Central Arizona Project aqueduct

The recent report that Lake Mead is at one of its lowest levels since Hoover Dam was constructed is causing a lot of worry in California and Arizona.

Global climate change alarmists predict significant reductions on the flow of the Colorado River in the future. They worry that the Colorado River may not be able to continue to supply millions of acre feet of water to farms and cities.

 Will Phoenix and Tucson run out of Colorado River water? Will the Central Arizona Project be an empty ditch?

First one needs to understand the “Law of the River” and how Colorado River water is allocated.

A total of 7.5 million acre feet of river water is allocated to Arizona, California and Nevada and another 1.5 million acre feet to Mexico by treaty.

Nevada has 300,000 acre feet of river water. California has 4.4 million acre feet, Arizona has 2.8 million acre feet.

But the story gets more interesting because each state has internal priorities.

Out of California’s 4.4 million acre feet per year, 3.85 million acre feet are allocated to the  Palo Verde Irrigation District, the Yuma Project, Imperial Irrigation District and the Coachella Valley Water District

Los Angeles, via the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California has an allocation of 500,000 acre feet at 4^th priority.

Thus if the river runs short of the 4,4 million acre foot share , Los Angeles gets cut off first.

Arizona’s 2.8 million acre is allocated as follows:

Coloado River Water Allocations…Arizona

First Priority

Colorado River Indian Reservation    662,402

Fort Mojave Indian Reservation         103,535                              

                        Total Indian share                                          765,939

Yuma County Water Users’ Association 254,200

               Total Agricultural share         254200                                                                                                                         

First Priority share of water for Arizona: 1,020, 137

 Third Priority

Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District 278,000

Yuma Mesa Irrigation and Drainage District              141,519                               

 Third Priority share of water for Arizona     419,515

 Fourth Priority

 Central Arizona Water Conservation District 1,500,000 (approximate)         1,500,000

 Total  Arizona allocations 2,939,652

The important thing to note is that in the event Arizona cannot receive its full 2.8 million acre feet per year, the allocation goes by priority….with the CAWCD allocation first off the river.

In the 1968 enabling legislation that authorized the Central Arizona Project, 1.2 million acre feet was subordinated to guarantee California’s 4.4 million acre feet per year.

Thus in the case of both California and Arizona the effect of a prolonged drought hits cities first, and Indians and farms last.

Obviously if the river cannot keep supplying 4.4 million acre feet of water per year to California and 2.8 million acre feet per year to Arizona, something has got to give.

Would it be easier to relocate millions of urban residents dependent on Colorado River water, or buy rights to senior Colorado River allocations from Indians and farmers?

People are worried that the CAP canal will run dry to Phoenix and Tucson.

It probably won’t….but Colorado River water will cost a lot more than it does now.

Why?

Because in the event of a prolonged shortage the urban interests will  have to buy out the higher priority agricultural iunterests and lease water from Indian Tribes.

What urban interests need to focus on is how to purchase and retire farm lands in the Imperial and Coachella valleys to sustain Los Angeles, and in the Yuma area to keep the water flowing to Phoenix and Tucson.

If predictions are correct that the Colorado River may only be able to reliably deliver half the water that was allocated, farming in the Imperial and Coachella valleys and in Yuma is doomed.

Residents of Los Angeles, San Diego, Phoenix and Tucson will pay a premium for Colorado River water to buy out priority agricultural water users and mitigate the economic damage that would come to Yuma and Imperial counties of farms were shut down and water rights transferred to cities.

Water-demanding farms looked at as resources vanish

One reason farmers can take so much water is that they staked their claim first, which is what matters in Western water law. Most of the irrigation districts in Yuma hold rights to the Colorado River that predate Hoover Dam, which means if the river starts to run dry, the farmers get their share before anyone else. They can lease water to other users but keep the long-term rights.

Together, the largest water districts in the Yuma area can divert more than 750,000 acre-feet of water from the Colorado each year. Metropolitan Las Vegas, with a population of more than 2 million, can draw just 300,000 acre-feet a year.

California’s Colorado River Allocation

Metropolitan Water District

  Prior to 1922, when six of the seven states that are visited by the Colorado River or its tributaries signed the Colorado River Compact, there has been discussion about how the assets of the Colorado River should fairly be divided. An annual flow estimate of the Colorado River system was the basis of the 1922 compact which split use of the flow of the river between the Upper and Lower Basin states.

For many years, California has depended on surplus water to meet its water needs—and to supplement its basic apportionment of 4.4 million acre-feet per year. Southern California’s rights to Colorado River Water were thought to be solidified in the 1930s when a number of agencies signed water delivery contracts with the Secretary of the Interior. Contracts detailed the priorities, to use and store California’s apportionment of river water.

On January 16, 2001, outgoing Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt signed a document establishing interim guidelines for determining when surplus Colorado River water would be available for California, Nevada and Arizona. The criteria will be in effect for 15 years, giving California a greater certainty of supply and a transition period in which to further develop water conservation, recycling, storage and transfer programs that will provide for separation from an over reliance on the Colorado River.

Palo Verde Irrigation District, the Yuma Project, Imperial Irrigation District and the Coachella Valley Water District (refer to map below) are the agricultural entities holding the first three priorities to the use of no more than 3.85 million acre-feet under the water delivery contracts.

The Metropolitan Water District (MWD) was allotted 550,000 acre-feet per year under a fourth priority right and 662,000 acre-feet per year under a fifth priority right. (The city of San Diego and San Diego County conveyed their water rights to MWD.) MWD holds a contract to divert additional 180,000 acre-feet of surplus water on an annual basis.

In return for accepting lower priorities, MWD was granted the exclusive right in California to accumulate up to 5 million acre-feet of water in storage at Lake Mead. This storage right has yet to be implemented by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.

Water from the Colorado River is delivered into MWD’s service area via the Colorado River Aqueduct (CRA). MWD diverts water from Lake Havasu, above Parker Dam. Between 1986 and 1999, the amount of water unused by agriculture and available to MWD has varied from zero to more than 500,000 acre-feet. This unused amount will continue to vary in the future as it is tied to economics, the type of crops planted, acreage irrigated, and the efficiency with which water is used.

As a result of increased Colorado River diversions by Arizona and Nevada (within their apportionments), MWD’s total diversions could eventually decline to its fourth priority right of 550,000 acre-feet per year plus water available from a conservation program with Imperial Irrigation District and a groundwater storage program with the Central Arizona Water Conservation District. Any water left unused by other California contractors with a higher priority than MWD would also be available.

In addition to the potential supply available to MWD from the unused portion of California’s normal apportionment, the Secretary of the Interior can allow MWD to divert water that is unused by Arizona and Nevada, as well as surplus water. In years in which surplus water is available, MWD would have the highest priority of any California contractor to divert that water by virtue of its fifth priority right.

-At this time, the first three priority rights to use 3.85 million acre-feet per year have not been quantified, making it difficult to develop and implement cooperative water supply programs. When there is no further quantification of the use of water, other than by priority rights, it is difficult to determine how much water has been conserved and is available for transfer to urban areas.

It’s like trying to build a charity food bank where the only guideline given the organizers is a monetary cap. They’ll need to know how best to spend their $10,000 dollars for example—by knowing the history of how much meat is needed, how many vegetables are consumed and how quickly other food staples are used up. There are steps underway to quantify use through a proposed Quantification Settlement Agreement.

Colorado River Compact
 The compact divides the river basin into two areas, the Upper Division (comprising Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming) and the Lower Division (Nevada, Arizona and California). The compact requires the Upper Basin states not to deplete the flow of the river below 75,000,000 acre feet (9.3×10¹⁰ m³) during any period of ten consecutive years. Based on historical rainfall patterns, the amount specified in the compact was assumed to allow a roughly equal division of water between the two regions. The states within each basin were required to divide their 7,500,000-acre (30,400 km²) foot per year (289 m³/s) share allotment among themselves. The compact enabled the widespread irrigation of the Southwest, as well as the subsequent development of state and federal water works projects under the United States Bureau of Reclamation. Such projects included the Hoover Dam and Lake Powell.

The current specific annual allotments in the Lower Basin were established in 1928 as part of the Boulder Canyon Project. They are:

Upper Basin, 7.5 million acre·ft/year (293 m³/s) total
Colorado	51.75%	3.88 million acre·ft/year (152 m³/s)
Utah	23.00%	1.73 million acre·ft/year (68 m³/s)
Wyoming	14.00%	1.05 million acre·ft/year (41 m³/s)
New Mexico	11.25%	0.84 million acre·ft/year (33 m³/s)
Arizona	0.70%	0.05 million acre·ft/year (2.0 m³/s)
Lower Basin, 7.5 million acre·ft/year (293 m³/s) total
California	58.70%	4.40 million acre·ft/year (172 m³/s)
Arizona	37.30%	2.80 million acre·ft/year (109 m³/s)
Nevada	4.00%	0.30 million acre·ft/year (12 m³/s)

In addition to this, 1,500,000-acre-foot (1.85×10⁹ m³)/year of Colorado River water is allocated to Mexico, pursuant to the treaty relating to the use of waters of the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and of the Rio Grande, signed February 3, 1944, and its supplementary protocol signed November 14, 1944. Also, the lower basin can get an additional 1,100,000-acre-foot (1.36×10⁹ m³)/year.^[2]

Novmber 18 Arizona Daily Star article: 
CAP describes costly future water options
See also:

Sharing Colorado River Water: History, Public Policy and the Colorado River Compact
by Joe Gelt

NCSE-NASA Curriculum Module – Colorado River water supply

The general public opinion is there’s a water problem in Green Valley and it is all the fault of the proposed Rosemont mine. That is not true.

The water table will continue to drop in Green Valley even if there were no Rosemont mine. That water level decline is due to the pumping by existing mines, FICO, urban residents and golf courses. It is also caused by the lack of sufficient CAP recharge facilities in the area.

First, let me make it clear: I do not represent Rosemont.

I represented a whole bunch of homeowners east of Green Valley where Rosemont’s proposed groundwater wells are located. I negotiated a well protection agreement on behalf of the homeowners. As a result of that 2 year effort, I learned a lot about what’s going on down that end of the Valley.

Background: I’m a water attorney and have been dealing with water issues in Southern Arizona since 1974. For a primer on the state’s water law, click here.

Folks in Green Valley are concerned about their water. Rosemont has gotten a permit from the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) to pump up to 6,000 acre feet of groundwater per year. That’s enough water for 18,000 new homes.

ground water well schematic

But there’s more to this story. Right now in the Green Valley are Farmers Investment Company (FICO) pumps around 30,000 acre feet per year, and the Freeport McMoRan copper mine west of Green Valley is also close to the 30,000 acre feet of pumping per year. Between them that is ten times the groundwater pumping of Rosemont. Click here for pumping history in Green Valley that was provided by ADWR.

Rosemont projects using around 100,000 acre feet of groundwater over a 20 year period. By comparison, Freeport or FICO can pump 100,000 acre feet  in about 3.5 years. Both FICO and Freeport will be able to pump 1.2 million acre feet at current rates in 20 years.

Neither Freeport nor FICO are under any state obligation whatsoever to replenish the groundwater they pump, because farms and mines are exempt from replenishment. They have what are called “grandfathered” rights to pump groundwater in the case of FICO, and Type 2 mineral extraction permits or mineral extraction permits for the mines.  Rosemont got a mineral extraction permit. They cannot exceed their permitted amount without another permit process.

The only new groundwater pumping that is subject to replenishment are new subdivision developments that got an assured water supply since 1993. They are taxed via the Central Arizona Groundwater Replenishment District (CAGRD)  which buys CAP water and recharges it. Groundwater being pumped for urban uses prior to 1993 is  also exempt from replenishment requirements.

Besides the 6,000 acre feet permitted to Rosemont, ADWR has estimated another 11,000 acre feet per year of new urban demand along the Sahaurita Road corridor…mostly through sale of state owned land in the area for development in the future. That’s 33,000 more homes and another 8,000 acres of desert bladed.

Interestingly, while the Tucson Active Management Area (TAMA) has the goal of achieving “safe yield” by 2025, water experts at ADWR forecast that will not happen because of the  exempt groundwater pumping that will continue in the Green Valley area. “Safe yield” means no more groundwater is being pumped than is naturally or artificially being recharged,.

Also interestingly, the definition of achieving “safe yield” is for the entire Active Management Area, but there is no goal to keep local water levels from falling. The Santa Cruz Active Management Area to the south of  Tucson has the additional goal   ”to prevent local water tables from experiencing long-term declines”.

The Tucson AMA does not have this water table protection goal.

Thus, it is just fine under existing state law for CAP recharge to be concentrated in the Avra Valley, where there is now a rising groundwater table, and groundwater mining to continue in Tanque Verde, Vail and Green Valley, which have falling water tables. The few remaining riparian areas in the valley are at risk because there is no “direct hydrologic influence” recharge requirement for groundwater mining.

Pima Mine Road CAP recharge site

There is a CAP recharge facility at the north end of Green Valley called the Pima Mine Road site. However, this recharge facility does not have the capacity to recharge all the water being pumped out to the south. Its current capacity is 20,000 acre feet per year which could be expanded to 30,000 acre feet per year. As previously noted, there is 60,000 acre feet of groundwater mining going on in the area just between Freeport and FICO. Add existing grandfathered golf course and municipal pumping, as well as projected new municipal pumping, and it is obvious there is not enough CAP recharge capacity in the Green Valley area.

In the ideal world, if the state were really serious about sustainable water supplies, all the groundwater being pumped in Green Valley would be subject to replenishment, with no exceptions for any mine, farm and urban development that was completed before the replenishment mandate went into effect. Also, such recharge would be mandated in the “zone of hydrologic influence” to protect water tables.

The reality is that will require a major change in the state’s groundwater management laws, which will not happen until residents of Tucson and Phoenix unite to demand that change.

So where does Rosemont fit into all this?

Rosemont has been buying CAP water and having it recharged in the Tucson AMA before they even get their permits to mine. At last report (today) they have bought over 45,000 acre feet of CAP water for recharge. They didn’t have to buy one drop of CAP water. If Rosemont can do this, why can’t Freeport and FICO?

 The bad news is most of this Rosemont CAP water ended up being recharged at a CAP recharge project in Marana. Why? Because there was not enough capacity at the Pima Mine Road CAP recharge facility to get the CAP recharge closer to Green Valley. Between the Tohono O’odham and the City of Tucson, it is hard to get any surplus recharge capacity at Pima Mine Road.

Rosemont, recognizing the problem that their CAP recharge effort is not directly benefiting Green Valley, hooked up with Community Water of Green Valley to develop a second CAP recharge facility farther south, so any CAP recharge would directly offset any groundwater pumping by the mine. Remember, Rosemont is under no obligation to do squat about mitigating their pumping groundwater. But they are doing what is right notwithstanding the lack of any legal mandate. That’s not a common experience  with businesses in this country….doing something because it is right.

It gets even more interesting. There is opposition to the Community Water CAP recharge project from Pima County, FICO and others in the area. [note 1]  FICO has proposed an alternative CAP recharge project, but with the purchase of the Arizona Nevada development land west of Green Valley by Freeport (a major funding source for the FICO alternative) , the FICO recharge project may be dead.

Finally, another interesting facet of state groundwater law is that no one has any right to the existing depth to groundwater in their well. Up in Pinal County a new industry drilled a well and sucked the water out from under a neighboring pecan farm. The pecan farmer sued for damages and lost. For a more detailed discussion of groundwater law and that case click here.

When area residents who would be directly impacted by Rosemont’s proposed pumping approached Rosemont about the potential loss of their wells, property values and homes, Rosemont legally could have told the residents to go pound sand, literally.

Instead Rosemont agreed to a precedent-setting well protection program that could result in up to 166 private wells in the area being replaced or pumps lower edat the expense of Rosemont. The well protection  agreement is limited to this particular company because a covenant  condition and restriction has been recorded on the mine’s well sites mandating that anyone who owns the wells cannot pump any water for use at the Rosemont mine site unless the well protection program remains in effect.

Whether or not you think there ought to be another copper mine in the area, the water issue in Green Valley regarding Rosemont is very clear and documentable. The mining company is going way beyond any existing requirements to mitigate its impact on its neighbors.

Rosemont is actually part of the solution to the water problem in Green Valley. That cannot be said for other big water users in the area who are exempt from paying to replenish their pumping right now.

 _____________________________________________________________________________

[note 1] One of the objections to the Rosemont CAP recharge effort is the uncertainty of CAP water supplies. What is little understood is that the CAP is just a bunch of pipes and ditches, which currently diverts 1.2 million acre feet of Colorado River water into the state. Arizona has another 1.6 million acre feet of senior Colorado River water rights sitting in Yuma.  The CAP diversion point at the Colorado River was actually sized to divert 1.6 miollion acre feet per year. Thus, if there is a shortage for whatever reason, the issue is NOT physical availability of water. It is how much will that water cost if the farms in Yuma need to be bought out so their water rights can be transferred to Phoenix and Tucson. There are also high priority Colorado River water supplies available for lease by the state’s Indian tribes.  Groundwater could also be pumped out of western Arizona into the CAP system to augment it, with severance damges paid to western Arizona interests.  None of these are cheap alternatives.  So it is not a supply issue, but a cost issue.

The City of Tucson is refusing new water connections outside its city limits.

The City of Tucson is also considering raising its water connection fees.

It is about time Tucson started paying attention to the relationship of its water utility and growth in the region.

Since the 1960’s Tucson sought to monopolize water service in eastern Pima County as a water management effort. To that end, Tucson extended its water utility service throughout the Catalina Foothills and into the Northwest. The result was over 100,000 people living in those areas getting water from Tucson, but who refuse to be annexed into the city.

More people live in unincorporated areas of Pima County than live in such areas in Maricopa County, which has 4 times the population of Pima. Tucson’s water policies had a lot to do with that result.

This has a massive negative impact on state revenue sharing for Tucson in that only incorporated cities and towns get the lion’s share of state revenue that is shared. Thus the residents of the unincorporated areas of Pima County cost the region millions of dollars annually because they don’t want to be in a city or town.

Very little area of Maricopa County is outside the city limits of their cities or towns. The primary reason for this is no city or town in Maricopa County would extend its water and sewer system service to new developments outside their incorporated limits without the development signing an annexation petition. Thus virtually all new development in Maricopa County has been in incorporated areas. And Maricopa County has a fraction of the budget liabilities for roads and police protection that Pima County has with Pima having to provide urban services to people outside city limits.

Tucson, on the other hand, extended its water service without the annexation condition, and also turned over its sewer system to Pima County. Pima is the only county in Arizona providing sewer service. Thus, the tools to insure urban residents were inside the incorporated limits were abandoned.

Not surprisingly, we have seen a proliferation of new towns around Tucson, just as new cities and towns proliferated in Maricopa County. Two of the new Pima County towns (Marana and Oro Valley) have stepped up to the plate and are attempting to control water utility service in their jurisdictions. The Town of Sahuarita already has its own sewer system, the only municipality in Pima County that does this.

While Tucson has generally fought the incorporation of new towns, and Pima County seeks to block towns having their own sewer systems, a fundamental change is needed in the region regarding water and sewer service.

The first thing that needs to be done is for Tucson to resolve its fight with the towns over water service, and get out of providing water inside places like Marana. Let Marana go find the renewable water needed for its growth and charge appropriately for new connections. Tucson could then redirect its valuable water resources now being committed to developments in Marana to growth inside Tucson’s city limits.

The second thing is to let Marana have its own sewer system. If Oro Valley wants into the sewer utility business, let them have at it. Tucson really ought to take back its sewer system as well. The cities and towns could hire Pima County to manage their sewer systems, but Pima County absolutely should not be allowed to control growth inside the incorporated limits of cities and towns via sewer system policies.

The basic effect of letting the towns get into the sewer game is they’ll have to establish new sewer connection fees for their growth paid for by the development in their towns. The rest of Pima County would then not have to subsidize growth in Marana and Oro Valley.

The third thing needed is to maximize the urban areas in Pima County that are inside city or town limits. Tucson ought to negotiate “sphere of influence” agreements with surrounding towns delineating which jurisdiction has precedence for annexation. These “spheres of influence should exactly match water and sewer service areas of the cities and towns.

Pima County would be the ultimate beneficiary of getting urban area roads and police protection shifted to urban governments.

Within its own jurisdiction, there are significant steps Tucson can take to redirect its relationship between water service and growth.

The first step is to charge a much higher water connection fee for new developments outside its city limits.

It is now the case that there are areas outside of Tucson’s city limits that are surrounded by Tucson Water service. It is not realistic to deny water service to such areas, since there is no other option. The die has been cast by Tucson already having served outside its city limits. Some of the areas Tucson is now refusing service to were included in Tucson’s designation by the Arizona Department of Water Resources of having an assured water supply. Some of these areas were also in areas claimed to be served by Tucson when it got its Central Arizona Project allocation of water. And in at least one area Tucson is backing off water service, that decision is tainted by efforts to confiscate the property for an open space park. Simply refusing service invites significant litigation and liability to Tucson it doesn’t need right now.

But that doesn’t mean city water customers ought to subsidize growth outside Tucson’s city limits.

The water connection fee outside Tucson’s city limits ought to be at least four times that for a connection inside the city limits.

Why? Consider that every resident served by Tucson Water outside Tucson’s city limits does not generate state revenue share to Tucson. That’s something like $200 per person per year. That lost revenue opportunity needs to be added onto the outside city limit water connection fee. The properties outside Tucson’s city limits also do not generate any property tax revenue to Tucson. That also needs to be factored into the outside city limit connection fees.

Another reason is the market value of an acre foot of renewable water (precedent set by Prescott Valley) is in the range of $20,000 an acre foot. An acre foot of water can serve 3 new homes. Thus each new home takes $6,666 worth of water right to create it. And then there’s the actual cost of the wells and pipes to serve a new home, which state-wide runs around $3,000 a home. It is probably more expensive in Tucson.

Thus, an $10,000 per new home connection fee for new homes outside Tucson’s city limits can be justified, and defended from any attacks by the homebuilders lobby.

Insofar as any new development is close to the existing Tucson city limits, one can bet that given the choice of an $10,000 per home connection fee outside the city limits, versus a $3,000 fee inside the city limits, developers would try real hard to be annexed into Tucson.

If they can’t be annexed for whatever reason, such as homeowners between their development and the city limits that refuse to be annexed, then so be it. Charge $10,000 for the new water connection.

The higher connection fee for new water connections should be limited to areas Tucson could realistically annex. For example, the Tucson Mountain foothills, Catalina Foothills and far east side areas would not likely be annexable by Marana or Oro Valley in a “sphere of influence” context.

That brings up the second issue Tucson should confront.

There is absolutely no justification to charge the same water rates to its customers outside its city limits than inside, except the fear of the storm of protests from residents outside Tucson’s city limits.

Again, those residents outside the city limits served by Tucson Water are not generating state revenue share or property tax money to Tucson. Residents inside Tucson are generating that additional cash flow to pay Tucson’s governmental service costs.

The only limit in state law on a city charging higher rates outside its incorporated limits is a 25% cap on rates inside another city or town. Thus Tucson Water could raise its rates an additional 25% for its water service in Marana and Oro Valley. As noted earlier, Tucson needs to get out of serving water in other towns because there is obviously no annexation potential for Tucson in those areas.

There is no such limit on higher water rates in the unincorporated areas.

Tucson could charge double the rates in those areas, and it should.

Of course residents in areas such as the Catalina Foothills would scream to high heaven if their water rates were twice what people inside the city limits pay.

So what. They don’t vote in Tucson elections….unless they agree to be annexed. And if they were annexed, they could then cut their water bills in half.

And that is exactly the point.