|
<br /> -----------
<br />0
<br />r- TABLE 1
<br />'-
<br />00 PROJECTED CAP WATER DELIVERIES (1985-2034) l!
<br />c-:
<br />c ALTERNATIVE ALLOCATIONS OF CAP WATER
<br />c:
<br /> Water Deliveries Total Y
<br />Alternative Indian Use M&I
<br />1. No Action 5,763 14,025 45,944 65,732
<br />2. Kleppe 11,153 19,3B4 33,891 64,428
<br />3. Andrus 13 ,505 16,631 34,337 64,473
<br />4. Andrus-M&I '}j
<br /> CAP w/o effl. exch. 13,284 20,093 31,295 64,672
<br /> Effl. exchange -CAP 3,415 +CAP 550Y +CAP 2,865
<br /> Total CAP 9,869 20,643 34,160 64,672
<br /> + Effl. 4,268
<br /> Total Water 14,137
<br />5. Andrus-Indian 13,803 17,377 33,382 64,562
<br />6. Proposed Action 18 , 964~/
<br /> CAP w/o Effl. exch. 13,350 32,334 64,648
<br /> Effl. exchange -CAP 3,728 +CAP 615Y +CAP 3,113
<br /> Total CAP 9,622 19,579 35,447 64,64B
<br /> +Effl . 4,693
<br /> Total Water 14,315
<br />
<br />11 The proj~cted deliveries are a function of the Colorado River water
<br />availability estimates and local surface water inflow evaluated by means
<br />of a CAP monthly water budget operations computer model (see
<br />Chapter II.A.Z.).
<br />
<br />y
<br />The allocation alternatives not only vary the formula by which the water
<br />is divided among the many users but also vary the total amount of water
<br />that can be delivered. This is because the CAP operations model is
<br />constrained by aqueduct capacities, reservoir capacities, monthly demand
<br />schedules, and the geographic location of each user with respect to the
<br />CAP system.
<br />
<br />11 The effect of the effluent exchange is also a function of the Colorado
<br />River water availability estimates and local surface water inflows. The
<br />total amount of CAP water relinquished by the Indian tribes and the
<br />distribution of the relinquished water among M&I and non-Indian agricul-
<br />tural users is signHicantly affected by the date of initial onset of
<br />shortage conditions, the magnitude of the M&I allocation at the time that
<br />Shortage conditions begin, and the duration of continuous shortage
<br />conditions.
<br />
<br />~I Increased CAP deliveries occurring to the M&I sector from treated effluent
<br />exchanges would be shared by 8 identified contributors of effluent (Chandler.
<br />Glendale, Litchfield Park, Mesa, Phoenix. Scottsdale, Sun City, and Tempe.
<br />
<br />~I Assumes water deliveries in early.years based on need for prOjected population
<br />size. This figure would increase if M&I entities exercise their right to take
<br />greater amounts of CAP water (up to their maximum allocation) 1n early project
<br />years.
<br />
<br />fl IncreaSed CAP del iveries occutrinQ to the M&I sector from treated effluent
<br />exchanges would be shared pro-rata by all M&I allottees, according to Arizona OWR
<br />recommended M&I allocations, January 18, 1982.
<br />
<br />€:~i
<br />
<br />8
<br />
|