WSP09378 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

o 0 9'111'i " groundwater than can be replaced by nature. Depleting groundwater supplies cause serious problems. In many parts of the state, areas of land once supported by ground- water are slowly sinking and cracking as the water is withdrawn. This results in economic damage to buildings, roads and agri- cultural fields. In addition, deeper wells must be' drilled to reach the water, raising the costs of pump- ing and reducing the quali- ty of the water. Clearly a source was needed as a substitute for groundwater. One main purpose of the , CAP is to help Arizona . conserve its groundwater supplies by importing sur- face water from the Colorado River, a supply that is renewed yearly by rainfall and snowmelt. CAP solves about 60 per- cent of the current ground- water overdraft problem. CAP water is not intended to increase overall water usage. It is designed to be a sUDstitute for groundwater. Conservation still will be necessary to solve the state's groundwater deple- tion problems. The state's groundwater code set up a framework and established three main goals inclu<jing: reducing the severe overdraft prob- lem in several parts of the state, providing a means to allocate the state's limited groundwater resources to most effectively meet the changing needs of the state and augmenting Arizona's groundwater through water supply development. This code provides for the comprehensive, practical and economical manage- ment of the state's groundwater resources in Arizona's most heavily used aquifers. The goal of ensuring a dependable water supply for Arizonans is not easily achieved. Problems can impede progress. In January 1992, Arizona Governor Fife Symington appointed a 16-member task force to address the underutilization of the Colorado River supply available to Arizona. A variety of adverse condi- tions have prevented the CAP from operating at full capacity. From 1985 through 1990, CAP water deliveries steadily increased each year. However, in 1991 there was a sharp decline in requests for CAP water. Deliveries fell from 745,000 acre-feet in 1990 to 420,000 acre-feet in 1991. While municipal and industrial uses experienced marginal declines, agricul- tural volumes reduced'dra- matically. Part of the cause was the unhealthy financial condition of many agricul- tural users. This is a situa- tion that may be Com- pounded in the future by a worsening of that condition.' Agricultural' users are faced . with relatively high costs of CAP water that reflect the capital and production debt burden of irrigation dis- tricts, and the fixed and variable operation, mainte- nance and replacement (OM&R) costs related to delivery of water through the main CAP system. In the face of relatively high fixed CAP costs, the task force set out to review the issues affecting the use of CAP water and to develop recommendations that could increase use of that supply. It was thought that this would benefit not only current water manage- CRWUA ment programs in Arizona, but would further assure the long-term security of Arizona's Colorado River entitlement. In the task force discus- sions, issues were catego- rized by water use sectors such as non-Indian agricul- ture, municipal and indus- trial (M&I), and Indian. For each sector, historic and projected CAP use was evaluated and impedi- ments to increased CAP uses were determined. The task force concluded that the state's Colorado River entitlement was not in jeopardy even though its . full portion was not used. The entitlement was intended to be permanent and not subject to the "use-it-or-lose-it"'- doctrine. 'The 2.8 million acre-foot entitlement has been rec- ognized by the Secretary of Interior, confirmed by the United States Supreme Court and ratified by Congress. In the task force's report to Governor Symington, Arizona was described as having both a legal and equitable right to enforce its Colorado River entitlement against all oth- ers and to be secure that its entitlement may not be diminished. The governor's task force on Central Arizona Project issues held 11, meetings before issuing its , final report. Major recom- mendations in the final report included: 1. At the present time, the state of Arizona should not consider leasing or sell- ing Colorado River water to another state. Task force members believed that leasing Colorado River supplies out of state at this time would create legal, political and eco- nomic risks that either are too great or not fully understood, 2. The CAP agricultural subcontracts should be amended to allow market- ing of CAP agricultural pri- ority water for more than one year if certain condi- tions are met. 3, Agricultural and municipal and industrial users should exploreoppor- tunities to restructure CAP related debts of irrigation districts. ' 4. The Phoenix Active . Management Area Ground- water Replenishment District should be formed to ensure the long-term use of CAP water by municipal and industrial water users in the Phoenix metropolitan area. Also, a permanent regional water authority should be established in the Tucson Active Management Area. 5. Resolution of Indian' water rights claims through settlement will help ensure full use of CAP supplies. 6. The Secretary of Interior should not declare the CAP complete until - C outstanding issues regarding project completion and repayment are resolved. Arizona is facing a time. , of challenges in resolving its . water issues. But challenges also present opportunities , "to improve- to the greatest extent practical the balance between the uses of water ' and the available supply, so that the future of the s.late might not be limited by a scarcity of one of the most basic of human needs." , (Excerpts taken from "The Central Arizona Project: 1918-1968," by Rich Johnson, 1977), ",,:; , ~ c, A~.NA , A-hj~ ....;;. __-~,_-..,;;C,-~:~ _..