Volume 1, No. 10

Federal LegislationAddresses ArizonaWater Issuesspeculation abounded as to whetherPresident Bush would sign the Omni-bus Water Bill. He did so on October30. Now Arizona and other westernstates are tallying their garns from thisnew piece of federal legislation.

One Arizona-specific provisionlimits Glen Canyon water flows toreduce erosion of Grand Canyonbeaches. The law allows interimflows established in November 1991 toremain in place until an environmentalimpact statement is completed inDecember 1993. The act strengthensthe role that the U.S. Park Service,Fish and Wildlife Service, and NativeAmerican groups will have in decisionmaking, along with the Bureau ofReclamation and the Western AreaPower Authority.

The new water bill also addressesCAP issues. The law sets the federalgovernment's share of the cost ofrepairing six defective CAP siphons at50 percent. This provision is an effort

continued on page 2

CONTENTS

ARi ZONAATER RESOURCE

.. :....7

December 1992/January 1993

(Photo: Arizona Daily Star photo file)

99 Bottles of Water on the WallTake One Down, Pass it Around...

Acentury ago, when Arizona had few roads and no cars and statehood was stilltwenty years away, potable water in the home generally meant bottled water. Itoften was carried from shallow wells in jars, jugs and canteens. Who would haveenvisioned that as the twentieth century comes to a close, growing numbers ofdesert dwellers again would be carrying bottled water to their homes? But as the$3.6 billion Central Arizona Project (CAP) fmally began delivering water toTucson Water customers last month, sales of bottled water and in-home watertreatment systems were booming.

Tucson Water treats CAP water at its new treatment plant with a process usingozone and chloramine, and has begun delivering CAP water to roughly a third ofits customers, with all 550,000 scheduled to receive Colorado River water byearly 1994. Although the water utility assures the public that the treated watercomplies with all EPA standards, it is generally acknowledged to have lesspleasing taste and odor than the high-quality groundwater it replaces.

Those factors, plus the concerns of some customers about effects of chioram-me on health, apparently have created a bonanza for bottled water companies.And purveyors of water filters, softeners and reverse osmosis systems reportincreased sales, with one home improvement store distributing fliers solelyadvertising their selection of water treatment devices. Some opportunists haveexploited the fears of residents through sales of grossly over-priced water treat-ment systems or ineffective devices such as magnets wrapped around water pipes.

WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH CENTER COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA

Communications 3

News Briefs 4-5

Legislation & Law . . . 6

1992 Wrap-up 7

Guest Views 8-9

Special Projects . . 10-11

Publications 12

Calendar 13-15

Announcements 15-16

Omnibus cont. from page 1

to settle a dispute between the federalgovernment and the Central ArizonaWater Conservation District (see Sep-temberAWR, p.11; June AWR, p.7).CAWCD filed suit arguing that thefederal government as contractor ofCAP is responsible for siphon repair/replacement expenses estimated to beabout $150 million.

As originally written, the legislationestablished that none of these costs is tobe reimbursed by CAWCD and, inreturn, the district would drop its law-suit. Congressional negotiations howev-er set the federal government's share at50 percent. The lawsuit is expected tocontinue.

A question now being discussed iswhether CAWCD is responsible for thefull 50 percent of the siphon repaircosts that the bill designated as reim-bursable. Of total CAP constructioncosts about 70 percent is interpreted asproject costs and reimbursable. Theargument is being made that thereforeonly 70 percent of the 50 percent of therepair costs, or 35 percent, should infact be repaid.

CAP received further legislativeattention when its Salt-Gila Aqueductwas renamed for Paul Fannin and Er-nest McFarland. The renaming of CAPaqueducts began when the Granite ReefAqueduct became the Hayden-RhodesAqueduct. The Tucson Aqueduct re-mains unnamed, not yet a monument toany members of the CAP Hall of Fame.

The bill also includes the San CarlosApache water rights settlement. Thetribe is to receive 152,435 acre-feet ofwater from various sources including adiversion from the Salt River, reallo-cated M&I CAP water, excess Ak Chinwater, and M&1 water reallocated fromPhelps Dodge. Along with the water,the bill authorizes the tribe to leasewater rights to Scottsdale and possiblyother cities in the Phoenix area. Alsothe tribe is to receive $36.3 million forwater development, mainly from federalsources but with some state contribu-tions as well.

The first Indian Hydrographie Sur-vey Report which was to be done forthe San Carlos Reservation is no longer

a priority because of the settlement.This is seen as a hopeful sign that Indi-an water rights will be able to be settledout of court. The San Carlos settlementis being lauded for continuing a prece-dent of resolving Indian claims throughnegotiations rather than litigation. Itkindles hopes that the Prescott settle-ment and aspects of the Gila Riversettlements may be similarly negotiatedand resolved, possibly next year.

The settlement resolves the majorportion of the San Carlos water rightsclaim. Its claim is complicated by thefact that two watersheds are involved -the Salt and the Gila Watersheds. Thesettlement resolves claims on the SaltRiver, but aspects of the Gua Riverwatershed claim remain to be settled.

Amendments to the Southern Arizo-na Water Resources Settlement Act(SWRSA) described as technical innature also were authorized. Moresubstantive amendments intended tofinalize the water rights settlement ofthe Tohono O'odham Nation were notagreed to, primarily because of a dis-pute between the San Xavier Districtand the Nation (see this issue p. 4; Sep-tember AWR, p. lO; June AWR, p. 1).

Also authorized was federal acquisi-tion of Scottsdale's Planet Ranch on theBill Williams River. Scottsdale origi-nally purchased the 8,400-acre PlanetRanch for its 13,500 acre-feet of surfacewater rights. Meanwhile the city antici-pated the possibility of negotiating withthe San Carlos Tribe for CAP water. Ifthis arrangement works out - and theSan Carlos water claim settlementmakes this more likely - Scottsdalewould have less need for Planet Ranchwater.

The Omnibus Water Bill authorizesthe Secretary of the Interior to negotiatea land exchange with the City of Scotts-dale for Planet Ranch. If successfullynegotiated, the Planet Ranch land thenwould be managed by either the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service or the Bureauof Land Management, and the Bill Wil-liams River would be devoted to recre-ation and wildlife.

The new law also bodes changes forCalifornia. A portion of California'sCentral Valley Project water - 800,000acre-feet of 12 million acre-feet - is to

be allocated for restoring fish and wild-life habitat. New water contracts willbe limited to 25 years, and water usersnow must meet new requirements,including metering, conservation, andhigher prices. Further, the $25 sur-charge resulting from transfers of ini-gation uses to municipal use and higherhydropower charges will go into a $50million environmental restoration fund.

(U.S. Senator Larry Craig ER-ID],speaking at the University of Arizonaon November 17, complained that theCVP reallocation provision was theresult of environmental interests goingto Congress to override state law.Craig said, "When those kind of thingscan happen you should be especiallyconcerned," and warned that a danger-ous precedent was being set.)

The bill also authorizes the transferof the Central Utah Project (CUP) fromthe federal government to the State ofUtah (see October AW7, p. 5). Someofficials view this as a desirable strate-gy to free a state of federal restraints inmanaging water projects, allowing moreflexible water management goals tomeet local conditions and needs.

Some speculate that a similar trans-fer from federal to state control wouldbe to the advantage of CAP, if localgoals are different from new federalreclamation objectives. As it nowstands, even when CAP is paid off, itstill will be considered a federal project,subject to federal rules and regulations.State control of CAP however is not alikely priority to be pursued amidst thepresent underutilization crisis.

Quote of the Month

/ don't want tospend my timecounting buffalo...

Bruce Babbitt, overheardin mid-December, soundingcoy about his chances ofbeing appointed Secretaryof Interior.

2 Arizona Water Resource December 1992/January 1993

Communications

in October, we mailed out 248 surveysto AWR readers to determine how wecould better serve Arizona's watercommunity (see November AWR, p. 3).Just under half were returned. Thesurvey indicates that each copy of theAWR is read by an average of 3.7persons, or that our current circulationof 2,750 has a readership of just over10,000. Our readers typically spendabout 20 minutes perusing each issue.Over three-quarters of the respondentsstate that the AWR is a major source oftheir water information; two-thirds alsorely on daily papers.

Readers come from diverse back-grounds, with 25 percent of respondentsidentifying themselves with the fields ofeducation or research, 12 percent withlocal government, 12 percent with stategovernment, and 11 percent with feder-al government. Another 10 percent areengineers or hydrologists, 9 percent arewith water providers or irrigation dis-tricts, and the balance are spread amonginterested citizenry, libraries, environ-mental organizations, major water usersand law firms.

The most-read section of the news-letter is the cover photo, followed byfeature (front-page) stories, news briefs,and the legislation and legal section.Least-read sections are the calendar,communications and letters to the editor(Hey! Anybody ou: there?) and transi-tions. The calendar section is of littleinterest to out-of-state readers, whichmake up 20 percent of our readership;it is not rated as particularly importantby most in-state readers either.

Sections rated most useful arelegislation and legal stories, featurestories, and news briefs. Least usefulsections are transitions and the calendar.The Guest Views and Publicationssections are considered both most usefuland least useful by about equal numbersof respondents.

Two-thirds of respondents thought

we should try a new column with shortnotes, items of interest and observations(see page 7 for a preview).

The relative unimportance of thecalendar material is also apparent inresponses to a question regarding theinevitable tradeoff between timeliness ofpublication, which maximizes the valueof the calendar and announcement sec-tions, and thoroughness of coverage ofmajor water issues. Over half therespondents want us to maintain ourcurrent balance between timeliness anddepth of coverage, and over a thirdurged us to take as long as necessary toguarantee thorough coverage. Only onein 12 urged us to publish sooner.

When asked what the optimal lengthof the AWR is, 57 percent said 12 pag-es, 24 percent said 8 pages, and 14percent said 16 pages. After discussingthe apparent preference for 12 pagesand the relative lack of interest in thecalendar section with our ExternalAdvisory Committee, we have tentative-ly decided to drop the calendar facsimile(page 13 of this issue) beginning withthe next issue. The one page freed upshould allow us to hold nearly all subse-quent issues to 12 pages. If you findthe calendar facsimile to be particularlyuseful, let us know.

Respondents were invited to suggesttopics which they would like to seecovered in AWR. Environmental issues,water quality and water treatment is-sues, groundwater hydrology, stories onthe CAP, Indian water rights and de-tailed legislative analysis were men-tioned most often.

When asked to state what they likedmost about the AWR, over one-thirdsaid it kept them current or up to dateon the entire spectrum of water issues.A large number lauded our willingnessto air opposing sides of an issue orunpopular views. A number of respon-dents complimented AWR's format.

Few respondents took us up on theopportunity to list what they liked least.A handful commented that some of ourarticles were too long or detailed. Onerespondent wanted more photos, anotherfewer. One was concerned that thesurvey represented a potential attempt tomake the AWR all things to all people.

In addition to dropping the monthlycalendar format for upcoming eventsand trying to limit future issues to 12pages, we will be trying out an infor-mal, chatty column of short, "soft"news items. Attempts will be made(again) to encourage letters to the edi-tor; failing that, the Communicationssection may be scaled back or dropped.More photos, graphs and charts may beused. Overall, the feedback indicateswe're on the right track. Future chang-es will be evolutionary in nature.

As always, your brickbats andkudos are welcome. And your viewsand opinions on water stories and issuesare earnestly sought.

We are pleased to add the ArizonaDepartment of Environmental Qi4ity toour roll of sponsors. These sponsor-ships are essential to continued publi-cation of the AWR. Our sincere thanks

Arizona Water Resource is published montb1y except forJanuary and August, by the IJniversityf Arizona's Water Re-sources Research Center. AWR accepts news, announcementsand other information from all organizations concerned with

water. All material must be received by the 14th of the month to be publishedin the following month's issue. Subscriptions are free upon request.

-'J

Arizona Water Resource StaffEditor: Joe GeltReporter: Todd SargentCalendar: Nicolle LáhrPublisher: Gary Woodard

WRRC Director: Banna J. Cortner

Arizona Water ResourceWater Resources Research CenterCollege of AgricultureThe University of Arizona350 North Campbell AvenueTucson, Arizona 85719602-792-9591; FAX 602-792-851g

December 1992/January 1993 Arizona Water Resource 3

4 Arizona Water Resource December 1992/January 1993

News Briefs

Prescott, Chino ValleySettle Dispute

The City of Prescott and the Town ofChino Valley have agreed to end aseven-year court battle over disputesstemming from a sales tax imposed onwater transported from Chino Valleyand disparities in rate structures bet-ween the two neighboring communities.

If the agreement is formally ap-proved by the two councils, ChinoValley will not impose its sales tax onPrescott's transportation of waterthrough the town limits and the currentlawsuit will be dismissed. In exchange,Chino Valley will receive title to theland on which the Chino Valley Com-munity Center sits and a reduction inwater rates for its residents now servedby the City of Prescott water system.(Chino Valley residents currently pay30 percent more than Prescott residentsfor their water. The proposed agree-ment lowers the Chino Valley rate toequal the Prescott resident rate.)

The agreement ends months ofnegotiations between members of bothcouncils and their staffs. The govern-mental neighbors together have spentnearly $600,000 in legal bills alone onthe fight. The leaders of both councils,Mayors Guy Parish and Daiton Rutkow-ski, hailed the proposed agreement asthe beginning of a new era of coopera-tion between the two governments.

CAWCD Election ResultsMight Shift Board Balance

VIaricopa County voters elected fivemembers to the 15-member Board ofthe Central Arizona Water ConservationDistrict in November (see OctoberAWR, p. 5). Two incumbents, bothformer governors, were reelected to six-year terms; three other board membersdid not seek reelection. Vote totals forthe five elected candidates are:

Virginia Korte 304,254

Vote totals for the other candidates are:

New board members appear closerto municipal interests, while someoutgoing board members were strongsupporters of agriculture. The Boardhas been characterized in the past ashaving an agricultural bias.

One other board seat is vacant dueto a resignation in October. There hasbeen speculation that the Governormight appoint one of the unsuccessfulcandidates to serve the remaining twoyears of that term.

A CAWCD nominating committeehas come up with a slate of candidatesfor board officers for next year. SamGoddard reportedly will be nominatedfor chairman, Ron Rayner for vice-chair, and Marybeth Carlile for secre-tary. George Barr, George Renner andJack Williams also will be nominated toserve on the executive committee.

Phoenix, Scottsdale Bill forEnvironmental Charges

Phoenix Water customers are seeing anew line item for "environmental man-dates" on their water and wastewaterbills. The new charges approved by thePhoenix City Council add fees of 4C perCcf of water billed and 16.5C per Ccfof wastewater to generate $6 million ofannual revenue for wastewater treatmentand $2 million for water treatment tomeet increasingly stringent federalenvironmental and drinking water quali-ty standards.

The City of Scottsdale also hasaltered its bills to separate out "environ-mental" fees from existing water, sewerand sanitation charges. The new bill

represents a clarification of existingcharges, not additional fees.

San Xavier District MaySecede over Water Dispute

The San Xavier District of the TohonoO'odham Nation may schedule a specialelection for early 1993 to ask its mem-bers whether they want to petition thefederal government for recognition as aseparate nation. The major impetus forsecession is a long-running dispute overdistribution of water and other benefitsfrom the SAWRSA settlement of waterrights between the District and thebalance of the Nation (see June AWR,pp. 1 & 5).

Created as a separate reservation in1874, San Xavier was incorporated intothe main Papago (now Tohono) reserva-tion in 1936. The process of petitioningfor separate status could take up to adecade with no certainty of ultimatesuccess, particularly if it were opposedby the Nation.

The intra-tribal dispute has frustrat-ed attempts to finally resolve a waterrights lawsuit filed in 1975, and hascomplicated attempts by the City ofTucson to lease CAP water rights fromthe Nation on an interim basis.

Agreement on TerminalStorage Not so Near

The tentative agreement reached be-tween Tucson Water, the Bureau ofReclamation and the CAWCD has runinto opposition on several fronts (seeNovember AWR, p. 5). Representativesof the Tohono O'odham Nation, whoare to receive 66,000 acre-feet of CAPwater under the SAWRSA settlement(see June AWl?, pp. 1 & 5), are con-cerned that the reservoir does not in-clude any emergency storage capacityfor them.

Mines in the Tucson AMA, whichstill have not decided on whether or notto sign CAP contracts, also object to thelack of capacity for other than TucsonWater's needs. In addition, the agree-ment assumes that a recharge facilitywill be constructed on land owned byASARCO. The mining company has

John Brady 189,415Bill Wheeler 178,092Marvin A. Andrews 156,886Paul T. Gardner 148,153Dan Sophy 104,375Michael J. Kielsky 96,224

Sam Goddard 293,816Jim Weeks 253,711Grady Gaminage, Jr. 240,333Jack Williams 224,823

December 1992/January 1993 Arizona Water Resource

been unwilling to sell the land to Tuc-son in part because of its appurtenantType i groundwater rights.

George Barr, CAWCD board mem-ber and long-time critic of Tucsonwater, also took a swipe at the Agree-ment in a 14 November memo to South-ern Arizona Water Resources Associa-tion's (SAWARA) Terminal StorageCommittee. "For more than 15 years,Tucson has plotted to get the FederalGovernment to construct a recreationallake in the Tucson area by attempting toshow that such a lake was a necessaryreliability feature of the CAP..." Thestatement appears at odds with TucsonWater's efforts to lower the cost ofterminal storage by removing recre-ational features such as a public beach.

The memo accuses Tucson Water ofbehaving in an "unprofessional manner"by implying that the proposal had beenapproved by both the Bureau of Recla-mation and the CAWCD and lambastesthe city for the decision years ago "toinsist on delivery of its CAP water inAvra Valley - on the other side of a400-foot high mountain barrier," there-by necessitating a $25 million tunnelthrough the Tucson Mountains and"creating the largest potential cause ofservice interruption" to Tucson. At itsNovember meeting, SAWARA's Boardcalled for regional consensus buildingon the issue of terminal storage.

CAWCD Approves Repay-ment Delay, HVID Bailout

In an unusual split vote, the CAWCDBoard approved on 3 December by a 9to 5 margin an arrangement with theBureau of Reclamation whereby theBureau will postpone for one year thedeclaration that the CAP is substantiallycomplete. In return for the delay whithpostpones CAWCD's obligation to pay$52 million per year in principal, theCAWCD will pay $20.5 million in 1993and prepay $28.8 million in principal tofinance federal purchase of HarquahalaValley Irrigation District (HVID) CAPwater. The nearly 14,000 acre-feet ofwater freed up will be used to settlewater claims quantified in the FortMcDowell Indian Water Settlement Act

of 1990, which has a December 1993court-imposed completion deadline.

Opposition to the agreement wasbased in part on the haste with which itwas reached and disagreement overwhether the Bureau legally could de-clare substantial completion until theCAP's siphons are rebuilt. Most of thecontroversy, however, surrounded termsof the HVID bailout. Described as"improper" by CAWCD Board memberFrank Brooks and as a "dangerousprecedent" by vice-chairman GeorgeBarr, the bailout helped HVID avoidbankruptcy.

Several factors used in valuingHVID's CAP water were questioned,including the figure of $1,050 per acre-foot for water re-classified from non-Indian ag. water to M&I water. Alsoquestioned was the basic assumptionthat HVID, given its default position,had water "rights" or anything else tosell. Water attorney Steve Weather-spoon questioned whether the deal wasconsistent with the Fort McDowellsettlement and likened it to someonedefaulting on their home mortgage, onlyto have the banker forgive the mortgagedebt and then offer to buy the house.

Roger Manning, director of theArizona Municipal Water Users Associ-ation, observed that the deal "sets Ari-zona up for a fight" with House InteriorCommittee Chairman George Miller.Miller already had voiced his displea-sure with the proposed agreement in aletter that questioned the Bureau's au-thority to delay the declaration thatCAP is substantially complete and criti-cized the HVID deal. "The Fort Mc-Dowell legislation contemplates that theCAWCD shall receive repaymentit, not that the HVID should receivecash... Reduced to its essence, it seemsnothing more than an unauthorized $29million gift from the federal taxpayersto the HVID." Acknowledging thatrestructuring the CAP may be neces-sary, Miller stated his willingness to"assist in fashioning such a restructur-ing," while noting a lack of discussionof alternative uses of unused CAP water"for environmental restoration, forsettlement of remaining Indian waterclaims, and for temporary use in Neva-da and/or California."

Rebuttals to Miller's letter havecome mainly in the form of letters fromSenator DeConcini, Secretary of Interi-or Lujan and others. The issues areexpected to be raised again this springin congressional oversight hearings.

"White Paper" Debated,CAP Price Hikes Predicted

The white paper jointly drafted byCAWCD and the Bureau of Reclama-tion for dealing with underutilization ofCAP water by having non-Indian ag.subcontractors relinquish their rights toCAP water in exchange for debt reliefthat would allow them to continue irri-gating with CAP water purchased on a"spot market" apparently has beenrejected by most of the state's waterinterests. The product of a closed-doorprocess, the basic concept has beencriticized by municipalities as an unac-ceptable ag. bailout, by environmentalgroups as ignoring other potential usesfor the water, by Indians as impedingsettlement of their water claims, andeven by some irrigation districts whowould have less debt forgiven thanothers (see Guest Views, pp. 8 & 9).

First presented on October 9, thewhite paper concept was discussed attwo dozen meetings around the state. Astatus report was released on December8, at which time CAWCD director TomClark stated, "We know this won'twork." The status report noted that"efforts to evaluate the potential of thedebt assumption concept have led to abasic finding that there is little accep-tance of the concept as the basis of along-term adjustment in the repaymentstructure of CAP... Unless major chan-ges evolve in the positions taken byboth the agricultural and M&I users,CAWCD and the Bureau of Reclama-tion will abandon the initial concept andsearch for an acceptable repaymentalternative."

The report concludes that "it isapparent that rate schedules for M&Icapital repayment must be significantlyincreased..." The increase has beenestimated from 60 to 300 percent, de-pending on terms of restructuring andCAWCD's ability to sell surplus power.

TTTTLegislation & Law

ADWR Pursues ModestLegislative Agenda

A.rizona Department of Water Re-sources officials do not plan to seek anysubstantive legislation in the up-comingsession, electing instead to put itsenergies and resources into promotingdraft Assured Water Supply rules andparticipating in the search for solutionsto the CAP underutilization conundrum.The sole piece of legislation introducedon its behalf will be an Omnibus Billcontaining non-controversial technicalchanges and corrections to earlier legis-lation.

ADWR identified 14 amendments tonine statutes which it considers to benon-controversial and technical in na-ture. In addition, other water interestshave proposed three additional amend-ments. The Santa Cruz Valley WaterDistrict wants underground storage andrecovery credits to be assignable in thesame way that indirect storage andrecovery credits are. It also wants itsinitial board to be able to place a pro-posed property tax levy on the ballot inwhich the permanent board first iselected. The City of Chandler proposesextending the deadline by which munici-pal providers can use stored watercredits to offset groundwater withdraw-

Arizona Water Resource December 1992/January 1993

als in excess of conservation targetsfrom 1995 to 2000 so as to increase theincentive to beneficially use CAP water.Omnibus ad hoc groups met to discusseach of the 17 proposed amendments.

Symington Names CAPAdvisory Committee

Governor Symington appointed on 17December a 28-member Central Arizo-na Project Advisory Committee chargedwith developing recommendations toassure the CAP's long-term viability.The committee, which will first meet inJanuary 1993, will look at options forincreasing Arizona's utilization of itsColorado River allotment to fulfill thegoals of the Groundwater ManagementAct and to prevent any of the allotmentfrom being lost to other states. Propos-als likely will include reallocation ofboth water and costs.

Governor Symington will chair thecommittee, with Mark de Michele ofArizona Public Service serving as co-chair. Staffing will be provided byADWR and CAWCD. Committeemembers and affiliations are listed inthe box below.

Creation of the committee evokes asense of ddjà vu. Just one year ago, thegovernor appointed a committee with asimilar charge. The first committee,which completed its work in July with-out making any major recommenda-tions, did not have the benefit of reportsby agricultural economist Paul Wilsonand CAWCD (the "White Paper").

Governor's CAP Advisory Committee

George Efittoxi, Deputy City Manager, PhoenixFrank Brooks, CAWCD Board, Rima' CountyJim Bruenet, Supervìsor, Mricopa CountyHei± Drinkwater, Mayor, ScottsdaleXatie Dusenberry, Horizon Moving Systems, TucsonJim Feitham, Rauscher, Pierce, RefsnesDon Gaffncy, Sod & WifltncrPaul Gardner, Vice PresIdent, Water Utilities Assoc. of ArizonaJohn ßreene, President, Arízona State SenateArt Hamikon, Minority Leader, Arizona House of RepresentativesJim Henness, Presiden Agri-Business CouncilJimmie Kent, Mayór, Casa Grande and Supervisor-elect, Pinal CountyMark Killian, Speaker, Arìzona Bouse of RepresentativesFrancis McAlister, Execofive Vice PresIdent, ASARCO

AZ Reps Get Water-related Appointments

Arizona's three newly-elected Demo-cratic representatives to congress havesecured assignments on House commit-tees with authority over federal waterpolicy. Representative Ed Pastor wasappointed to the House AppropriationsCommittee and its energy and waterdevelopment subcommittee, whichoversees spending on federal waterprojects such as the CAP.

Representative-elect Karen Englishwas appointed to the House InteriorCommittee, with oversight on waterprojects and Indian affairs. Representa-tive-elect Sam Coppersmith was namedto the Public Works and TransportationCommittee, whose agenda includesfunding for public works projects alongthe Mexican border necessitated by theNorth American Free Trade Act, suchas expansion of the international waste-water treatment plant outside Nogales.

Babbitt AppointmentRaises AZ Water Hopes

Conventional wisdom has it that BruceBabbitt's appointment to Secretary ofInterior is good news for environmentalinterests, Indians, utilities and Arizonawater interests and a setback for out-of-state water interests and George Mil-ler's agenda for reclamation reform.Miller and Babbitt share many views onthe need for reform, however, and bothare result-oriented pragmatists.

Ivan Maldi, President, Sait River-Pima-Maricopa Indian Comm.Mark de Michele, President and CEO, APS (committee co-chair)George Miller, Mayor, TucsonLew Murphy, former Mayor, TucsonC.M. Perkins, General Manager, Salt River ProjectJack Pfister, ASU and fbrmer GeneralManager, SRPKarl Polen, Vioc President of Finance, Robson CommunitiesRon Rayner, CAWCI) Board, Maricopa CountyGeorge Renner, CAWCD Board, Maricopa CountyCindy Resnick, Minority Leader, Arizona State SenatePriscilla Robinson, Consultant and environmental activistRuss Schlittnhart, President, Cotton City EnterprisesGovernor Fife Syrnington (committee chair)Richard Walden, Farmers Investment Company

December 1992/January 1993 Arizona Water Resource

'J

1992 Wrap-upTime to clean out the file of fragmen-tal-y stories and not-quite-news items.

The story of the year is CAPunderutilization . The runner-up wasCAWCD's financial woes. Prospectsfor these to repeat as 1993 headlinegrabbers appear depressingly good.

Even before President-elect Clin-ton named Bruce Babbitt Secretary ofInterior, there was speculation as towhether Betsy Rieke might be offered apolicy-making position in Interior andwhether she would leave ADWR toaccept it. Other names being mentionedas possible Interior appointments in-dude John Leshy, ASU water lawprofessor, who currently is on leaveworking for Congressman George Mill-er of California. Leshy also has beenheading Clinton's Interior Departmenttransition team. Dale Pontius, formerBabbitt chief of staff and water lawyeralready is working in D.C. as Vice-president of American Rivers.

Sharon Megdal, Executive Directorof the Santa Cruz Valley Water District,was one of two Arizonans invited toPresident-elect Clinton's economicsummit in Little Rock.

At least one major Arizona bankreportedly has concluded that farms incentral Arizona cannot make profitswith water costs above $35 per acre-foot, and based on this conclusion, isrefusing to make loans to farmers inCAP agricultural districts. The farmersare turning to gins for loans, but theirsources of funds may be drying up, too.

William Martin, the retired UAprofessor of agricultural economics whowas seriously abused after he and co-author Robert Young wrote an articlein 1967 predicting that Arizona farmerswould be unable to afford CAP water,was given the opportunity to say "I toldyou so" in the November/Decemberissue of Arizona Farmer-Stockman.Instead, Martin quoted from his earlierstudy that "you do not benefit a farmerby increasing a farmer's per unit costsof production. " Martin concludes "It isnot much help to say 'we told you so.'

Arizona's problem is what to do now.The hardest thing for Arizona's civicand governmental leaders to do will beto admit that building the CAP wasunwise. Their decision now should behow to cut Arizona's losses - not howto throw good money after bad in aneffort to use CAP water at any cost."

In another blast from the past, RoyEmrick, CAWCD board member from1976 through 1984, submitted a letter tothe editor of the Arizona Daily Starwherein he concludes that there is pien-ty of blame to share for CAP priceincreases. He concludes that "the priceincrease for CAP is just another one ofthe many costs of growth: traffic con-gestion, air pollution, water contamina-tion and big-city class crime."

The proposal to settle the Navajo-Hopi land dispute through transferringlarge tracts of land to the Hopis in-volves land containing flagstaff's prin-cipal water supply reservoir.

The City of Phoenix reportedly is

considering intervening in the PhoenixAgro Invest lawsuit challenging the1991 Groundwater TransportationAct (see October AWR, p.5).

Several Pima County water inter-ests, including the Towns of Oro Valleyand Marana, the Cortaro-Marana andFlowing Wells Irrigation Districts, theMetropolitan Domestic Water Improve-ment District and Cañada Hills WaterCompany have agreed informally toform an interest group dubbed theNorthwest Water Alliance. Each willapproach its board of directors forpermission to develop a Memorandumof Understanding. The stated objectiveis to insure rational water supply plan-ning on the northwest side of Tucson.

CAP underuse may become a hotpolitical issue in Arizona in 1994.Meanwhile, the IWID bailout story hastaken on a life of its own. Reportersfor Associated Press and a major eastcoast paper are working on articles forout-of-state consumption.

Lawrence Sullivan, Project WET (Water Education for Teachers) director,demonstrates a groundwaterflow model to Tucson teachers. The three-dimension-al sand tank models represent a vertical cross section of an aqujfer. Whencharged with water, they become mini-aquifers complete with wells that pumpwater, a lake, a leaky lagoon and an artesian well. Project WET is part of theWater Resources Research Center 's outreach program. (Photo: B. Teilman)

8 Arizona Water Resource December 1992/January 1993

Guest Views

Three views on the current debateover how Arizona should deal withCAP water underutilization andfinance issues are presented. The firstis by Hugh Holub, an attorney special-izing in water issues. The followingmaterial is from a speech he presentedat the October 30 symposium of theArizona Section of the American WaterResources Association.

The Central Arizona Project (CAP) wasstyled as an agricultural project princi-pally because the federal governmenthas not been in the business of fmanc-ing huge aqueduct systems to divert andtransport water hundreds of miles towestern cities. The inclusion of agri-culture in the CAP made it eligible as areclamation project, with a much lowerinterest rate on repayment, than other-wise would have been the case.

What Arizona's agriculture is leftwith, however, is a project which iscosting agriculture a lot more than itcan afford, and threatening the bank-ruptcy of several central Arizona ii-riga-tion districts if things do not change.

Back when the CAP was being con-sidered by Congress, the subsidizationof agricultural water by municipalinterests was discussed and analyzed.The rationale for M&I water interestspaying more so that central Arizonafarms got access to CAP water was: a)there would have been no CAP wateravailability to M&I interests but for theagricultural qualification for federalreclamation participation; and b) thegroundwater agriculture saved by usingCAP water would be available formunicipal interests in times of shortage.

agricultural utilization ofCAP water was essential-ly a holding pattern...

A third justification that goes back tothe origins of the CAP is that if therewas no way to divert and use Arizona'sshare of the Colorado River, Californiawould continue to take Arizona's share

and we'd never see that water.Thus the agricultural utilization of

CAP water was essentially a holdingpattern to get Arizona's entitlement tothe Colorado River into the state, use itin the short run on farms, and preservethe water for municipal growth.

The essential problem with the CAPis that it makes a lot of sense in thelong run, as projected urban growthoutstrips any local water supply avail-ability. But until that happens, and CAPwater is actually needed, it is not sur-prising that municipal interests wouldseek ways to avoid higher CAP utiliza-tion and costs when they have lesscostly near-term alternatives.

Urban interests in Arizona have atendency to look at farmers as competi-tors for water, and seek ways to takeagricultural water away from farmswithout compensating farmers for hav-ing developed these water rights in thefirst place. There is absolutely no senseof history in this state as to who pio-neered the place, and made urban devel-opment possible.

The main issue is whether Arizona'smunicipal interests will look beyond theshort term subsidy issue to agricultureand look at their longer term interest inhaving access to 1.2 million acre feet ofColorado River water available on along-term average basis.

We are at a crossroads with CAPwhere the agricultural interests whichsecured the CAP for us are threatenedwith elimination because their "rescue"is turning into their destruction. If theCAP ultimately will be a municipal andindustrial water supply project, ourcities will have to consider whether itever was feasible for them to have builta $3 billion project of aqueducts andflood control systems at local expense.

aale Turner represented the SierraClub at the fall symposium of theArizona Section of the American WaterResources Association. The followingis from his speech at the symposium.

I wish to make a simple suggestionabout how to deal with CAP water:dump it in a swamp. I have in mind thelargest wetland in the Sonoran Desert -the Cienega de Santa Clara in the deltaof the Colorado River, in Mexico.

It was a huge marsh in 1875, whenU.S. Navy Commander George Deweymapped the shores of the Gulf of Cali-fornia. It was supplied in part by thevery shallow water table of the delta,but got its primary supply from theregular floodwater of the Colorado.

a suggestion: dumpCAP water in a swamp

Mexican officials had complainedsince the 1930s about the steadilyshrinking amount of water in the Colo-rado River, and the sudden rise insalinity made it a serious internationalissue.

The U.S. Bureau of Reclamationsought a way to reduce salinity andincrease flows in the river without re-ducing the allocations of any U.S. state.The centerpiece of the "definitive solu-tion" was a giant desalination plant,drawing water from the Wellton-Mohawk saline drainage water anddumping leftover brine into a canal thatwould carry it 50 miles south to theGulf of California.

The canal to the Gulf was completedand has carried the whole volume ofWellton-Mohawk drainage water since1978. But the canal never reached theGulf. Instead, it delivered about140,000 acre-feet of water each year tothe Cienega de Santa Clara.

Over the past 14 years, that smallremnant marsh has been restored to itsformer glory and now covers approxi-mately 50,000 acres. That makes it byfar the largest wetland in the SonoranDesert. The drainage water is toosaline for most common agriculturalcrops but cattails and reeds have donefine and cover the area in dense stands.Bird life is thriving, as are the protect-ing swarms of mosquitos. The marshnow provides a home for one-quarter toone-half the total population of theendangered Yuma Clapper Rail, andhosts the largest single population of theendangered Desert Pupfish.

According to recent Bureau figures,when the Yuma Desalting Plant startsoperating at full capacity it will removethree-quarters of the water flowingdown the canal, thereby drying up muchof the wetland. The water that doesreach the marsh will have three timesthe current salinity, making it too saltyfor most of the vegetation and for many

of the other species present. l'his couldbe catastrophic for the wetland's currentinhabitants.

The Bureau started up their plantthis spring at one-third capacity and willlikely keep it at that level for the nextyear because they can't get the funds torun it at full speed. It is unclear wheth-er the habitat will be damaged by theeffects of one-third capacity operation.

A very real option for CAP water isto leave it in the Colorado and let itflow all the way across the border.CAWCD is in a position to bargain withthe Bureau, offering them a price that'sgood for both parties. This would benegotiations with a very familiar dancepartner, and the water would not getinto the spongy hands of California orNevada. There would be no pumpingcosts for that water, and there could bea very real financial return.

A Response to the CA WCD's "WhitePaper" is offered by Roger Manning,Director of the Arizona MunicipalWater Users Association.

On October 9, 1992, the Central Arizo-na Water Conservation District(CAWCD) and the Bureau of Reclama-tion released their "White Paper" pro-posal for the financial rescue of theCentral Arizona Project (CAP) irriga-tion districts, primarily located in PinalCounty, and the financial restructuringof the CAP itself. Unfortunately for theState of Arizona and the CAP, theprocess by which the White Paper wasdeveloped, the process by which it isbeing refined and its single proposal areall seriously flawed. As a result, it isunlikely that the White Paper can,realistically, form the basis of anyconsensus on solving the problemswhich confront Arizona and the CAP.

The White Paper was developed ina closed process between the CAWCDstaff and the Bureau of Reclamationfrom which all CAP water users wereexcluded. In fact, the Arizona Depart-ment of Water Resources initially wasexcluded; only after breaking the doordown was DWR grudgingly grantedobserver status with the understandingthat the content of any of the discus-sions would not be divulged to any CAPwater users. These same CAP water

users now are being visited by theCAWCD staff and the Bureau in order"to get their input" into the singleproposal that the White Paper offers.Despite the fact that the almost univer-sal reaction to the White Paper proposalhas been negative at best, there appearsto be some expectation on the part ofthe CAWCD staff and the Bureau thatCAP water users, even though theyhave had no direct role in developingthe proposal and currently have no wayto evaluate its impacts, will in factembrace some version of the singleproposal contained in the White Paper.

The White Paper proposal is predi-cated on a number of critical, untestedassumptions. The first assumption isthat the CAWCD, through its tax pay-ers, must assume the responsibility forthe CAP irrigation districts' $300 mil-lion distribution system debt in order toinsure the long-term financial viabilityof the CAP itself. In other words,financially rescuing CAP irrigationdistricts is tantamount to financiallyrescuing the CAP. The White Paper,however, is devoid of any analysis ordemonstration of the validity of thisassumption or that the financial rescueof the districts does any thing more thanguarantee the districts' creditors' invest-ments. Further, there is no demonstra-tion that this proposal will cause or leadto any increase in the use of CAP waterby the districts or anyone else for thatmatter. To the contrary, a strong argu-ment can be made that since this pro-posal presumes that CAP M&I waterusers also will become largely responsi-ble for the CAP's fixed O&M costs,implementation of the proposal will, infact, provide a disincentive to CAPwater use in the M&I sector. How thisoutcome would result in the financialviability of the CAP totally escapes me.

A second critical assumption, andone which is clearly false, is that theCAWCD's tax payers and the municipalwater rate payers are or will be willingto assume significant increases in prop-erty taxes or water rates when the CAPirrigation districts appear to be theprimary beneficiaries. This assumptionconveniently ignores the fact that withinthe urban areas, businesses, individualsand local governments are facing manyof the same problems faced by CAPagriculture. A large number of urbanresidents currently believe that their

jobs and incomes may be eliminated atany time placing then at financial risk.Many businesses are facing situationswhere cost, including debt, exceedrevenues. Most local governments arefacing significant reductions in taxrevenues leading to reductions in servic-es and a review of their continuedability to service bonded debt withoutfurther drastic cuts in programs andservices. For a person in this situation,any increase in costs could mean finan-cial hardship at best and in many casescould lead to financial failure. Topresume that people in these circum-stances are prepared to increase theircosts for the benefit of CAP irrigationdistricts is absurd.

The real political and economicchallenge facing Arizona and the CAPis to openly recognize and accept thereality that CAP agriculture is unable tolive up to its commitment to take CAPwater and pay its associated costs, andis on the verge of defaulting on itsfmancial obligations to the CAWCD, tothe United States and to its private bondholders. If the districts ultimately avoidtheir cost obligations, they must recog-nize they have also given up their con-tractual rights to any CAP water and itsassociated value, financial or otherwise.

The White Paper is an ill-conceived approach tovery real problems...

Having accepted this reality, thosewho maintain their commitment to theCAP and to fulfilling their financialobligations must restructure the projectin such a way as to: 1) insure theshort-term and the long-term financialviability of the CAP; 2) allocate thewater resources of the CAP to the urbanusers who, through their taxes andwater rates, will insure the CAP'sviability; and 3) insure the least possiblecost impacts on the tax payers and thewater rate payers.

The White Paper, both as to processand as to its proposal, is an ill-con-ceived approach to very real problemsof the CAP. The sooner we put theWhite Paper behind us and get on withsolving the problems, the CAP and theState of Arizona as a whole will bebetter off.

December 1992/January 1993 Arizona Water Resource 9

10 Arizona Water Resource December 1992/January 1993

Special ProjectsCurrent water-related studies, pilot

projects and applied research are sum-marized below.

Whither Goes CAP?

University of Arizona's agriculturaleconomist Paul Wilson studied thecurrent and possible future economicstatus of the non-Indian agriculturalcomponent of CAP. His analysis statesthat the CAP district feasibility studies- the basis for federal loan approvaland the issuing of private securities bythe districts - were flawed in threefundamental areas. Acreage farmedwas overestimated; the crop mix wasmisinterpreted; and the attraction ofgroundwater as a CAP alternate wasunderestimated.

CAP feasibility studies projected thatnon-Indian agricultural water userswould consume 60 to 80 percent ofCAP water during the project's initial10-30 years. Events proved otherwise.Because of poor agricultural conditionsand the availability of less expensivewater, 60 percent of the agriculturaldistricts of central Arizona did notcontract for CAP water.

The study states that the economicsustainability of CAP agriculture de-pends on numerous, interrelated factorsthat determine profit over a multi-yearplanning period. Influential variablesinclude input and output prices, yieldlevels, government policies and pro-grams, the supply and cost of credit,and biological factors (e.g. pests). Thatthese factors are not stable creates anuncertain economic environment for thefarmer.

Various economic interdependenciesare also reviewed. The report stressesthe economic interdependencies amongCAP irrigation districts. Reductions inplanted acreage due to bankruptcy orfinancing problems raises the implicitcosts of water to other farmers andthreatens the economic viability of their

water distribution organization.Also important are the economic

interdependencies between the nineCAP irrigation districts and the CentralArizona Water Irrigation Districts. Theability of CAWCD to meet its financialcommitments with no increase in prop-erty taxes is closely linked to agricul-ture. This linkage is discussed byexamining three issues: the take or payprovision; water sales; and OM&R andinterest payments.

The financial status of CAP irriga-tion districts is then reviewed. Thereport stresses that the districts' finan-cial obligations possibly represent themost significant interdependencies in theentire CAP system. For example,default or bankruptcy by a CAP irriga-tion district could result in Standard andPoors downgrading the rating on acounty's new school district, fire dis-trict, road district and bonds. Lowerratings therefore could increase theinterest cost to the county's taxpayers.

From the above analysis the studyanticipates likely future events includingcontinued lower than expected demandfor CAP water, limited contracts forCAP water, and a one-third reduction inCAP planted acreage.

The study anticipates that CAPagriculture will attempt to shift as muchof its CAP water allocation and associ-ated debt as legally and economically aspossible to other CAP water users, i.e.,M&I and Indian. Without this shiftbankruptcy threatens a majority of CAPdistricts. Economic adjustments in theagricultural sector will be substantial.Growers with the least debt, highestyields and low cost, high productionwells will remain in business.

The report questions whether publicfunds are well spent to support an agri-cultural industry that is in a period ofeconomic transition, from a dominanteconomic force in the state to one ofpartnership, albeit strained, with urbaninterests.

Copies of the report "An EconomicAssessment of Central Arizona ProjectAgriculture" can be obtained for $8from Agricultural Sciences Communi-cation, Publication Desk, University ofArizona, 715 N. Park Ave., 2nd floor,Tucson, AZ 85719, 602-621-7176.

DRASTIC MapsDeveloped for Usein Pinal County

DRASTIC maps have recently beendeveloped for Pinal County by theArizona Geological Survey. DRASTICis a system developed by the U. S.Environmental Protection Agency forevaluating the potential for groundwaterpollution.

The name DRASTIC is an acronymfor the seven hydrogeologic parametersthat are evaluated: Depth to water,Recharge to aquifer, Aquifer media,Soil media, Topography (slope), Impactof vadose (vadose media), and Con-ductivity (hydraulic) of aquifer.

Separate maps show the ranges ofthe values for each parameter. Polygonsenclose areas where parameter valuesare within a range specified by theDRASTIC system, and a numericalrating is assigned to each polygon. Thenumerical rating represents degree ofsusceptibility to groundwater pollution.For example, aquifer vulnerability ispresumed to be directly proportional toaquifer recharge rate, so a region with ahigh recharge rate is assigned a highervalue on the recharge map than a regionwith a low recharge rate.

Pinal County has some of the largestearth fissures in the world. Becauseearth fissures can increase aquifer vul-nerability, an earth fissure map wasadded to the DRASTIC system in PinalCounty.

The eight maps were then overlaidand the values for each region wereadded. This provided the DRASTICaquifer vulnerability index. WhileDRASTIC was originally designed forvalues to be plotted and calculatedmanually, in Arizona the maps aremade using a Geographic InformationSystem (GIS).

For additional information on theDRASTIC maps contact Wayne Hood,Arizona Department of EnvironmentalQuality 1-800-234-5677 Ext. 4416.

December 1992/January 1993 Arizona Water Resource i i

Creative Way Devised toRestore Brawley Wash

The Soil Conservation Service (SCS)and the Pima Natural Resource Conser-vation District (PNRCD) are proposinga bold new approach to restoration of aseriously degraded desert wash in south-em Arizona. Brawley Wash runs norththrough the Altar Valley east of theTohono O'odham Nation and west ofthe Arivaca area. This area has beenused for ranching for many years and isstill largely used for that purpose. Thewatershed also includes the BuenosAires National Wildlife Refuge. Thereare no perennial streams in the water-shed.

Historically, the wash was a shal-low, wide stream with large stands ofsacaton grass reaching far into thesurrounding area. According to ranch-ers' accounts, riparian trees were notcommon.

Several factors, including historicovergrazing of the wash and its tributar-ies, have contributed to the severeerosion. The channel is now deeplyincised. SCS estimates that this erosiontransports about 532 acre-feet of sedi-ment north of Highway 86 annually.Whereas prior to 1900 floods were un-known, the incised channel now sendsfloodwaters as far downstream asMarana. Now that this erosion/floodingprocess has begun, each year the washdegrades further, reducing recharge inthe area, damaging roads, and diminish-ing the nparian vegetation.

The introduction of exotic grassspecies was another factor in the elimi-nation of the historic vegetation commu-nity. SCS believes the start of thelarge-scale change from grasslands toshrublands began in the 1920s. Severalspecies toxic to cattle had moved fardown in the watershed by the 1940s asforage species were slowly removed bycattle.

To stop this degradation and torestore the wash to something close toits former condition, SCS and PNRCDhave issued a report and recommends-tion that a demonstration grade controlstructure be built and that vegetativemanagement practices be implemented.

The structure would detain waters,slowing them down and allowing sedi-ment to drop out and gradually fill thechannel.

Benefits of this approach includebetter recharge in the area, less erosiondownstream and development of alluvialsoil on which vegetation can become re-established. If the initial demonstrationstructure succeeds, several more struc-tures are proposed to deal with prob-lems throughout the wash. Similarstructures in the San Simon Valley nearSafford have proven to be highly effec-tive in rebuilding a degraded channelLush grass now thrives in a once highlyeroded wash.

SCS and PNRCD recognize that astructure alone will not solve the prob-lem. Revegetative efforts and grazingmanagement practices that would in-dude fencing off areas along the washalso are proposed.

Although this report was developedwith the active involvement of all con-cerned parties (ranchers, State Land

Department, U.S. Fish and WildlifeService and many others) and has wide-spread support, its implementation is farfrom certain. The estimated cost isabout $ 1 million, and there are nocertain sources of funding. Innovativeapproaches towards putting together afunding package are being studied.These would include contributions ofexpertise from various agencies and in-kind contributions from landowners.SCS, for example, has offered almost aquarter million dollars worth of stafftime and expertise to help with thedesign, etc.

If this project is implemented, moni-toring the results will offer many oppor-tunities for studies of renovation of adegraded watercourse. Long-term stud-ies will be needed regarding reestablish-ment of vegetation and wildlife, as abasis for determining the value of thisapproach for other degraded washes.

For more information and a copy ofthe report, contact the Soil ConservationService in Phoenix at 602-640-2549.

The eroded banks ofBrawley Wash are measured. Brawley Wash runs north fromSonora, M&rico through the Avra-Altar Valleys toward Marana, Arizona. The

Soil Conservation Service and the Pima Natural Resource Conservation Districthave issued a report recommending an innovative strategy to restore the wash.(Photo: USDA Soil conservation Service)

12 Arizona Water Resource December 1992/January 1993

PublicationsAn Economic Assessment of Central ArizonaProject AgriculturePaul N. Wilson. The report reviews the current and possiblefuture economic status of the agricultural subcontractors forCAP water and CAP agriculture's economic contribution tothe surrounding communities in Arizona. The need for thestudy arose out of the discussions of the Governor's TaskForce on CAP issues which met during the first six months of1992. Concern was expressed by several task force partici-pants that the task force not propose solutions to CAP issues(e.g. underutilization of CAP water) before obtaining a sharedunderstanding of the nature and magnitude of the problems,particularly those facing agriculture. The report was submittedto the Office of the Governor and the Arizona Department ofWater Resources.

Copies of the report can be obtained by sending a checkfor $8 and a note requesting the publication to AgriculturalSciences Communication, Attention Publication Desk, TheUniversity of Arizona, 715 N. Park Ave., 2nd Floor, Tucson,AZ 85719; 602-621-7176 (See "Special Projects" section ofthis newsletter for more discussion of this publication.)

Water Resources Data for Arizona, Water Year 1991F.C. Boner, R.G. Davis and N.R. Duet. This publication is acompilation of surface-water, chemical-quality, and ground-water data and was prepared in cooperation with the State ofArizona and other governmental agencies.

The report is available for examination at some localU.S.G.S. offices and is for sale to the public from the Nation-al Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Com-merce, Springfield, Virginia 22161.

Climatic Variability and Flood Frequency of the Santa CruzRiver, Fimo County, ArizonaRobert H. Webb and Julio L. Betancourt. The hydroclimato-logy of the Santa Cruz River basin is examined with particularemphasis on storm types that cause floods.

This U.S.G.S. Water Supply-Paper 2379 can be purchasedfrom Book and Open-File Report Sales, U.S. GeologicalSurvey, Box 25425, Denver, CO 80225.

Crossing the Next Meridian: Land, Water, and the Future ofthe WestCharles F. Wilkinson. Interweaving legal history with exam-ples of present-day consequences of the laws, both intendedand unintended, the author traces the origins and developmentof the laws and regulations governing mining, ranching,forestry, and water use.

The book is available for $25 from Island Press, Box 7,Covelo, CA 95428; 1-800-828-1302; FAX 707-983-6414.

Dividing the WatersWilliam Blomquist. This book chronicles the development ofgroundwater management in eight major southern Californiabasins. The author finds these governance systems to functionvery successfully without centralized state control. The casestudies shed light on the process by which institutional ar-rangements are developed, how they function, and why theywork.

This publication is available for $44.95 for cloth-bound and$14.95 for paperback version from Institute for ContemporaryStudies, 243 Keamy Street, San Francisco, CA 94108; 415-981-5353; FAX 415-986-4878.

Xeriscape: The Emerging FrontierThis educational video provides people living in semi-arid andarid regions with a look at practical alternatives to convention-al landscaping ideas including the use of contemporary designtechniques that utilize new varieties of low water use plants.The actual conversion of a conventional high water use resi-dential landscape into a water efficient xeriscape is followedstep-by-step. The seven xeriscape principles are discussed andapplied as the film moves through the retrofit.

Copies of the video are available for $30 from AgriculturalCommunications/Computer Support, Department of Agricul-tural Education, The University of Arizona, 715 N. ParkAve., Tucson, AZ 85719.

Arizona's Effluent Dominated Riparian Areas: Issues andOpportunitiesBarbara Tellman Part of the WRRC issue paper series, thispublication discusses Arizona's riparian areas with flow de-pending largely on effluent. Among other topics, state andfederal laws and regulations affecting that flow are examined,from the water quality and quantity standpoints.

Single copies are available free from the Water ResourcesResearch Center, The University of Arizona, 350 N. Camp-bell, Tucson, AZ 85721; FAX 602-792-8518.

Arizona Water Resource is financed in part bysponsoring agencies, including:

Arizona Department of Environmental QualityArizona Department of Water Resources

Central Arizona Water Conservation District

Salt River ProjectTucson AMA Water Augmentation Authority

Tucson Water

USGS Water Resources Division

Water lJtilitìes Association of Arizona

Their contributions help make continued publicationof this newsletter possible.

December 1992 Arizona WaterReIated Events

Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday

1

Tucson CWAC2

TucsonStorinwater

3CAWCDTucson, GUACSCV Water Dist

4ARWA Conf.Arizona's AquiferSWCS Conf.

5

6

Casa dei Agua

7Yav. Flood Cont.

< The Env-

8

ironmental Regula-

San Pedro 9Rural Infra-

structure Mtg.tion Course >

10

< Colorado< &

11Coronado RC&DRiver Water UsersSpecial Waste >

12

Association>

13

Casa dei Agua

14

< 6th Annual

15

Drainage Symp->

16Pima Flood Cont.

17PAC/Water

QualityPinal, GUAC

18Phoenix, GUAC

19

20

Casa del Agua

21 22 23 24 25 26

27

Casa dei Agua

28Yav. Flood Cont.

29 30 31

January 1993 Arizona Water-Related Events

Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday

1 2

3

Casa dei Agua

4Yav. Flood Cont.

5Tucson CWAC

6 7CAWCD

8 9

10

Casa del Agua

11 12 13

< Water

14

Rights >

15 16Verde River Conf.

17

Casa dei Agua

18 19 20Pima Flood Cont.

21PAGfWaterQuality

22 23

24Casa del Agua

< Pollution31

25Yav. Flood Cont.

Prevention III

26

Making it Pay! ->

27 28 29 30

December 1992/January 1993 Arizona Water Resource 13

14 Arizona Water Resource December 1992/January 1993

Calendar of Events

DECEMBER

2 (Wed) Tucson Stormwater Management Study PublicMeeting/Open House. 4:30 p.m. - 7:30 p.m. Tucson MainLibrary meeting room, 101 N. Stone. Contact: Freda John-son, Rillito Consulting Group, 602-622-1933.

2-3 (Wed-Thu) Successful Tools for Environmental Nego-tiations 1992-1993. Washington, DC. Contact: RESOLVE,1250 24th St., NW, Washington, DC 20037-1175.

2-4 (Wed-Fri) Bioremediation of Contaminated Soils andSludges. Austin, TX. Contact: UT at Austin, College ofEngineering, Continuing Engineering Studies, EG 10.324,Austin, TX 78712; 512-471-3506.

4 (Fn) 1992 Arizona Rural Water Association AnnualConference and Meeting: Reflections on Arizona's Waterand Views Toward the Future. Phoenix. Contact: ARWA,2600 N. Central Ave., Suite 630, Phoenix, AZ 85004; DougNelson 602-230-7771.

4 (Fn) Arizona's Aquifer Protection Permit Program.Sheraton Tempe Mission Palm. Contact: GeoSystems Analy-sis, 1708 East Spring St., Tucson, AZ 85719; 602-326-5848.

4 (Fn) Fifth Annual Soil and Water Conservation SocietyFall Conference. Water Augmentation: Issues and Atti-tudes. Casa Grande, AZ. Contact: Ron Hemmer, SWCS,1542 W. Verde Lane, Phoenix, AZ 85015; or, Doug Pease602-839-4803.

7-9 (Mon-Wed) The Environmental Regulation Course.Denver, CO. Contact: Registration Dept., Executive Enter-prises, Inc., 22 West 21st Street, New York, NY 10010; 800-83 1-8333.

7-10 (Mon-Thu) Air, Water & Waste Technologies Confer-ence & Exposition. Detroit, MI. Cosponsored by the Michi-gan Water Environment Association, the Engineering Society,and the Solid Waste Association of North America. Contact:313-995-4440.

9 (Wed) Rural Infrastructure Committee Meeting. 9:30a.m. - 12:30 p.m., Department of Commerce, 15th FloorConference Room, 3800 N. Central Ave., Phoenix. Contact:Rivko Knox 602-280-1300.

9 (Wed) Public Participation Sought on San Pedro RiverManagement. VFW Hall, Benson, AZ. Contact: San PedroNatural Resource Conservation District, 247 S. Curtis,Willcox, AZ 85643; Gail Getzwiller 602-586-2579.

10-11 (Thu-Fni) Hazardous and Special Waste ManagementThrough the 20th Century. Doubletree Hotel, Tucson.Contact: Commission on the Arizona Environment, 1645 W.Jefferson, Suite 416, Phoenix, AZ 85007; 602-542-2104.

RECURRING b

Arizona Hydrological Society. 8 December, 7:30 p.m.Panel Discussion of Professional Registration for Hydrolo-gists. Meetings held at Water Resources Research Center,350 N. Campbell Ave., Tucson. Contact: Mike Block 602-792-1093.

Arizona Water Commission. December meeting not yetscheduled. Meetings held at ADWR, 15 South 15th Ave.,Phoenix. Contact: Beverly Beddow 602-542-1553.

Casa Del Agua. Water conservation tours hourly, Sundaysnoon to 4:00 p.m., 4366 North Stanley, Tucson. Contact:602-791-4331.

Central Arizona Water Conservation District, ist Thursdayof the month, 12:30 p.m. Central Arizona Project Board Rin,23636 North 7th Street, Phoenix. Contact: 602-870-2333.

City of Tucson Citizens Water Advisory Committee. istTuesday of the month, 7:00 a.m. 310 W. Alameda, Tucson.Contact: Trish Williamson 602-791-4331.

Phoenix AMA, GUAC. 18 December, 9:00 a.m. ADWR,Phoenix AMA Conference Room, 15 South 15th Ave., Phoe-nix. Contact: Mark Frank 602-542-1512.

Pima Association of Governments / Water Quality Sub-committee. 3rd Thursday of the month, 9:30 a.m. 177 N.Church Ave., Tucson. Contact: Gail Kushner 602-792-1093.

Pima County Flood Control District. 3rd Wednesday of themonth, 7:30-9:30 a.m. Public Works Bldg., 201 N. Stone,Tucson. Contact: Carla Danforth, 602-740-6350.

Pinal AMA, GUAC. 17 December, 7:00 p.m. Pinal AMAOffice, 1000 E. Racine, Conference Room, Casa Grande.Contact: Dennis Kimberlin 602-836-4857.

Prescott AMA, GUAC. No meeting for December. PrescottCity Council Chambers, 201 South Cortez, Prescott. Contact:Phil Foster 602-778-7202.

Santa Cruz Valley Water District (fonnerly Tucson AMAWater Authority). 3 December, 7:30 a.m. Followed byjoint meeting with Tucson AMA, GUAC at 9:00 a.m. Con-tact: Warren Tenney 602-326-8999.

Tucson AMA, GUAC. 3 December, 9:00 a.m. Joint meet-ing with the Santa Cruz Valley Water District at the WaterResources Research Center, 350 N. Campbell Ave., Tucson.Contact: Linda Stitzer 602-628-6758.

Ya'vapai County Flood Control District, ist Monday of themonth in Prescott; 4th Monday of the month in Camp Verde.Contact: YCFCD, 255 E. Gurley, Prescott, AZ 86301.

December 1992/January 1993 Arizona Water Resource 15

10-12 ÇFhu-Sat) Colorado River Water Users Association47th Annual Meeting. Las Vegas, NV. Contact: CRWUA,P.O. Box 1058, Coachella, CA 92236; 619-398-2651.

11 (Pri) WUAA Luncheon Meeting: Mr. Frank Turek, ofA.N. West, Inc ll be speaking on ADWR's Assured andAdequate water supply designations. Water Utilities Asso-ciation of Arizona. Los Olivos Executive Hotel, Phoenix.Contact: WUAA 234-1315.

11 (Fr1) Coronado Resource Conservation & DevelopmentArea, Inc. Annual Meeting. VFW Hall, Benson, AZ.Contact: Coronado RC & D Area, Inc., 245 S. Curtis,Wilicox, AZ 85643.

14-15 (Mon-Tue) 6th Annual Drainage Symposium. Nash-ville, TN. Contact: ASAE, 2950 Nues Rd., St. Joseph, MI49085-9659.

JANUARY

11-13 January (Mon-Wed) Control, Containment and Reme-diation of Ground Water Contaminants. San Antonio, TX.Contact: Environmental Education Enterprises Institute, 2764Sawbury Blvd., Columbus, OH 43235; 614-792-0005.

13-14 January (Wed-Thu) Water Rights: Legal and Engi-neenng Aspects For Lawyers, Engineers, and Managers.Las Vegas, NV. Engineering Continuing Education andAmerican Water Works Association. Contact: UNLV, Divi-sion of Continuing Education, CED, 4505 Maryland Parkway,Las Vegas, NV 89 154-1019; 702-739-3707.

16 January (Sat) Verde River Watershed Conference.Prescott, AZ. Contact: Cocopai Resource Conservation &Development Area Inc., 1633 South Plaza Way, Flagstaff, AZ86001; 602-556-7504.

24-29 January (Sun-Fn) Pollution Prevention rn-Making itPay! San Diego, CA. Contact: Engineering Foundation212-705-7835.

25 January (Mon) Chris Stone, University of SouthernCalifornia, Law, speaks on Global Environment & GlobalMorals. College of Law Faculty Seminars. 4:00 p.m. UALaw school Faculty Library, Tucson. Contact: LakshmanGuruswamy 602-621-1373.

UPCOMING

4-6 February (Thu-Sat) Riparian Management: CommonThreads & Shared Interests. Albuquerque, NM. Universityof Arizona, Water Resources Research Center. Contact:WRRC, University of Arizona, 350 N. Campbell Ave., Tuc-son, AZ 85721.

10-14 February (Wed-Sun) 1993 Mountain States GroundWater Expo. St. George, Utah. Contact: 801-996-2730.

16-18 March (Tue-Thu) Water Quality Association Conven-tion. San Antonio, TX. Contact: AWQA, 6819 E. DiamondSt., Scottsdale, AZ 85257; 602-947-9850.

2 1-24 March (Sun-Wed) WATERSHED '93: A NationalConference on Watershed Management. Alexandria, VA.Contact WATERSHED '93, do The Terrene Institute, 1000Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 802, Washington, DC 20036;202-833-8317.

2 April (Fn) Carol Rose, Yale University, Law, speaks onEnvironmental Ethics. College of Law Faculty Seminars.4:00 p.m. UA Law School Faculty Library, Tucson. Contact:Lakshman Guruswamy 602-621-1373.

Announcements

Research/Education Funding Available

The Agriculture Department invites applications for studiesin agriculture, forestry, and environmental sciences. Areasinclude water quality, plant responses to the environment,rural development, forest/rangeland/crop ecosystems andtechnical assessment. Deadlines range from December 7, 1992to March 22, 1993. For information contact Proposed Servic-es Branch, Awards Management Division, Cooperative StateResearch Services, USDA, Rm. 303, Aerospace Ceiiter,Washington, DC 20250-2200; 202401-5048.

The Environmental Protection Agency invites preapplicationsfor grants and cooperative agreements to design, demonstrate,and disseminate practices, methods, and techniques related toenvironmental education and training. Projects should im-prove environmental teaching, communication, informationexchange, and partnerships, and motivate the general public tobe more environmentally conscious. Federal funding will notexceed 75 percent of the total cost of a project. Applicationsfor up to $25,000 should be sent to EPA regional offices, andrequests for larger amounts should be sent to EPA headquar-ters. The deadline is January 15, 1993. For additional infor-mation contact George Walker, EPA, Office of EnvironmentalEducation, Rm. 339, W. Tower Bldg., 401 M St. SW, Wash-ington, DC 20460. 202-260-8619.

ADEQ Southern Regional Office Moves

As of December 9, the Southern Regional Office of ADEQis located in the new State Office Building in Tucson. Its newaddress is: ADEQ/SRO; 400 W. Congress, Ste 433; Tucson,AZ 85701. The phone number is 602-628-6733.

Announcements cont. from page 15

Call for Papers

Aconference on tailings and mine waste will be held No-vember 29 - December 1, 1993 at Colorado State University,Fort Collins, Colorado. The latest information on mine andmill tailings and waste will be discussed, and a forum provid-ed for discussion of current and future mining and environ-mental issues. The program includes issues related to tailingsand mine waste management, reclamation and remediation,regulator framework, and public awareness. Submit a 250-word abstract by February 15, 1993 to Janet Lee Montera,Department of Civil Engineering, Colorado State University,Fort Collins, CO 80523; 303-491-7425; FAX 303-491-7727.

Water Resource Information Via Phone

The National Water Information Clearinghouse is a usefulresource serving state and local government officials, mem-bers of public interest groups, and concerned citizens whoneed information about water resources in their regions.Operated by the U.S. Geologic Survey, the clearinghouseprovides non-technical users with access to a wide range ofinformation. For assistance call the National Water Informa-tion Clearinghouse at 800-426-9000.

Water Information Network Established

An electronic information network has been establishedunder the auspices of the U.S. Geological Survey and theUniversities Council on Water Resources. Critical waterresources and related research information will be gathered ata control location and posted for 24-hour-a-day access. The

16 Arizona Water Resource December 1992/January 1993

ARIZONA WATERRESOURCE

THE UNIVERSITY OF

ARIZONATUCSON ARIZONA

The University of AnonaWater Resources Research CenterTucson, Arizona 572l

Address Correction Requested

Recycled ¡riper fk Recyclable paper

staff and principal USGS clients who already are using theUSGS A ViiON-based computer network will have automatedaccess to the collected water information. Others not on the AViiON system will dial in directly or via other networks foraccess. Information about on-going funded research activitieswill thus be more readily available.

UCOWR also is establishing an electronic bulletin board toprovide current information on contracted research and briefabstracts of selected completed research and reports. Submit-ted information will be formatted for read-only bulletinboards. USGS staff and authorized users will dial intoUCOWR's computer using an 800 number, TELNET, BIT-NET or commercial lines to review bulletin board material.

Xeriscape Conference Announced

The 7th Annual Xeriscape Conference, "CAP: Tapping theNew Source; Issues and Answers for Landscaping With CAPWater" will be held March 12, 1993, from 8 a.m. to 4:30p.m. at the Pima Community College Center for the Arts,which is located on the PCC West Campus, 2202 W. AnidamRoad.

This year's conference will focus on Tucson's shift tousing CAP water and how this surface water source will affectlandscaping practices. The conference is designed to equiplandscape designers, contractors, architects, and other land-scaping professionals with the latest information on efficientirrigation system design, xeriscape landscaping principles,proper watering techniques (irrigation scheduling), irrigationsystem maintenance, and plant selection. College credit isavailable through the Pima Community College LandscapeTechnician Program. The fee for the conference is $30 forgeneral admission and $15 for students. For additional infor-mation contact Melaney Seacat, Tucson Water 602-791-4331.

NON-PROFIT ORG.US POSTAGE

PAIDTUCSON, ARIZONA

PERMIT NO. 190