lake Mead water storage is depleted to key elevation triggers: In years when Lake Mead content is projected on January 1 to be at or below elevation 1075 ft and at or above 1050 ft, Arizona’s share of shortage reductions would be 320,000 acre-feet, below 1050 ft and at or above 1025 ft, 400,000 acre-feet and below 1025 feet elevation, 480,000 acre-feet. Reclamation will reconsult with the states if conditions continue to worsen necessitating additional water supply reductions. The available shortage water supply would be apportioned within Arizona between the fourth priority mainstream water users and the CAP by first determining the mainstream available supply, based upon entitlement. (Total fourth priority mainstream diversion entitlement = total fourth priority water supply before shortage reduction) X (total fourth priority water supply – shortage reduction volume) The remaining fourth priority water supply after deducting the mainstream supply would be available for diversion by the CAP. Entitlement Transfers Arizona communities along the Colorado River have experienced explosive growth over the last decade. These Arizona communities are unique because groundwater is not readily available as a supplementary water supply to meet this growing demand. Regardless of whether Colorado River 469 Lower Colorado River Planning Area Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 water is diverted from the mainstream or pumped from wells that are hydraulically connected to the river, the water is legally Colorado River water, and annual use is limited to a defined, maximum amount. The Boulder Canyon Project Act requires U.S. Colorado River water users in the Lower Basin to have a contract for such water with the Secretary of the Interior. The Regional Director of Reclamation contracts with Lower Basin water users on behalf of the Secretary. The Supreme Court Decree in Arizona v. California requires Reclamation to account annually for all diversions and use of Colorado River water against the total Arizona allocation of 2.8 million acre-feet. To meet this growing domestic demand, some Colorado River communities have acquired, transferred and changed the type of use of existing agricultural water entitlements. For nonfederal Arizona contractors of mainstream Colorado River entitlements, these transfer actions are subject to review by the ADWR and consultation with ADWR and Reclamation. The Department has developed a substantive policy statement titled Policy and Procedures for Transferring an Entitlement of Colorado River Water that provides information regarding the Department’s review of a proposed transfer action. This policy is available on the Department’s website at www.azwater. gov. To date, using its substantive policy statement, the Department has made three assignment and two conveyance recommendations involving agricultural water entitlements. The Department is currently experiencing increasing contact from entities that are interested in the acquisition and conversion of agricultural entitlements to municipal and industrial uses and it expects to process additional contract transfer requests in the future. A separate substantive policy statement governs the transfer of CAP subcontract entitlements within the three county CAP service area. The Revised Policy Regarding Transfer of Central Arizona Project Municipal and Industrial Water Subcontract Entitlements describes the criteria the Department evaluates and the priority of proposed transfer actions. This policy is also available on the Department’s website at www.azwater.gov. Growth in the CAP service area has resulted in increased use of existing CAP subcontract water, and the Department expects few future transfer action proposals. Lower Colorado River Planning Area Entitlement Transfer Actions The following are a list of assignment and conveyances that have been conducted in accordance with the Department’s Colorado River transfer policy that affects entities in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area. All involve a series of assignments and conveyances that began with the initial partial assignment of Cibola Valley Irrigation and Drainage District’s entitlement in 2004. Since that time, two assignment and seven conveyance actions have been completed in the planning area. See Appendix B for a complete list of Colorado River entitlements within the planning area. 1. Through several assignment actions, Cibola Valley Irrigation and Drainage District (CVIDD) has reduced its entitlement from 24,120 acre-feet of 4th priority, 3,000 acre-feet of 5th priority and 4,000 acre-feet of 6th priority to its current entitlement of 9,366 acre-feet of 4th priority, 1,500 acre-feet of 5th priority and 2,000 acre-feet of 6th priority. In December 2004, CVIDD assigned 5,997 acre-feet of 4th priority each to The Hopi Tribe and to Mohave County Water Authority (MCWA). Both entities also acquired 750 acre-feet of 5th priority and 1,000 acre-feet of 6th priority Lower Colorado River Planning Area Appendices 470 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 entitlement. In 2006, CVIDD assigned 60 acre-feet of 4th priority entitlement to Cibola Resources and in 2008 assigned another 2,700 acre-feet of 4th priority to Arizona Recreational Facilities, Inc. CVIDD’s 4th priority entitlement includes 300 acre-feet for domestic water uses. 2. In December 2004, the Mohave County Water Authority (MCWA) was assigned 5,997 acre-feet of 4th priority, 750 acre-feet of 5th priority and 1,000 acre-feet of 6th priority irrigation entitlement from CVIDD. On July 6, 2007, MCWA conveyed its 4th priority entitlement for M&I use in its Mohave County contract service area, but retained its ability to use the entitlement for irrigation use on its Cibola Valley farmland until it was needed for use in Mohave County. On September 25, 2007 the MCWA conveyed 1,419 acre-feet of 4th priority, 750 acre-feet of fifth priority and 1,000 acre-feet of sixth priority entitlement to the Arizona Game and Fish Commission (AGFC) to use for Multi-Species Conservation Program (MSCP) purposes on the associated Cibola Valley land that it acquired simultaneously from MCWA. In June 2008, MCWA conveyed a total of 300 acre-feet of 4th priority entitlement. The first 50 acre-feet were conveyed to Springs del Sol Water Improvement District, while 250 acre-feet were conveyed to La Paz County. 3. In December 2004, The Hopi Tribe was assigned 5,997 acre-feet of 4th priority, 750 acre-feet of 5th priority and 1,000 acre-feet of 6th priority irrigation entitlement from CVIDD. On October 9, 2008, The Hopi Tribe conveyed 1,419 acre-feet of its 5,997 acre-feet 4th priority entitlement to the AGFC. In June 2008, it conveyed 50 acre-feet to Springs del Sol Water Improvement District, while 250 acre-feet were conveyed to La Paz County. 4. On October 25, 2006, 60 acre-feet of 4th priority entitlement was conveyed to B&F Investment LLC from Cibola Resources, Inc. Cibola Resources had initially acquired the 60 acre-feet from CVIDD and immediately transferred the entitlement to B&F for domestic use in the Ehrenberg area. Note: Assignments: Entitlement is assigned to a new entity, the type and place of use remain the same. Conveyances: Entitlement may or may not be transferred to a new entity, but the place of use and/ or the type of use is changed. Inadvertent Overrun and Payback Policy In October 2003, the Secretary of the Interior signed the Record of Decision to implement the Colorado River Water Delivery Agreement (WDA). The WDA includes the Inadvertent Overrun and Payback Policy (IOPP) to identify inadvertent overruns and to establish procedures to account for overruns and define subsequent payback requirements for Colorado River water users in the Lower Basin. Inadvertent overruns occur when Colorado River water is diverted, pumped or received by an entitlement holder in excess of the water user’s entitlement for that year. The IOPP creates a process and criteria to structure payback of the amount of water received in excess of the entitlement for that year. 471 Lower Colorado River Planning Area Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Federal Rulemaking to Establish the Accounting Surface In August 2006, Reclamation initiated a rulemaking process to regulate the non-contract use of Colorado River water in the Lower Basin. The Boulder Canyon Project Act requires U.S. Colorado River water users in the Lower Basin to have a contract for such water with the Secretary of the Interior. The Regional Director of Reclamation contracts with Lower Basin water users on behalf of the Secretary. The Supreme Court Decree in Arizona v. California requires Reclamation to account annually for all diversions and use of Colorado River water against the total Arizona allocation of 2.8 million acre-feet. The rulemaking is intended to ensure that all Colorado River water use is covered by an entitlement and correctly accounted for within the state’s apportionment. Reclamation has contracted with the U.S. Geological Survey, to document non-contract water uses in the Lower Basin. The rule will establish the methodology that Reclamation will use to determine if a well is pumping Colorado River water and will also establish an appeal process. At this time, approximately 11,500 acrefeet of unallocated fourth-priority Colorado River water is available for allocation. Some of this water will be allocated to existing uses, after currently uncontracted uses have been quantified. The inventory is expected to provide comprehensive information about existing water uses that need an entitlement. The Department will use this information to allocate the remaining supply for domestic purposes. Yuma Desalination Plant One unintended consequence of utilizing Colorado River water for domestic and agricultural purposes has been the steady increase in the salinity of its waters. The salinity problem created international discord in the 1960’s when crops in the Mexicali Valley were damaged by the high salinity of the Colorado River water used for irrigation. An amendment to the 1944 treaty with Mexico guaranteed that the treaty water delivery would be no more than 115 ppm (+/- 30 ppm) more saline than the water diverted at Imperial Dam. To comply with this requirement, the U.S. implemented a number of measures including re-routing drainage water from the Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District (WMIDD), to the Cienega de Santa Clara in Mexico. The U.S. also built a $250 million desalinization plant in Yuma to treat WMIDD drainage water, before returning it to the mainstream. The Yuma Desalinization Plant (YDP) was completed in 1992, operated briefly in 1993 and then put on standby status until a recent “demonstration run” in 2007. Wellton-Mohawk drainage water that is bypassed each year to the Cienega, is not counted against the total amount of Colorado River water that must be delivered to Mexico under the terms of the Treaty. In dry years, this results in Lake Mead storage decreasing by approximately 100,000 acrefeet annually since the bypassed water must be “made-up” from storage in Lake Mead. Recently, the decrease in Lake Mead storage after more than a decade of drought has increased the risk of shortage to Arizona Colorado River water users. Operation of the YDP and the subsequent discharge of treated water to the Colorado River to meet U.S. Treaty obligations with Mexico would significantly reduce water flow to the Cienega. In 2004, the Yuma Desalination Plant/Cienega de Santa Clara Workgroup was formed to identify Lower Colorado River Planning Area Appendices 472 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 and develop potential strategies to maintain the Cienega while making the treated irrigation return flows available for delivery as part of Mexico’s allocation. Workgroup recommendations, which were released in April, 2005, identify a combination of various methods for bypass recovery or replacement that could meet these objectives. In 2007, Reclamation conducted a demonstration run of the YDP by operating it at about ten percent capacity for three months. The purposes of the run were to test new equipment, acquire current operational data, and identify design deficiencies to better determine whether the facility could reliably and efficiently be operated on a long-term basis. Although the study results were favorable, it was determined that to obtain more conclusive information, the plant needed to be operated at a scale and for a duration which covers seasonal variations associated with chemical use and power consumption. As a result, Reclamation plans to conduct a second pilot run of the facility. During this pilot run, which is scheduled to be initiated in May 2010, the plant will operate at up to one-third capacity for 365 operating days during a 12- to 18-month period. During this demonstration run, flows bypassed to the Cienega will be reduced by up to 29,000 acre-feet, while salinity levels will increase by about 540 parts per million. Reclamation, through the International Boundary and Water Commission, initiated consultation with Mexico regarding the proposed pilot project. As a result this consultation, a Joint Report dated July 17, 2009 was drafted. The U.S., Mexico, and other non-governmental parties have committed to offsetting the reduced bypass flows with up to 30,000 acre-feet of water and to participate in the Colorado River Joint Cooperative Process to further identify and develop potential long-term strategies for maintaining environmental values associated with the Cienega. Salinity Increased salinity levels in the Colorado River affect agricultural, municipal and industrial users. Agricultural water users suffer economic damage due to reduced crop yields, added labor costs for irrigation management and added drainage requirements. Urban users must replace plumbing and water-using appliances more often, or spend money on water softeners or bottled water. Industrial users and water and wastewater treatment facilities incur reductions in the useful life of system infrastructure. Damages in the United States are estimated at $330 million per year, and while economic damage in Mexico is not quantified it is also a significant concern. In 1972, EPA required development of water quality standards for salinity in the Colorado River in accordance with Clean Water Act Section 303. The seven Colorado River Basin States formed the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (the Forum) in 1973. The Forum has developed numeric salinity standards for three locations in the Lower Basin as well as a basin-wide plan of implementation. The EPA has approved the standards and the plan of implementation adopted by the Colorado River Basin States. The water quality standards establish a flow-weighted average annual salinity standard that must be maintained on the lower Colorado River at the following locations: Below Hoover Dam (to Parker Dam) - 723 mg/L Below Parker Dam (to Imperial Dam) - 747 mg/L 473 Lower Colorado River Planning Area Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 At Imperial Dam - 879 mg/L Implementation of the salinity control plan has ensured compliance with the numeric criteria while the Basin States continue to develop the water allocated to them by the Colorado River Compact. Millions of dollars have been spent to prevent 1.9 million tons of salt from entering the river. Other Water Quality Issues In 2005, the Governor of Arizona appointed The Clean Colorado River Alliance (Alliance) stakeholder group to address water quality issues for the Colorado River. In addition to salinity, the Alliance identified several other water quality concerns including nutrients, metals, endocrine disrupting compounds, perchlorate, bacteria and pathogens, and sediment. The Alliance issued a report titled Clean Colorado River Alliance Recommendations to Address Colorado River Water Quality, January 2006. The report includes a number of recommendations to monitor and mitigate the impacts of these pollutants. Lower Colorado River Planning Area Appendices 474 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 475 Lower Colorado River Planning Area Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 APPENDIX E Lower Colorado River Planning Area Appendices 476 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 APPENDIX E 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 1972. In addition to surface water diversions and reservoirs, instream flow maintenance 477 Lower Colorado River Planning Area Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 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. 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 Lower Colorado River Planning Area Appendices 478 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 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 law and claimed by Indian tribes and the 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 statebased surface water rights, the adjudications will quantify and prioritize reserved water rights for Indian and non-Indian federal lands. The latter include military bases, national parks and monuments, and national forests. The adjudications will also determine which wells are pumping appropriable underground water (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 479 Lower Colorado River Planning Area Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 other factors. However, a person Figure E-1 General Stream Adjudications in Arizona 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. Lower Colorado River Planning Area Appendices 480 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 1 Table of Surface Water RightRight and Adjudication Filings by Planning TableE-1 C-1Count Count of Surface Water and Adjudication Filings by Area 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. Lower Colorado River Planning Area Appendices 481 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 482 Lower Colorado River Planning Area Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 483 Lower Colorado River Planning Area Appendices