Forecasting water future for Phoenix Metropolitan Area using

Water Sim, an on-line program

Authors: Lance Ward, Mitchell Little, Sean Hayes, Ethan Vickers, Tiffany Cogan, Jessica Laurino, Jessie Giacomelli, Dustin C.

Sandberg, Alyssa Ralls, Jessica Kashian, Clayton Kammerer, Jessica Woody, and Andrew Axelband

A class paper by the students enrolled in UNVR 195a-002, Water Resources in the Tucson Basin, The University of Arizona, spring

2008. Instructor: James J. Riley

May 1, 2008

2

TITLE: Forecasting water future for Phoenix Metropolitan Area using Water Sim, an on-line program AUTHORS: UNVR 195a-002 Water Resources Colloquium, spring 2008, The University of Arizona ABSTRACT: The spring 2008 Water Resources in the Tucson Basin First Year Colloquium at the University of Arizona took a diversion to examine the future water resources outlook for Maricopa County. We used the on-line program/model developed by the Decision Center for a Desert City at Arizona State University called, WaterSim. The program enables users to explore the impact of changes in inputs on the output water source and use for the next 25 years. The program displays inputs and outputs in easily read charts. Before using the program, the class became familiar with the water situation in Arizona by reading the,” Layperson’s Guide to Arizona Water”. The class was divided into groups paralleling the inputs to the program. Each section defined pessimistic and optimistic future scenarios both within the range of possibility. The pessimistic scenario resulted in cessation of Central Arizona Project, CAP, water by 2012; a high rate of groundwater use; and the imposition of much lower than current levels of GPCD levels by 2010. The more optimistic scenario resulted in a balanced use of Salt River Project, CAP, and groundwater for the entire period though 2030; much less mining of groundwater; and the imposition of less stringent GPCD levels in 2020. The population of Maricopa County significantly affected the fluctuation of water usage and water levels as seen through the optimistic and pessimistic scenarios. Sensitivity analysis indicated that the outputs were sensitive to the changes in the flow of the Colorado River and the Salt and the Verde rivers (to a lesser extent). Surprisingly, the response to climate change was insignificant. However, in the present model it only impacts the flow of the Salt and the Verde rivers, which was forecasted to be generally low.

3

INTRODUCTION: General Design and Rationale for the Class The Arizona State University Decision Center for a Desert City has developed an on-line model for exploring future scenarios for the water situation in metropolitan Phoenix. The URL of the site is: http://watersim.asu.edu/ In a previous class the students tried different input alternatives for the model. (see: http://cals.arizona.edu/swes/tucwater1/ It was found that some of the selections were unrealistic as the students were insufficiently prepared in regard to the history and general projections on water use in Arizona. Therefore, this class was designed to better prepare the students by utilizing a new publication; namely: “Layperson’s Guide to Arizona Water”, prepared by the Water Education Foundation and The University of Arizona Water Resources Research Center. It is available on-line: http://ag.arizona.edu/AZWATER/WRRC_Events_News/LPG/Layperson%27s_Guide_to_Arizona_Water.pdf MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two class periods were devoted to discussing the above publication. Then, the class was divided into working groups, whose name and assignment was related to the primary inputs of the Water Sim model. They group names were (their principal assignment is given in parentheses): 1. Colorado River (variation in flow over the last century, highlighting periods of low and high flow) 2. Salt and Verde River (variation in flow over the last century, highlighting periods of low and high flow) 3. Climate Change in Arizona (What variations have been observed and what are the general forecasts due to global warming?) 4. Population Trends in Metropolitan Phoenix (document trends over the last 100 years) 5. Agriculture in Maricopa County (trends in agriculture acreage from 1900 to present. What is responsible for changes?)

4

Student groups were given two weeks to prepare their reports. These reports are included in this paper in the following section. Reports were presented in class and suggestions for improvement were given. Based on this input, the reports were revised prior to their inclusion in the class report. Then, the class was asked to go over the Water Sim Tutorial thoroughly prior to class and then each group was to identify two scenarios in their areas, one more optimistic and one less so, but both within the realm of possibility using Scenario Builder in Water Sim. These reports follow the initial reports in the following section of this report. Next, prior to integrating the inputs from the initial groups, the groups were assigned a new topic. Three of the topics were from Water Sim Inputs; namely: 1) Water Policy 2) Water Shortage Policy (with fixed residential water use) 3) Water Shortage Policy (with fixed total water use) The other two groups began to work on integrating the input scenarios from all the groups into two comprehensive scenarios composed of the inputs from the initial groups using Water Sim’s Scenario Builder. The integrated report includes the Outputs of Water Sim based on the scenarios developed by the class. It is included in part two of the results section in Water Sim’s Scenario Builder format. The class as a whole then reviewed the outputs and contributed to composing the Discussion and Conclusions part of the paper. Finally, the class drafted the Abstract for their paper.

5

RESULTS: Student Reports on Observed/Projected Variations of Inputs to Water Sim which affect Phoenix Municipal Water Use

Colorado River Lance Ward and Mitchell Little

Background Report

The Colorado River is a major source of water for the region of central Arizona.

Seven states as well as Mexico share the water of the Colorado River and each regions

share is based on the Colorado River Compact, which is the federal guideline for use and

division of the Colorado River. The river basin has been divided into an upper basin and

a lower basin. The upper basin includes the river portions located in Wyoming, Utah,

Colorado, and New Mexico. The upper basin also includes the portion in Arizona that

drains into the river above Lee Ferry. The lower basin includes the river regions in the

remainder of Arizona, Nevada, and California. The flow of the Colorado River fluctuates

in regards to the conditions of the climate, seasons, and water releases from dams. The

Colorado River is a historical landmine that shaped the future of the West. The River

determined the settlement patterns of various communities in the 19th and 20th centuries

and the settlers began plumbing to support the economies of mining and agriculture.

During periods of shortage in managing the Colorado River, water was stored in Lake

Powell and Lake Mead. This was a plan put together by all the seven states that share the

River Basin. There have been decades of battles between the seven states that share the

Colorado River. There is currently a shortage-sharing agreement between Arizona and

Nevada which lead to a decreasing amount of water flow to Mexico.

6

References

http://www.desertusa.com/colorado/intro/du_introcr.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_river

Water Sim Input Scenarios Scenario 1: Pessimistic Scenario 2: Optimistic Year: 1940 Year: 1970 Runoff: 60% Runoff: 90% Start: Now Start: Now End: 25 years End: 25 years The year 1940 was selected for the input scenario because during this time, the

Colorado River water flow progressively decreased. With respect to this rather dry time-

period, we altered the runoff to 60 percent to help demonstrate the effects of a low water

runoff. We chose to have this scenario to begin now and end in 25 years to exemplify the

decreasing water flow over the years, if in fact this dry time-period was to continue. This

scenario shows a drastic decrease to the Colorado River water flow as well as its total

storage. From this, we can assume that if this dry stretch of time did continue, then the

river would be much less beneficial to the communities that rely so heavily upon it.

The year 1970 was chosen for Scenario 2 due to the Colorado River’s continual

growth over the following years which led to its highest level of acre-feet of water which

happened to be about 24 million acre-feet in 1984. The water runoff input was increased

to 90 percent to help exaggerate the river flow and its progressive increase. Thus, this

progressive increase could be a result of cloud seeding which would help reach a higher

river runoff. We chose this scenario to begin now and end in 25 years to help express

what would happen if this actual scenario were to occur. The end result leaves the

7

Colorado River with a more realistic and attainable river flow and river storage, which

will be able to support the communities that the river supplies.

Scenario 1 Scenario 2

8

Salt and Verde River Sean Hayes and Ethan Vickers

Background Report The Salt River was first used for irrigation purposes in 1867. At this point in

time, the flow of the river was tremendous, and at often times, too great. However, many

water scientists believe that it wasn’t necessarily the amount of the water that was the

problem, but the differentiation of level in flow. On multiple occasions there have been

reports of the change in flow from a small stream to extreme floods in just a short period

of time. Therefore, the farmers around this area could be extremely wiped out due to

droughts. Since the irrigation at this time led miles away from the original source, when

the water levels were too low, water would not even reach the distant farms. There was

an immense amount of need for storage facilities and other systems to fix these problems.

Between the time when irrigation first started on the Salt River and 1902, there

were many plans to solve the irrigation and flooding problems. There were various

diversion dams, canals, and laterals created in order to make farming and other water uses

more feasible. These dams and canals were not only built by the surrounding people, but

by private companies. These companies were looking to divert the water to their specific

location so that they could fulfill their business needs. In due time, it would be realized

that these dams were not constructed properly and that there was a shortage in supply. A

reservoir was the solution to this problem.

The problems that we are encountering today are that the surface water levels are

running dangerously low. This could create a major shortage of water and electricity in

the Phoenix area. Also, this shortage could affect other cities that are getting their

supplies form Phoenix. The annual runoff of the Salt and Verde Rivers has been

9

decreasing rapidly ever since 1985. As the population of Phoenix keeps increasing, the

water demand is going to do the same, and unless there is more development of storage

facilities, then there could be catastrophic problems.

The Salt River Project includes a service area of about 240,000 acres spanning

portions of Maricopa, Gila, and Pinal Counties in central Arizona. The land within the

project is furnished by a full irrigation and home water supply from the Salt and Verde

Rivers and from 250 groundwater wells; about 26,500 acres are furnished by

supplemental irrigation water. Six storage dams, two of which were constructed by the

Bureau of Reclamation, control the rivers flow.

The total storage capacity of the Salt River reservoirs is more than 2.4 million

acre-feet. The combined storage capacity of the two reservoirs on the Verde River is

317,715 acre-feet. The Salt River Project helps in power generations through five

hydroelectric plants; three steam plants, two with separate combustion-turbine

installations; and a combined-cycle plant.

10

Water Sim Input Scenarios Scenario 1: Pessimistic Scenario 2: Optimistic Year: 1950 Year: 1970 Runoff: 30% Runoff: 150% Start: 2015 Start: 2020 End: 25 years End: 20 years

11

Climate Change in Arizona Tiffany Cogan, Jessica Laurino, and Jesse Giacomelli

Background Report

Climate is one of the fundamental drivers of the water cycle. It determines how

much water the population of Arizona needs and how much water is available. Today,

Arizona is considered in a drought, and a major concern is how global warming will

affect climate change and specifically, Arizona’s water supply.

Arizona’s water delivery system is deteriorating under the effects of rising

temperatures. The timing of weather has a huge effect on the quantity of water in supply.

Due to shorter winters, a significant amount of snow melt is lost in the mild Winters.

This difference has already reduced snow melt runoff by about 75%. This is a serious

issue considering that runoff provides Arizona with as much as 75% of its surface water.

Milder weather could also change winter snow to more rainfall. Instead of storing the

water efficiently, rain sinks into the soil, evaporates, or causes flooding (McKinnon).

The majority of this climate change stems from human activity; mainly greenhouse gases

caused by automotive pollution and power plants. These greenhouse gases have caused

changes in snowpack, streamflow, and temperature. Not only will this make water levels

decrease but also have effects on how the water is stored and released. In fifty years,

Arizona residents can expect a 1-2 degree temperature increase in the spring and fall as

well as a 2.5 degree increase in winter and summer. Additionally, Arizona is currently in

a dry cycle, which typically lasts for 20 to 25 years. But due to global warming, it is

expected that the dry cycle will continue and perhaps intensify. All of these are

important natural changes that will happen if global warming causes Arizona’s

temperature to continue rising for the next three decades.

12

Works Cited

ASU Water Sim Model. http://watersim.asu.edu/.

McKinnon, Shaun, Sources of Water for West at Risk: Forests, farmers, cities depend

upon mountain-snow runoff. 25 November 2007. The Arizona Republic.

Water Sim Input Scenarios

Scenario 1: Pessimistic Scenario 2: Optimistic Most Pessimistic Average

For scenario 1 we chose the most pessimistic point of view for climate change.

We chose this outlook because it shows the worst possible climate change for Maricopa

County, and due to the current drought facing Arizona, this is the logical scenario for the

future. By 2030, the Salt and Verde River will be at approximately 1 million acre-feet of

water but only storing approximately half of that. The maximum capacity for these rivers

is roughly 2.5 million acre-feet, which is significantly above our estimated stored water.

For our second scenario, we are expecting a less than optimistic climate change

scenario. This “average scenario” is chosen because it seems the most realistic of the

three. Between the current drought facing Arizona, which lasts approximately 20 years,

and the expected drought due to climate change, an optimistic scenario is unrealistic.

When considering the average scenario, the expected runoff is about 2 million acre-feet

while storage is half below capacity. Throughout the thirty estimated years, there are also

13

peaks in water storage dispersed throughout the years which will help sustain the water

level.

14

Population Trends in Metropolitan Phoenix Dustin C. Sandberg, Alyssa Ralls, and Jessica Kashian

Background Report

History behind Population Trends in Metropolitan Phoenix

Metropolitan Phoenix, which consists of Phoenix, Mesa, Scottsdale, Tempe, and

Glendale, contains the largest populated statistical area within Arizona. Over the past

few hundred years, Metropolitan Phoenix, which used to consist of only one or more

counties, has rapidly become more urbanized and increased in population amounts. The

original Phoenix metropolitan area, “consisted only of Maricopa County (which has more

than 9,000 square miles) until the results of the 1990 census were tabulated, when Pinal

County (which has more than 5,000 square miles) was added to the metro area”

(Development of Metropolitan Phoenix: Historical, Current and Future Trends). The

inclusion of this county, although it is a rural county, increased Metropolitan Phoenix’s

population amount.

Throughout the years, the population of Metropolitan Phoenix has fluctuated in

different amounts. From 1990 to 2000, the increase in population was 1,013,396, which

was a 45% increase in population (United States Census Bureau). As of July 1, 2006,

Metropolitan Phoenix’s population is, according to the United States Census, an

estimated 4,039,182 (United States Census Bureau).

The inclusion of Pinal Country is not the only reason why Metropolitan Phoenix

has increased in population amounts. Over the years, Phoenix has turned into a highly

urbanized area. “Urbanized areas are defined by the U.S. Bureau of the Census, with the

boundaries updated every 10 years based on decennial census data” (Development of

Metropolitan Phoenix: Historical, Current and Future Trends). The Phoenix urbanized

area now includes Pinal County and the Apache Junction area (Development of

Metropolitan Phoenix: Historical, Current, and Future Trends). Since the urbanized areas

of Metropolitan Phoenix increased, the population increased as well.

As Arizona was starting to become populated in early 1900, “The population of

Maricopa County in 1900 was only 20,000” (Development of Metropolitan Phoenix:

Historical, Current and Future Trends). Population growth accelerated between 1910 and

1920, but then began to stabilize through 1940. In these areas, there were 120,000

15

residents in 1940, and in small towns, the populations were no more than

7,000(Development of Metropolitan Phoenix: Historical, Current and Future Trends).

The Growth Factor Affecting Metropolitan Phoenix

Most new development utilizes low water use systems and landscaping. Thus, the

average household water use of a new house is less than the average household water use

of existing houses more than 10 years old. Commercial and industrial uses are also more

efficient than past uses. The result is that in the city of Phoenix, the rate at which total

water consumption is increasing is lower than our growth rate. To illustrate, the city's

population has grown by 77 percent since 1980, though the water use has grown by only

35 percent. The regional growth rate is 3.9 percent per year outside Phoenix’s city limits.

The city’s strategy is growth management, not zero growth. Stopping growth would

negatively impact the well being of the city’s and the region. It would cause dislocations

in employment throughout the region, and significantly dampen commercial activity,

manufacturing, and service industries.

Through long-range water resource planning efforts, the city continually strives to

ensure that the demands of this growth can be met far into the future. These efforts

involve both management of our existing supplies and acquisition of new supplies. As

the drought depends, this becomes especially critical in protecting our local economy.

Like many of the largest urban areas in the United States, the whole of the Phoenix

region has become greater than its parts. Over the past 50 years, the Phoenix area has

become a major urban region facing a wide range of issues critical to its future. With its

rapid growth, the fastest in the country over the last 10 years, it has transcended the

traditional definition of a region with clearly defined boundaries. Issues of growth,

economy, open space and sustainability are now regional issues over which no single

local governmental agency has authority.

Sources: Rex, Tom R. Development of Metropolitan Phoenix: Historical, Current and Future

Trends. August 2000. <http://wpcarey.asu.edu/seidman/ccpr/PDFs/development.pdf>

16

United States Census Bureau. International Data Base. February 12, 2008.

<http://www.census.gov/population/cen2000/phc-t3/tab05.txt> United States Census Bureau. Arizona. February 12, 2008.

<http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/04000.html> United States Census Bureau. Phoenix City, Arizona Statistics and Demographics.

February 12, 2008. <http://phoenix.areaconnect.com/statistics.htm>

Understanding Growth of the Phoenix Area. February 12, 2008. <http://alliance.la.asu.edu/lessonpackets/phoenixgrowth/studentpacket/phoenixgrowthstudent.html>

Water Sim Input Scenarios

Scenario 1: Pessimistic Scenario 2: Optimistic Double Projected Growth As Projected

17

The graphs presented above reveal a large amount of information on the projected

growth of future populations. These projections are presented under the DES population

prediction, which stands for the Department of Economic Security. Therefore, the

fluctuation in population and the intended DES population are in accordance with the

department’s information.

This projection is set in the year 2050, because a reasonable and realistic time line

could be set to this future time that would produce desired information. For Scenario 1,

we are predicting a more pessimistic situation in the population growth. As assigned, we

intended to include a more negative outcome to predict the course of future water

situations. Yet, due to the limited choice that fell between predicted projected growth and

the double projected growth there was no in-between choice. Therefore, we could only

use the exaggerated sample from the options, although we do not believe that this is a

realistic outcome. This unrealistic projection would include the highest population for

Maricopa County by 2050. In Scenario 2 we have selected a more realistic idea of the

population growth as predicted by DES. We see in scenario 1, that water usage will

increase substantially in the residential areas and in turn increase agricultural and

commercial use. Also in scenario 1, we see that the groundwater supply is substantially

in deficit, limiting the amount of groundwater that could be supplied. In the second

scenario we also see a dip into the negative million-acre feet but by not as large a margin.

In the Gallons per Capita per Day figure, we do not see much of difference between

scenario 1 and scenario 2.

18

Agriculture in Maricopa County Clayton Kammerer, Jessica Woody, and Andrew Axelband

Background Report

Arizona as a whole is notorious for over usage of our precious and scarce water

supplies, and it is commonly recognized that Maricopa County in particular is where

much of the water is directed. Specifically, agriculture in Maricopa County accounts for

a very large percentage of the water used. Farms now utilize about 55% of Maricopa’s

water, which was closer to 85% around 1980. Farmers also have been very innovative

and zealous about using current technology in order to decrease the use of water. Some

farmers even use a technique of leveling off fields with lasers in order to reduce runoffs.

But all in all, with lettuce, cotton, alfalfa, and citrus all being of such importance in the

agriculture industry, Maricopa County still is to blame for much of the water use, even

with the efficiency farmers have recently displayed in response to water scarcity.

Agriculture in Maricopa has seen an increasing decline in acreage in the last few

decades for its farms and orchards. In 1982 there were over 1,400,000 acres of farm land,

and only ten years later that number was reduced to half. There are various reasons

causing this. Agricultural land is disappearing in part due to the encroachment of the

urbanized area. Residential and commercial buildings take priority over agricultural

zones. Agriculture has also been decreasing partly due to changes in the nature of

farming. About 6,000 acres of agricultural land - an area the size of the town of Paradise

Valley - permanently goes out of production each year. The development of non-

agricultural uses of the land, as well as advances in farming technology have been

significant at reducing the amount of acres used for agriculture. As an example, as hybrid

crops are improved, they require less subsistence from the soil, and therefore require less

19

space and can be planted closer together. A farmer will be able to produce a higher yield

of crops in a smaller acreage, so the greater amount of acreage is no longer needed as it

becomes unnecessary and no longer cost effective within certain boundaries of crop

yield.

The population explosion of Maricopa County has increased the need for

residential homes, and the agricultural acreage is the first to decline as the urban sprawl

increases. As of July 2006 the population of Maricopa County was estimated at over

3,768,000, making it the 4th largest county in population in the United States. It is also

one of the fastest growing, which explains the rapid decline in agricultural land as

acreage is quickly being gobbled up for urban and municipal uses.

References McKinnon, S. (2005). Farms Swallowing Most of Arizona’s Water. http://www.azcentral.com/specials/special26/articles/0103conserve-main03.html ASU, WaterSim Model. http://watersim.asu.edu/ Arizona Department of Agriculture. http://www.azda.gov/Main/maricopa.htm Maricopa Association of Governments. http://www.mag.maricopa.gov/archive/vv2025/Presentations/Seg6/SEGMENT6-1/index.htm

20

Water Sim Input Scenarios

Scenario 1: Pessimistic Scenario 2: Optimistic Agriculture phased out by 2040 Agriculture phased out by 2060

In a worst case scenario, the agricultural land in Maricopa County could

be phased out by the year 2040. If the population continues to rapidly grow and the

drought becomes more severe, the importance of water will become ever more essential.

Water in municipal and commercial usage tends to have a priority over agricultural

usage, and thus the amount of agricultural land is declining. Since agriculture requires

enormous amounts of water, it will become more expensive to continue the development

of agriculture and it may become nearly impossible with the lack of water. The growing

population is expected to cause the water crisis to become more severe, so it is very

possible that the agriculture land will phase out even faster than predicted, as the severity

increases.

Because agriculture in Maricopa county accounts for such a large portion of

Arizona’s agriculture, not to mention the nation’s agriculture (especially lettuce, alfalfa,

cotton, and pecans), it is likely that it will take quite some time to phase out. Until there

is an alternative to using the land in Maricopa County as prime agriculture production,

much of Maricopa’s water will also be directed toward irrigation for its purposes. It

seems unlikely that agriculture will be transitioning out of the picture anytime in the near

future due to the abundance of agricultural productivity.

It is certainly not a linear problem, as more and more agriculture has been phased

out year after year, making it probable that Maricopa County could see a near total

depletion of its farms and orchards in a very short period of time, as soon as 2040. In a

pessimistic scenario, laws may come into place that limit the usage of water to only the

21

most critical needs, and agriculture will have less priority. This would hurt the

agricultural economy even further. In an optimistic scenario agriculture would survive as

long as 2060. This is realistic if the current trends continue on their current path. It is

improbable that the agriculture in Maricopa County would last longer than this, but it is

possible that it could be phased out even sooner. Inevitably, agriculture will be phased

out to an extent; it just depends on the current trends and the trends of the future that

dictate exactly when.

2040 Model (pessimistic):

2060 Model (optimistic):

The above graphs depict the amount of agricultural land in the model's study area over the course of the simulation.

22

Water Policy & Water Shortage Policies for Phoenix Water Sim Input Scenarios

Water Shortage Policy Scenario 1: Pessimistic Scenario 2: Optimistic Fixed Residential GPCD Fixed Residential GPCD * Start Implementation: 2010 Start Implementation: 2020 * We had selected other options but found we could not impose fixed total or residential rates if we used them. So we decided to just use the options shown.

Water Shortage Policy (Residential) GPCD

Scenario 1: Pessimistic Scenario 2: Optimistic 75 GPCD 175 GPCD When looking at the most pessimistic scenario, we found that the amount of water that

would be saved would only equal out the amount of water that is being recharged into the

groundwater. That means that continuing the most pessimistic scenario; we would never

refill the groundwater to what it originally was. We chose the inputs for the scenario

based on the average of 170 gallons per capita per day. We reduced that by about 100

gallons to try and save as much as we could which results in a figure of 75 gpcd.

For the optimistic scenario, we chose to give about 175 gallons per capita per day.

This showed a steady increase in the depletion of the groundwater supply.

23

Water Shortage Policy (Total)

Scenario 1: Pessimistic Scenario 2: Optimistic 175 GPCD 275 GPCD

These were selected with the idea of conserving water by constraining total water use in

the Phoenix Metro area. Note that these levels mean that only 100 GPCD is available for

use on purposes other than residential consumption.

The amount of water needed for agriculture usage has been declining significantly

over recent years, but this policy would suggest that agriculture usage would be reduced

even more severely. In the pessimistic scenario agriculture water usage could only be as

high as 40% of the total, which is far lower than the current percentage of 55% around

2005.

24

Summary of Student Output Scenarios on water use in Phoenix from 2006 till 2030 Outputs Pessimistic Optimistic

This graph depicts the amount of water available from various sources based on the simulation.

This graph depicts the amount of water calculated to be demanded by various uses, subject to the availability of water from the sources.

This graph depicts the calculated accumulated change in groundwater since the starting year of the model simulation due to recharging and pumping.

25

This graph depicts the calculated commercial and residential water usage in gallons per person per day after taking into account water supply, water demand, and water policy.

Maricopa County Water Sources

(written by the original Colorado River Group) After reviewing the two scenarios, the graphs illustrate the drastic differences

between the two outputs. The first scenario shows the extreme increase in acre feet of

groundwater as well as the decrease in the Salt River Project and how the Central

Arizona Project perished. The second scenario exemplifies a steady and balanced output

with no severe changes. The Salt River Project, Central Arizona Project, and the

Groundwater remain stable throughout the given time period.

Maricopa County Water Uses

(written by the original Salt and Verde Rivers Group) When comparing the graphs, the data from the pessimistic graphs shows an increase in

the use of groundwater reserves. There is a usage of the full amount of residential water

and a reduction in the agricultural usage. The optimistic graph shows a steady plateau of

rising in the residential and an increase in the usage of water for commercial use. There

is a decrease of groundwater use and an overall recharge.

26

This shows that after a few years, there will be a steady increase of water usage

for the residential and a decrease in the usage of the water for the agriculture. After a few

years, the remaining water that was put aside for the residential is used for the recharge

and commercial water use.

Change in Groundwater Supply

(written by original Climate Change in AZ Group) The two scenarios for the outputs of groundwater both show opposing outcomes.

The most pessimistic scenario shows that by 2030 there will be a large increase due to the

dependency on groundwater. This is very unrealistic due to the understanding that only a

little bit more groundwater is going to have to be utilized since there will be a decrease in

surface water. 50 million-acre feet is an extreme exaggeration of how much groundwater

will need to be used. However, the output for scenario two looks more realistic. By

2030, the graph shows that if everything follows the projected outcome then there will be

about 20 million-acre feet of groundwater used. This seems realistic due to the fact that

in the upcoming years most of our water will be coming from groundwater but still with

some surface water.

Most Pessimistic Average

27

Gallons per Capita per Day (written by original Agriculture in AZ Group)

In the pessimistic scenario (Scenario 1), the gallons per capita per day dropped to

a mere total of 175, which is most certainly grim. In this case, the commercial use

appears to actually be greater than the residential use past the year 2010. Residential use

would be at an all time low of only 75 gallons per day, climbing down from over 200

before 2010. This scenario would be unrealistic in meeting the demands of the residential

areas, while probably not having a severe affect on commercial use.

In the second scenario, the more optimistic situation, the residential water use

would be about where it is now for some time, with a slight decrease around the year

2020. Residential gallons per capita per day would not get far below 200 gallons, and

once again the commercial use would remain fairly steady in comparison with past

decades. There would be much more water reserved for the residential use than

commercial, much like as has been in the past. The scenario would be much more

desirable than the first.

28

DISCUSSION: (written by the class, in class and recorded by the original Population Trends in AZ Group) We compared the change of the outputs for the pessimistic scenarios by replacing the

pessimistic scenarios with the optimistic scenarios, one input at a time; a form of

sensitivity analysis.

We found that the change in the flow of the Colorado River made a big difference in

available water resources for Maricopa County. There was more Central Arizona Project,

CAP, water available throughout the length of the forecast. In the pessimistic scenarios

the CAP was completely phased out as a water source after a few years. This change also

resulted in an increase in groundwater use.

The flow of the Salt and the Verde Rivers provided more water via the Salt River Project

to Maricopa County when the optimistic scenario inputs replaced the pessimistic values

for these rivers. Ground water use was decreased as well.

Replacing only the pessimistic climate forecast with the optimistic one, surprisingly

hardly made any change in the outputs.

29

When the optimistic population projection replaced the pessimistic forecast there was less

use of the Salt and the Verde rivers water as there would be fewer people in the county.

Also, there was reduced groundwater use.

When Agriculture was extended by replacing the pessimistic projection with the more

optimistic one, there was an increase in total water use and groundwater consumption.

We decided to see what the outputs would look like if the pessimistic scenario forecasts

were replaced with what the class thought would be the most likely future situation as

shown in the table below:

Most likely Input Scenarios

Year: 1970 Runoff: 80% Start: Now

Colorado River

End: 25 Years Year: 1950 Runoff: 50% Start: 2015

Salt and Verde Rivers

End: 25 Years Climate Change Most Pessimistic Population Growth Double Projected Growth Agriculture Phased out by 2040

Fixed Residential GPCD Start Implementation: 2020 Residential GPCD: 100

Water Shortage Policy

Total GPCD: 225 The impact of the most likely inputs, above, are compared with the Pessimistic Scenario

results in the charts below. The most likely outputs are on the right and the pessimistic

outputs are on the left . You will note that the there is little water use available from the

30

Salt River Project in either scenario, but there is a bit more in the most likely scenario.

There is more CAP water used throughout the latter. The use of groundwater is about the

same over the forecast period, but the annual changes differ.

The change in the date of limitation of Gallons per Capita per Day,GPCD, affects the

residential water use with a step change taking place in 2010 for the pessimistic scenario

and in 2020 in the most likely scenario. In the latter the total water use is higher as the

date for limitation is delayed compared to the pessimistic scenario.

There is slightly less use of groundwater in the most likely scenario. The GPCD changes

abruptly when the GPCD constraints are applied which is 10 years later in the most likely

scenario compared to the pessimistic scenario This results in higher water use over the

longer unconstrained period.

31

This graph depicts the amount of water available from various sources based on the simulation. Pessimistic Scenarios Most Likely Scenarios

This graph depicts the amount of water calculated to be demanded by various uses, subject to the availability of water from the sources.

32

This graph depicts the calculated accumulated change in groundwater since the starting year of the model simulation due to recharging and pumping.

This graph depicts the calculated commercial and residential water usage in gallons per person per day after taking into account water supply, water demand, and water policy.

33

CONCLUSIONS: (Written by the class, in class and recorded by the original Population Trends in AZ Group) In this study, pessimistic, optimistic and most likely forecasts were made of water inputs

to Maricopa county and via the WaterSim program the resulting outputs were obtained.

The water shortage policy, population growth rates, and the use of the Colorado River

water had the greatest affect on the outputs, which means that politicians in the future

have the opportunity to control the water future for Maricopa County. Animals and plants

which are dependent upon water will decrease as shortages are experienced. Surpisingly,

in these scenarios, climate change had little affect on the pattern of water availability and

use. In the WaterSim program, climate change only affects the Salt and the Verde Rivers,

and since they were already constrained by the selected inputs the amplitude of climate

change had little affect.

34

REFERENCES: 1. Water Sim, an ASU on-line program: http://watersim.asu.edu/ 2. Website for fall courses on Water Resources: http://cals.arizona.edu/swes/tucwater1/ 3. Layperson’s Guide to Arizona Water, prepared by the Water Education Foundation and The University of Arizona Water Resources Research Center. http://ag.arizona.edu/AZWATER/WRRC_Events_News/LPG/Layperson%27s_Guide_to_Arizona_Water.pdf AFTERWORD: This class nominally focuses on water resources in the Tucson Basin, as indicated by the class name. However, this semester we departed from that theme to take advantage of the Water Sim model for the Phoenix municipality. At present there is no equivalent model for the Tucson area, but hopefully there will be in the future. It was felt that an understanding of the future of water in the Phoenix area would give the students a solid background on which to better understand the situation in Tucson even though the two are not equivalent. JJRiley