Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ <br />~1 <br />00 <br />~. <br />~ <br />!~ <br /> <br />d. Water Resources <br /> <br />All three aqueduct alternatives would have a highly beneficial <br />effect on regional water resources and lessen the land subsidence and earth <br />fissuring caused by past ground water mining. Delivery of CAP water would also <br />enhance the 1980 Ground Water Management Act goals of preserving agriculture <br />in the Pinal active management area for as long as feasible, and balancing <br />ground water withdrawal and recharge in the Tucson area, <br /> <br />Each of the three routes would intersect numerous ephemeral <br />surface-water drainages, which would have to be directed across the aqueduct <br />by culverts or overchutes. Others would have to be consolidated by diking and <br />redirected to a common cross-drainage structure. <br /> <br />All three canal a1inements would be subject to loss of water by <br />evaporation and seepage. An estimated 400 to 900 acre-feet of water per year <br />would be lost to evaporation and as much as 7,500 acre-feet to seepage. <br /> <br />e. Geology <br /> <br />None of the alternatives would affect the geology of the <br />Region; however, all three a1inements cross areas of land subsidence, and <br />Alternatives 2 and 3 cross areas of earth fissuring. Special designs will be <br />required in these areas and there is the risk of leakage and increased O&M <br />costs if fissured or subsided areas should cause the canal to crack. <br /> <br />f. Air Quality <br /> <br />Constructing the canal would temporarily increase the amount of <br />suspended particulates in the air. Contractors would be required to implement <br />measures, such as watering, to reduce this dust nuisance, <br /> <br />g. Sound Quality <br /> <br />Construction noise would temporarily annoy rural residents and <br />disturb wildlife. Routes 2 and 3 would require some blasting, although not <br />near rural residences. Route 2 may require blasting near the BLM WSA, which <br />would disturb wildlife and outdoor recreationists. <br /> <br />h, Lands <br /> <br />Routes 2 and 3 pass through a pecan orchard, Route 2 would <br />eliminate 65 acres of the orchard, and Route 3 would disturb 40 acres of the <br />orchard during construction and permanently eliminate 10 acres of it. Up to <br />5,435 acres of desert grazing lands would be lost to the canal right-of-way. <br />Tax revenues would be lost on a maximum of 254 acres of private property which <br />must be acquired. <br /> <br />i. Recreation <br /> <br />Route 2 would block some access points on <br />Picacho Mountains, Detour crossings would be required. <br />have no impact on recreation. <br /> <br />the west side of the <br />Routes 1 and 3 would <br /> <br />v <br />