My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP03088
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
3001-4000
>
WSP03088
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:48:34 PM
Creation date
10/11/2006 11:32:12 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8221.112
Description
Central Arizona Project
State
AZ
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Date
12/23/1980
Title
News Articles/Press Releases: 1981-1985
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
News Article/Press Release
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
26
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />L'j <br />~ <br />r:.. <br />M <br /> <br />"'~,'" <br />"'i4;) <br /> <br />ell <br /> <br />,"-'. <br />-._" <br /> <br />"- <br /> <br />surface supply of irrigation water through the San Carlos Project; and (3) their <br />proportion of the Indian irrigation allocation (68 percent) allows substantial <br />flexibility in management of water supplies. <br /> <br />State priorities for allocations ,to non-Indian users will be considered as the <br />proposed action and the State should be requested to submit any remaining <br />modifications to their previous recommendations. <br /> <br />Central Arizona Water Control Study <br /> <br />I have concluded that the Bureau of Reclamation should begin without delay to <br />prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Regulatory Storage <br />Division, CAP. The EIS should identify the CAWCS Plan 6 as the agency proposed <br />action (New Waddell, Cliff, Roosevelt, and Reconstructed Stewart Mountain Dams), <br />and should also analyze in detail Plans 1, 2, 3, and 7 as required by NEPA, <br /> <br />The logic for selection of Plan 6 as the proposed action is the strong local <br />support, the functional ability to meet statutory obligations required by <br />authorizing legislation, and the fact that impacts on the Fort McDowell Indian <br />Tribe are avoided. <br /> <br />Tucson Aqueduct <br /> <br />The capacity, ruuting, and terminus of the Tucson Aqueduct are influenced by <br />future needs and associated water allocations, the ability to provide regulatory <br />storage, energy use and availability, and cost. Other influences include <br />statutory obligations, functional relationships with the CAP, and environmental <br />impacts. <br /> <br />Advance planning studies for the Tucson Aqueduct began in 1978. In 1980, the <br />studies were divided into two phases: Phase A and Phase B. Phase A consists <br />of alternative plans for pumping and conveyance facilities from the terminal <br />end of the Salt Gila Aqueduct to a site near the City of Rillito. Phase B <br />will consist of alternative plans to extend water service to the City of Tucson <br />and beyond. <br /> <br />Advance planning for Phase A is nearing completion and a draft Environmental <br />Impact Statement has been prepared for public review. Upon completion of public <br />review and filing of the Final Environmental Impact Statement with the U.S. <br />Environmental Protection Agency, advance planning will be complete and a <br />decision can be made with respect to Phase A. <br /> <br />Preliminary alternatives have been identified for Phase B and consist of five <br />mainstem aqueduct routes from Rillito to Green Valley, five large storage sites, <br />and feeder pipelines to connect the aqueduct and storage alternatives. Terminal <br />sites for Phase B include Green Valley, the south boundary of the San Xavier <br />Indian Reservation, Southwest Tucson, and Northwest Tucson. The five alternative <br />routes are geographically contained within two corridors, <br /> <br />3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.