WSP00384

• File Number: 8221.112
• Description: Central Arizona Project
• State: AZ
• Basin: Colorado Mainstem
• Date: 3/22/1989
• Title: Plan 6 Update: Regulatory Storage Division-Central Arizona Project
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

,
tx)
r.
,
~~

~.~. ,

the SOD team will re-examine ways to
include flood control in the SOD
solutions and revisions will be made to
the draft Amendment.

t"

VERDE RIVER FLOOD CONTROL
REPLACEMENT STUDY

Prior to initiation of the safety of dams
study and prior to the deletion of Cliff
Dam, Reclamation began a review of the
flood control needs on the Verde River.
This review was prompted by new flood
insurance maps of the Salt River produced
by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency. The review determined that a
reduction in the 100-year floodplain of
the Salt River was significant enough
tha t a reanalysis of the Plan 6 flood
control benefits was warranted.

IIi th assistance from the Corps of
Engineers, Reclamation examined the need
to incorporate flood control measures
with the alternative safety of dams
solutions on the Verde River. Two
options were developed, both involving
flood control storage at Bartlett Dam.
Although the costs for adding flood
control at Horseshoe and Bartlett Dams
were identical, flood control storage at
Horseshoe was eliminated because of a
greater potential for environmental
impacts at the Horseshoe Reservoir. The
results of the initial investigation
indica te that the costs for including
flood control would exceed the benefits;
however, Reclamation is continuing to
examine various design modifications to
determine whether or not there is a more
inexpensive way to provide flood ,contr~l
along the Verde River. A report on Verde
River Flood Control will be available for
public review in Spring 1989.

CLIFF DAM REPLACEMENT
IIATER SUPPLY STUDY

Cliff would have developed a 30,000 acre-
foot water supply for which the Valley
cities have been making advanced
contributions. Under the authority of
the 1988 Energy and lIater Appropriations

Act, Reclamation began to identify and
evalua te al terna t i ve sources to
purchase and deliver 30,000 acre-feet
of water rights.

The planning program began wi th the
creation of an in-house technical team.
The team met with the Valley ci ties,
water users, irrigation districts, and
the Central Arizona lIater Conservation
District to obtain their ideas on where
Reclamation might find 30,000 acre-feet
of water rights in Arizona that could
be leased, purchased or exchanged. By
June 1988, six willing sellers of
property and water rights had submitted
proposals and three more alternatives
were recommended by the cities and
staff from Reclamation.

Four proposals were located in LaPaz
County: The Cibola Valley Irrigation
and Drainage District; the Renegras
Plains area near Vicksburg; Tribal
lands within the Colorado River Indian
Reservation; and Butler Valley. Three
proposals were located in Maricopa
County: Painted Rock Ranch; Paloma
Ranch; and the I-lO Ranch in Harquahala
Valley. One of the proposals involved
the purchase of pri va tely-owned lands
in the Central Arizona Irrigation and
Drainage District in Pinal County, and
one proposal was submitted for lands in
the Chino Valley in Yavapai County.

1I0rking with the Valley cities, staff
from Reclamation developed information
on potential issues and identified the
following criteria which would be used
to formulate and evaluate the potential
water supply sources: lIater Quantitv;
lIater Qualitv; Reliabilitv; Costs;
Le~al Issues; Environmental Impacts:
and Socioeconomic Impacts resulting
from water rights transfers.

The team then focused on 4 categories:
Colorado River water under contract;
Colorado River water not under
contract; declined CAP agricultural
water; ground-water pumping from
private, and/or Federal lands near CAP.

3