Laserfiche WebLink
<br />OC: <br />c: <br />r- <br />C'1 <br /> <br />be repaid as provided for in a contract between the United States and the <br />Central Arizona Water Conservation District. These repayment costs range from <br />a high of $1,537,970,000 under the No Action Alternative to a low of <br />$1,353,290,000 under the Andrus Modified for Indian Use. For the Proposed <br />Action this repayment cost is $1,376,650. The repayment obligation costs for <br />Indian use (which will be deferred under the Leavitt Act) range from a low of <br />$139,970,000 under the No Action Alternative to a high of $336,330,000 under <br />the Andrus Modified for Indian Use. For the Proposed Action the repayment cost <br />for Indian use is $320,790,000. <br /> <br />A second economic impact which varies with each alternative is <br />the cost of ground-water pumping. The specific cost of ground-water <br />production is a function of a number of independent variables and its <br />quantification is beyond the scope of this document. Current production costs <br />vary between $17 and $65 per acre-foot and these costs will increase as the <br />depth to ground water increases and energy costs increase. <br /> <br />4. Water Quality <br /> <br />The CAP water from the Colorado River is generally expected to <br />be of better quality than the existing sources of ground water. The <br />deliverable CAP water is assumed to be similar to current quality of the <br />Colorado River at Parker Dam. The average salinity for the period of <br />October 1963 to September 1976 was 732 milligrams per liter (mg/l). <br /> <br />The majority of CAP water is expected to be used for <br />irrigation. In many cases, ground water below irrigated lands is higher in <br />total dissolved solids than that expected from CAP. <br /> <br />Concentrations of total dissolved solids (TDS) , or salinity, <br />and hardness are the principal concerns of CAP municipal and industrial water <br />users. The recormnended 1 imit for sa 1 i nity is 500 mg/l based on U. S. Pub 1 i c <br />Health Service (U.S.P.H.S. 1962). Waters that contain more than 1000 mg/l, <br />however, do not constitute a health hazard. The Arizona Department of Health <br />Service (ADHS) has proposed a recommended secondary standard of 600 mg/l. <br /> <br />Water qual ity records are inadequate in many of the ground <br />water basins in the CAP service area, precluding effective evaluation of all <br />possible historic ground water trends. <br /> <br />':.;~' :. <br />,,'.'..... <br />~:,.~;:~... <br /> <br />In general, the metropolitan Phoenix area lying within the <br />boundaries of the Salt River Project (SRP) relies on surface water. This <br />source has an average TDS of less than 500 mg/l and is supplemented as needed <br />with more saline ground water. <br /> <br />Tucson re 1 i es tota 11y on ground water for its pub 1 i c water <br />supply. Water of a quality suitable for drinking is found in over 50 percent <br />of the ground water in the Tucson area. <br /> <br />The future effects from CAP importation on public water supply <br />will be a general increase in TDS and hardness. Each municipality must decide <br />to blend or treat accordingly. The benefits of CAP water (offsetting <br /> <br />I,::~'k.:" <br />v,c. <br /> <br />6 <br />