WSP08666

• File Number: 8221.112.I
• Description: Central Arizona Project
• State: AZ
• Basin: Colorado Mainstem
• Date: 3/19/1982
• Title: Final Environmental Impact Statement: Water Allocations & Water Service Contracting - Central Arizona Project
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: EIS

00
(.:...'
c;o
C',l
(~:-
c Two M&I entities are estimated to have population effects in the
year 2034 under the allocation schemes. Under the No Action allocation
alternative, Apache Junction is estimated to experience a population decrease
of 22,747 below official population estimates. Palm Springs, under the same
a lternat i ve will not be able to support any of the popu1 ati on projected for
2034, and faces lesser population decreases under Allocation 3 and
Allocation 5.

Alternative allocation schemes for CAP deliveries were studied
for their effects upon the copper mining industry. Only the Kennecott
operation and the Phelps-Dodge operations will not have sufficient alternative
water supplies to avoid reducing production in 2005 and 2034 under Allocation
alternatives 1 and 5. However, based upon commuting data for workers from the
Kennecott operation, an insignificant number of workers reside in
potentially-affected communities.

3. Non-Indian Agricultural Users

In 1981 the DWR recommended CAP water allocations for 23
irrigation districts or individual farmers. The No Action alternative, based
on developed lands having a recent history of irrigation (1958-1968) would
provi de water to 11 other users. In January 1982, the DWR made revi sed
agricultural recommendations and the U. S. Forest Service was added, making a
total of 35 entities considered in this EIS, ranging in size from 90 acres to
over 150,000 acres.

The alternative allocations (other than No Action) are expressed
as percentages of water available to non-Indian agriculture, which vary with
the Indian and M&I allocations. In addition there would be differences in
water deliveries because of the different priorities and water sharing formulas
during times of declared water supply shortage.

Since CAP water would be used as a substitute for ground water,
no changes in land use or other impacts are expected as a direct result of the
non-Indian agricultural allocations. However, differences in allocations to
M&I users can lead to farmland retirement within agricultural districts (see
Table 2 and Appendix F.). There will also be some impacts on fish and
wildlife, as well as land use, as irrigation delivery facilities such as canals
and laterals are constructed to deliver CAP water to these entities.

To deliver CAP water to the 23 current non-Indian agricultural
app 1 i cants probably only ei ght new canal systems wi 11 need to be constructed.
Therefore, significant loss of fish and wildlife habitat is not expected.

Basically the same holds true for the non-current app1 icants.
Of II non-current applicants, at most only two will have to construct
additional pipelines for CAP deliveries. This means only a minor loss of
wildlife habitat.

,;~~~
~t6'

16