1

ContentsThe Layperson’s Guide to Arizona Water isprepared and distributed by the WaterEducation Foundation and The University ofArizona’s Water Resources Research Centeras a public information tool. It is part of aseries of Layperson’s Guides that explorepertinent water issues in an objective, easy-to-understand manner.

The mission of the Water Education Foun-dation, an impartial, nonprofit organization,is to create a better understanding of waterissues and help resolve water resourceproblems through educational programs.

The mission of The University of Arizona’sWater Resources Research Center is topromote understanding of critical state andregional water management and policyissues through research, community out-reach and public education.

Directors: Rita Schmidt Sudman, Water Education FoundationSharon B. Megdal, Water Resources Research Center

Editor: Sue McClurg, Water Education Foundation

Writers: Gary Pitzer, Water Education FoundationSusanna Eden, Water Resources Research CenterJoe Gelt, Water Resources Research Center

Editorial Assistance: Robin Richie, Water Education Foundation

Design: Curtis Leipold, Graphic Communications

Photo Credits: Arizona Department of Water ResourcesArizona State ArchivesArizona Office of TourismCentral Arizona ProjectCline LibraryKingman Daily MinerCity of MesaSalt River ProjectU.S. Bureau of Reclamation

Map: Water Resources Research Center and Arizona NEMO

On the Cover:The Central Arizona Project canal winds through Scottsdale.

Introduction 2

Background 4

Chronology 9

Surface Water Development 10

Groundwater 13

Rural Water Issues 16

Indian Water 18

Water Quality 19

Environmental Issues 22

Stretching Supplies 24

Summary 27

Water Education Foundation717 K Street, Suite 317Sacramento, CA 95814Phone: (916) 444-6240Fax: (916) 448-7699Internet: www.watereducation.org

Water Resources Research CenterCollege of Agriculture and Life SciencesThe University of Arizona350 North Campbell AvenueTucson, AZ 85721Phone: (520) 792-9591Fax: (520) 792-8518Internet: http://ag.arizona.edu/AZWATER

ISBN: 1-893246-22-1

Published 2007

IntroductionA precious resource everywhere, water has shapedmuch of Arizona’s past and present, and water willcertainly figure prominently in Arizona’s future.

From the Tohono O’odham’s rain ritual to theelaborate irrigation canals built by the Hohokam andthe Snake Dance rain ritual of the Hopi, securing alife-sustaining water supply has been an integralpart of life in what is now Arizona for thousands ofyears. From ancient times to the present, capturing

and moving waterhas enabled peopleliving in Arizona’ssemi-arid climate tosurvive and flourish.

As elsewhere in theSouthwest, Arizona’swater story is largelyabout moving waterfrom where it origi-nates to where it isneeded by a thirstyhuman population.Large-scale waterdiversion occurred inArizona with thedevelopment of theSalt River Projectand Central ArizonaProject; however,Arizona’s history hasalso been marked byreliance on ground-water and localizedimpoundment anddiversion of surfacewater.

More than a thou-sand years ago, theHohokam Indiansbuilt miles of irriga-tion ditches with

stone hoes to bring water to their crops in the SaltRiver Valley. Archeologists’ estimates vary, but it isgenerally agreed that this ancient civilizationflourished with as many as 250,000 inhabitants atits peak. Some 200,000 acres were irrigated by anetwork of 185 miles of canals.

Today, Arizona uses about 8 million acre-feet, or 2.3trillion gallons, of water each year. Approximately 75percent of that water goes to agriculture, the rest toresidents and industry. The state’s major surfacewater resources include the Colorado River, as well

as the Salt, Verde, Gila, San Pedro, Bill Williams,Santa Cruz, Little Colorado and Agua Fria rivers.Surface water provides 54 percent of water used inthe state. The state’s other major source of watercan be found in vast groundwater aquifers that pro-vide about 43 percent of its water supply. (Recycledwater, which is wastewater treated to suitable reusestandards, comprises 3 percent of the Arizona’swater supply and its use is growing.)

Estimates of total groundwater in the state range ashigh as 900 million acre-feet – a seemingly endlesssupply. But estimates of total groundwater saynothing about how much water is really available,which depends on location, depth and quality.Arizona’s groundwater accumulated during hundredsof thousands of years before humans developed thetechnology to pump it, and Arizona has historicallypumped more water from the ground than naturecan recharge through rain and snowmelt.

As important as water has been so far in Arizona, itsvalue is likely to grow in the future as a changingclimate – including the distinct possibility of long-term droughts – combined with increasing residen-tial demands will require water planners to devisenew ways to stretch limited supplies and to carefullymanage the state’s water resources. With nearly 1million new residents in the state in the past fiveyears, and with population projections of as manyas 9.5 mill ion people by 2025, serious newchallenges await.

One of those challenges is ensuring enough wateris allocated for environmental purposes, given themany demands for riparian restoration and maintain-ing habitat for endangered species.

A surge of residential development in Arizona’s ruralregions has created challenges as state and localofficials seek to balance economic viability withthe necessities of groundwater management andlocal control. The stakes are high in the debate,where questions abound regarding the availabilityof water to sustain the wave of new homes that isenvisioned.

This Layperson’s Guide provides an overview ofArizona’s complex and evolving water story – itshistory as well as the state’s future challenge ofproviding water from a limited supply to a rapidlygrowing population – and some of the uniquemanagement strategies Arizona has developed toprotect and extend its most precious resource. It ispart of a series of guides published by the WaterEducation Foundation.

2

For long stretches, many ofArizona’s rivers are drychannels that flow only

when it rains, while somehave year-round flows andnurture important riparian

ecosystems.

3

Background

The topic of water often begins with rain. Arizona’sthree distinct geographic regions have dramaticallydifferent rainfall: average annual rainfall ranges from3 inches in Yuma to over 36 inches in the higherelevations along the Mogollon Rim and in the WhiteMountains.

The Sonoran Desert, famous for the stately Saguaroand harsh, dry climate, is home to the majority ofArizona’s population. Annual rainfall in this regionranges between 3 and 15 inches. Both Tucson andPhoenix lie within this region, and receive an annualaverage 11 and 7.5 inches of rain respectively, withmuch of it falling during the summer monsoons fromJuly through September. The Lower Colorado Riverregion of the Sonoran Desert receives even less rain,an average of 5 inches each year. The lowest, driestplace in the state is Yuma – at an elevation of 140feet and located on the eastern bank of the ColoradoRiver – it receives a scant 3.4 inches annually.

This desert landscape was formed over millions ofyears. The geologic setting is represented by wide,gently sloping plains cut at intervals by small, steeplyrising mountain ranges. During hundreds ofthousands of years, runoff from the mountains hascarried sediments, eventually filling the valleys,thousands of feet thick in some areas. The waterpercolating down through this porous soil filled theancient aquifers that now lie under the desert floor.Protecting these groundwater resources is the focusof much of Arizona’s current water managementstrategy.

In north central Arizona, the rugged mountain rangewith the Mogollon Rim as its distinctive northernboundary defines the state’s mountainous region.Upwards of 25 to 30 inches of precipitation fall eachyear in this range, much of it as snow. Snow isimportant for water management because it storeswater, free of charge and without human effort,through the winter. It melts in the spring, providingrunoff to the state’s river systems.

Just north of the Mogollon Rim lies the 5,000 to7,000-foot Colorado Plateau with the majestic, 5,000-foot deep Grand Canyon carved into the landscape.The Grand Canyon was formed about 6 million yearsago through the erosive forces of water – both fromthe Colorado River and runoff from rain and meltingsnow. The Painted Desert and Petrified NationalForest are located in this awe-inspiring region of thestate, and atop the Colorado Plateau stand thestate’s highest mountain peaks: Humphreys at12,655 feet and Mount Baldy at 11,590 feet. Duringwet years these towering giants receive amplerainfall and wintertime snow.

At 113,909 square miles, Arizona is the sixth largeststate in the union, and despite its relatively drynature, it contains 28 major rivers. For long stretches,many of these rivers are dry channels that flow onlywhen it rains; while some, like the Little Colorado,Verde, Bill Williams, San Pedro, White and Blackrivers, have significant, year-round flows and nurtureimportant riparian ecosystems.

GEOGRAPHY AND WATER

4

The Grand Canyon

WATER RIGHTS

In Arizona, allocation of surface water is determinedby the “doctrine of prior appropriation,” otherwiseknown as “first in time, first in right.” Those who putthe water to use first are senior water rights holdersand those who come later hold junior rights. If ajunior user is upstream from a senior user, the junioruser must leave enough water in the stream to fulfillthe senior user’s rights.

Water law in Arizona is different from the Spanishand English canon that preceded it. Spanish waterlaw was well established by the time it wasexported to the Americas and a key tenant wasthat water could only be allocated to an individualafter sufficient supplies had been establishedfor the community. English water law, whichevolved in a part of the world with high humidityand ample rainfall, was based almost solely onriparian rights, which means the water runningthrough an individual’s property is theirs to use,within certain l imits. Water law in the Westdeveloped in the context of these quite differenthistorical influences until the late 1840s and theCalifornia Gold Rush.

Miners moved water from streams to use onnearby mountains and hillsides, and it was theseearly diversions that led to the development ofappropriative rights, with two major differencesfrom the riparian rights system. First, an individualdid not have to own the land adjacent to a river toget a right to the water – water could be takenfrom the river to a distant point of use. Second,the date the right was established became impor-tant. Disputes over water inevitably arose, andminers decided that first-come, first-served was afair rule to apply.

As farmers settled the West and the mining dayswaned, irrigators became the primary users ofwater, and they too transported it from streams totheir fields, adopting the water laws establishedduring the mining days.

Prior appropriation was officially written into law inArizona when it was still a territory in 1864 underthe Howell Code. In 1888, the rule was upheldby the Arizona Territorial Supreme Court in Cloughv. Wing. The Arizona Constitution further clarifiedthe state’s adherence to the prior appropriationdoctrine by stating, “The common law doctrine ofriparian rights shall not obtain or be of force oreffect in the State.”

Today, the Arizona Department of Water Resources(DWR) manages a water permit program that recordssurface water rights, including the rights establishedbefore adoption of the Howell Code. Although a greatmany individual surface water permits exist, most ofthe state’s surface water iscontrolled by a relatively smallnumber of public and semi-publicorganizations.

About 30 years ago a processwas initiated aimed at resolvingall the water rights on an entireriver system, a judicial processcalled a general stream adjudica-tion. Two major adjudications areongoing: the Little Colorado Riverand the Gila River. The Little Colo-rado River adjudication concernsthe claims of 3,100 water usersin northeastern Arizona. The GilaRiver adjudication encompassesthe Gila River watershed, includ-ing the watersheds of the Salt,Verde, Agua Fria, San Pedro andSanta Cruz rivers, where morethan 85 percent of Arizona’s popu-lation lives. It contains 83,500claims by more than 24,000claimants and has been ongoingsince 1979. Because of thecomplexity and number of claims,resolution is not expected for many years.

While most surface water in the state has beenappropriated, a new contender for official water rightshas emerged – the environment. In 1990, DWRissued its first “instream” flow permit, which grantedthe right to keep water in a stream to support fishand other wildlife habitat to The Nature Conservancyof Arizona for Ramsey and O’Donnell creeksin Southeastern Arizona. The groundbreakingdecision granted instream rights of up to 2,856 acre-feet of water in Ramsey Creek, a perennial streambounded by canyon walls that provides a moist,cool and stable environment for five major bioticcommunities.

DWR’s legal authority to approve such rights waschallenged when Phelps Dodge objected to the U.S.Forest Service’s application on behalf of the TontoNational Forest for instream flow rights to CherryCreek, a tributary of the Salt River above Roosevelt

5

Arizona miners circa 1890

In its Water Atlas, DWR defines the water uses forwhich it collects data as “cultural demand” to distin-guish them from instream uses of water, such as forsupport of fish and riparian ecosystems.

The largest cultural use of water is by agriculture –approximately 75 percent or about 5.8 million acre-feet per year. Agriculture’s share of water use hasbeen declining during the past 30 years from itspeak of more than 8 million acre-feet in 1976, butsome areas of the state have seen much largerdecreases than others. The largest long-termdeclines overall have come in central and south-

east Arizona due to urbanization. Farms along theLower Colorado and Gila rivers have continued touse an average of 3 million acre-feet of water peryear to produce cotton, citrus, other fruits andvegetables, grain and alfalfa hay.

Industry uses about 5 percent of the state’s totalwater. Water use for mining is substantial in someareas of the state. Arizona is the nation’s leadingproducer of copper, responsible for about 60 percentof total U.S. mine production. The state also is aleading producer of molybdenum, sand and graveland gemstones.

WATER USES

Dam. In 2005, the Arizona Court of Appeals heldthat DWR does have the right to issue instream flowpermits, and in March 2006, the Arizona SupremeCourt upheld the decision.

To date, the state has issued 28 certificates tovarious agencies and organizations for instreamflows, with junior rights based on the date theapplications were filed. Some environmentalorganizations are working to acquire senior appro-priative rights and convert them to instream rightsthat retain the senior priority.

It wasn’t until 1933 that the state defined andestablished a set of laws governing groundwater

rights. In simple terms, groundwater can be used bythe person whose land covers it. This law, based onthe common law doctrine of “reasonable use,”perpetuated the assumption that groundwater andsurface water were physically separate systems. Butin many cases, groundwater and surface water areconnected. In these locations, groundwater pumpingcan significantly diminish above-surface stream flow;conversely, extensive upstream surface waterdiversions can reduce the recharge of downstreamaquifers. The Groundwater Management Act (GMA)of 1980 substantially changed groundwater lawfor most people in Arizona and laid the foundation formanaging Arizona’s water resources in a coherentway (See page 13).

6

Hoover Dam

7

Power generation is a growing industry in the South-west and, on average, 1 kilowatt hour of electricityrequires about 25 gallons of water to produce. Wherepossible, Arizona power plant operators use salinegroundwater and recycled wastewater rather thanpotable supplies to generate electricity. For example,the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, locatedabout 50 miles west of Phoenix, uses about 20 billiongallons of treated wastewater from several areamunicipalities each year to meet its cooling waterneeds. Even so, about 30 percent of the water usedby Arizona power plants is potable groundwater.

Total municipal use is estimated at 20 percent or 1.6million acre-feet. Most of this water – 60 percent – isused outdoors to irrigate landscaping. In an effort toreduce outdoor irrigation water, many new homesand commercial buildings in Arizona are xeriscaped– landscaped with desert plants and little or no lawn.Conservation practices, such as desert landscaping,have reduced the average amount of water eachperson uses, but as population grows, so doesmunicipal water use. (See page 24.)

As with power producers, many golf courses inArizona irrigate with recycled water because the useof potable water on golf courses is considered waste-ful by some Arizonans. In some areas, the use ofgroundwater for new golf courses is prohibited.

Arizona, like the rest of the Southwest, is known forits fluctuating weather patterns and climatic extremes– severe regional floods or droughts are commonbut unpredictable. While modern climate recordshave only been kept for a little more than 100 yearsin northern Arizona, tree-ring data and otherpaleorecords extend climate information back morethan 1,000 years.

Flooding is an inevitable part of the water cycle andit is now recognized that a particularly wet periodfollowed a drought in the early 1900s. But the largestrecorded flood in Arizona history occurred February18-26, 1891 on the Salt River at Phoenix, where theriver became 2 to 3 miles wide with a flow of 300,000cubic feet-per-second.

During another wet period between October 1977and February 1980, seven regional floods occurred,affecting nearly the entire population of Arizona andcausing $80 million in damage. In December 1978,almost every river in Arizona overflowed its banks.

FLOODS AND DROUGHTS

When a dike on the Gila River in eastern Arizonabroke, the town of Duncan was inundated with 7 feetof water and 75 houses were destroyed.

In February 1980, a major storm dumped nearly a footof water in the upper portions of the watershed thatdrains into the Salt and Verde rivers. Coupled with thestored runoff from a wet winter, flows threatened tooverwhelm the capacity of the dams on the Salt River.Even though the dams held, flood-related damage inmetropolitan Phoenix exceeded $70 million.

Arizona’s most destructive flood occurred in October1983 when torrential rains caused flooding over theentire southeastern quarter of the state. Three thou-sand homes were damaged or destroyed, 10,000people were displaced and 13 people were killed.

The most extreme drought in the 20th centuryoccurred in the 1950s and the longest droughtrecorded in Arizona lasted for 76 months in the early1900s when rainfall averages fell statewide by

Agriculture usesapproximately 75 percentof the state’s water eachyear. Popular cropsinclude cotton, citrus,other fruits andvegetables, grain andalfalfa hay.

8

2 inches. The most extreme drought of the previ-ous millennium occurred in the 1500s; tree ringrecords indicate that the 1579 to 1600 drought inthe Colorado River Basin reduced the river’s flownearly a third. Since 2000, the Colorado River Basinhas experienced the driest eight-year period onrecord, reducing storage in the two major reser-voirs (Lakes Powell and Mead) to about 50 percentas of mid-2007.

Scientists and public officials are concerned thatwater in the Colorado River will run short muchsooner than previously predicted because of drought,booming population growth and the river’s over-allocated status. Water officials say there is a 25percent chance the river will not be able to meet allthe anticipated demands between 2020 and 2025.With that in mind, state managers have been bank-ing excess supplies of Colorado River water ingroundwater basins throughout central Arizona.

Given past climate variability, it is hard to know whatthe impacts of climate change might mean for theSouthwest’s future water supplies. Scientific researchhas found that during the 20th century, averagetemperatures in the Southwest rose by 2 to 3 degreesFahrenheit. Average temperatures are predicted torise as much as 9 degrees Fahrenheit or more duringthe 21st century, a magnitude of change as great asthe end of the Ice Age 10,000 years ago.

Global warming-induced climate change already isaltering climate patterns worldwide and the implica-tions for local and regional water supplies areuncertain. Higher precipitation during El Niño wintersand autumnal tropical cyclones could lead to greaterrecharge of local surface waters and aquifers.However, the warmer average surface and airtemperatures will result in less snow pack and causehigher rates of evaporation, which might lead to lesssurface and groundwater recharge.

Flooding along theSalt River in Maricopa

County, circa 1978

Chronology

1000 Hohokam and Anasazi build irrigationcanals in the Salt River Valley.

1528 Spanish arrive in Arizona.1821 Mexico achieves independence from Spain;

claims Arizona as its territory.1848 The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo ends U.S-

Mexican War. Texas, California and NewMexico – which then included Arizona northof the Gila River – are awarded to the U.S.

1852 Americans begin navigating the ColoradoRiver by steamer.

1853 Gadsden Purchase extends Arizonaboundary from the Gila River to the presentboundary.

1863 Congress declares Arizona a territory.1868 Salt River Valley Canal built atop remnants

of Hohokam canals.1869 John Wesley Powell explores Grand

Canyon.1892 The Kibbey Decision states that surface

water belongs to the land and is not aseparate commodity.

1902 U.S. Reclamation Service (later Bureau ofReclamation) established by the federalReclamation Act.

1903 Salt River Valley Water Users Associationformed to fund construction of RooseveltDam on the Salt River. It is the first multi-purpose reclamation project started underthe federal Reclamation Act.

1904 Construction begins on Roosevelt Dam onthe Salt River at confluence with TontoCreek.

1910 Kent Decree establishes the basis for waterrights in the Salt River Valley.

1911 Roosevelt Dam is completed.1912 Arizona becomes the 48th state on Feb. 14.1919 Grand Canyon National Park founded.1922 Colorado River Compact, signed in Santa

Fe, New Mexico, allocates 7.5 million acre-feet of water each to the upper and lowerbasins of the Colorado River.

1928 Boulder Canyon Project authorized byCongress allocates 2.8 million acre-feet ofwater to Arizona, 4.4 million acre-feet toCalifornia and 300,000 acre-feet to Nevada.

1935 Hoover Dam on the Colorado Riverdedicated by President Franklin D.Roosevelt.Arizona National Guard and militia units sentto Parker Dam construction site on theColorado River to protest future diversionsof water to California.

1944 Arizona Legislature ratifies the ColoradoRiver Compact.

U.S. and Mexico sign treaty allocating 1.5million acre-feet of Colorado River waterto Mexico.

1946 Central Arizona Project Association formed.1963 Arizona wins Supreme Court decision in

contest with California over share ofColorado River water. The decisionconfirms Arizona’s 2.8 million acre-feetallocation and clears way for constructionof the Central Arizona Project (CAP).

1964 Supreme Court decree ends 12 years oflitigation between California and Arizonaover the Colorado River.

1965 Upper and Lower Basin states reach agree-ment on Colorado River legislation.

1968 Colorado River Basin Project Act autho-rizes construction of CAP.

1969 National Environmental Policy Act enacted.1971 Central Arizona Water Conservation District

formed.1973 CAP construction begins.

Federal Endangered Species Act enacted.1980 Groundwater Management Act passed;

Active Management Areas (AMA) formed.1985 First CAP water flows through the Hayden-

Rhodes Aqueduct.1986 Arizona Environmental Quality Act passed;

Arizona Department of EnvironmentQuality created.

1987 Construction on New Waddell Dam begins.CAP deliveries begin on Santa Rosa Canalsection of project.

1988 Assured Water Supply program requiresdevelopers and water providers in AMAsto demonstrate a 100-year water supply.

1992 CAP completed; water delivered to Tucson.1993 Central Arizona Groundwater Replenish-

ment District (CAGRD) created.1995 Roosevelt Dam expansion completed,

raising the height of the dam to 357 feetand expanding the lake’s storage capacityby 20 percent.

1996 Arizona Water Banking Authority created.2000 Federal government and states adopt

Colorado River Interim Surplus Guidelines.2001 First year of extreme drought conditions in

Upper and Lower Colorado River Basins.First water stored for Nevada in Arizonagroundwater basins.

2003 California signs Colorado River waterdelivery agreement.

2004 Arizona Water Settlement Act enacted.2005 Lower Colorado River Multi-Species

Conservation Plan is adopted and funded.

9

John Wesley Powell

Franklin D. Roosevelt atHoover (Boulder) Damdedication

The Salt River Valley circa1900

Surface Water DevelopmentFrom its beginning, the story of Arizona water hasbeen one of adaptation. By the 1500s, the HohokamIndians abandoned large central settlements andcentralized water systems in the Salt River Valleynear present day Phoenix. Small groups dispersedthroughout the region. When Spanish explorersarrived in the region in the 1600s, they expandedthe use of small dams and ditches to support theirlivestock and domestic animals, and like theHohokam, they moved surface water throughcanals to irrigate their crops. Two centuries later,when the central Arizona gold rush brought settlersto the area, they found descendents of the Hohokamirrigating their fields along the Gila River.

In 1888 an ex-Confeder-ate cavalryman namedJack Swilling judged theHohokam canals worthyof resurrection and builtthe Swilling Irrigationand Canal Co. atopthese abandoned struc-tures. Other entrepre-neurs followed suit andsoon hundreds of milesof canals deliveredwater to a small, thrivingagricultural community.When drought broughtthis canal-building to anend and most settlershad fled to more hospi-table climes, the settlerswho remained focusedtheir efforts on develop-ing more extensivewater storage as a pro-tection against futuredroughts.

By the beginning of the20th century, numerouscanals wound throughthe landscape surround-ing the Phoenix area,delivering water to cropsand the burgeoningsettlement. Large-scalestorage facilities did notyet exist, however, and

settlers in the region realized that demand for waterwould soon outgrow the seasonal supply.

In 1903 a group of landowners formed the Salt RiverValley Water Users Association and in a collabora-

tive effort with the federal government began con-struction on the first major water storage facility inthe state. With funds available from the recentlypassed National Reclamation Act, the first Salt RiverProject (SRP) water storage facility was built,Roosevelt Dam. Begun in 1903, the dam wascompleted in 1911 at a cost of $10.3 million.Considered a technological marvel at the time, thedam stood 284 feet high, 184 feet thick at the baseand 16 feet wide at the crest. The 30-mile-long,4-mile-wide reservoir that formed behind the damheld enough water to serve the growing Phoenixarea for five years.

Roosevelt Dam was the first of a series of projectsthat would eventually store some 5 million acre-feet of surface water in reservoirs within the state.(The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation)controlled the dam and its irrigation systems until1917 when the SRP association took over). Thisreliable supply of surface water allowed agriculture,mining, industry and population to rapidly expandin the Phoenix area. Less than a decade afterRoosevelt Dam was built, however, Phoenix founditself in need of new supplies, and this time watermanagers turned their attention 28 miles away tothe Verde River. In 1920 the city built a redwoodpipeline from the Verde to Phoenix, and with thehelp of gravity, water began flowing to the city laterthat same year. Water users soon decided storingVerde River water would help ensure reliablesupplies. Following completion of Bartlett Dam in1939, Horseshoe Dam, with a storage capacity of131,400 acre-feet, was completed in 1946. Today,seven dams on the Salt and Verde rivers and EastClear Creek make up the SRP. On average the SRPsupply consists of about two-thirds surface waterand one-third groundwater. (Roosevelt Dam wasenlarged in 1996 and now holds 1.6 million acre-feet of water).

In 1903 Congress also authorized construction ofthe Yuma Project to divert and distribute ColoradoRiver water for irrigation. A diversion dam and canalswere constructed between 1905 and 1909 to irrigatecrops in the Yuma area. The Yuma Auxiliary Projectwas added in 1920 and irrigates an additional 3,100acres on Yuma Mesa. Just east of Yuma, along bothsides of the Gila River, the Gila River Project providesirrigation water for a range of crops from citrus toBermuda grass seed. Together, these projects delivermore than 1.5 million acre-feet of irrigation watereach year to approximately 153,000 acres of farm-land in Arizona, as well as to a residential, commer-cial and industrial customer base of more than100,000 people.

10

Roosevelt Dam

THE CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT

Basin states met in New Mexico in 1922 to discuss,negotiate and ultimately work out Colorado Riverwater rights. The result was the Colorado RiverCompact that apportioned water between the Upperand Lower Basins. It was signed by all the statesexcept Arizona on Nov. 24.

The Compact was the founding document of what isknown as the “Law of the River.” The “Law of theRiver” refers to a collection of compacts, agreements,contracts, an international treaty, state and federallegislation, U.S. Supreme Court decisions andfederal administrative actions that apportion andregulate the use and management of Colorado Riverwater among the seven states and Mexico. Manyregard the major components of the Law of the Riveras a constitution because it establishes a frameworkfor managing the river’s resources.

During the 1922 Compact discussions, representa-tives from the states and the federal governmentagreed to divide the basin into upper and lowerregions with each having rights to 7.5 million acre-feet of water annually. The allocations were basedon hydrologic data from Reclamation that indicatedannual Colorado River flow at Lees Ferry at 16.4million acre-feet. Later studies have shown this figureto be based on wetter-than-average data, with treering data from 300 years ago indicating an averageflow as low as about 13.5 million acre-feet. Further,

Arizona’s largest water storage and distributionproject is the CAP, a 336-mile canal that extendsfrom the Colorado River to central and southernArizona to a terminus south of Tucson. The CAP isa complex system of aqueducts, tunnels, pumpingplants and pipelines. Along the way the CAP lifts thewater about 2,900 feet, using 14 pumping plantspowered mostly by electricity from the coal-firedNavajo Generating Station near Page. The CAPdelivers Colorado River water to cities and waterutilities, agricultural users, Indian communities andunderground water storage (recharge) projects. Morethan 4 million people and 300,000 acres of irrigatedfarmland in Central Arizona depend on the CAP fordelivery of over half their water supply.

The Colorado River is a major source of water forthe West. In its flow toward the Gulf of California,the Colorado River passes through parts of sevenstates (Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, New Mexico,Arizona, Nevada and California) and the Republicof Mexico, with each entitled to a supply of the river’swater. To manage the river and ensure delivery ofits waters to its various users, an interconnectedsystem of dams and diversions has been built.

The history of Colorado River negotiations amongthese states to determine shares of river water iscomplicated. Realizing the need to settle their waterrights, delegates from the seven Colorado River

11

The CAP is a 336-milecanal that extends from theColorado River to centraland southern Arizona to aterminus south of Tucson.

annual flows are highly erratic, ranging from 4.4million acre-feet to more than 22 million acre-feetannually.

Congress in 1928 divided the Lower Basin alloca-tion by giving California 4.4 million acre-feet, Arizona2.8 million acre-feet and Nevada 300,000 acre-feetof water.

Initially, Arizona legislators were divided over thewisdom of ratifying the Compact because it did notallocate water to each state and did not addressArizona’s claim to the Gila River. The ink had barelydried on the Compact when Arizona and Nevadabegan to worry that California was going to takemore than its already large share of the water.Arizona’s concern grew to alarm when just a fewmonths later, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled thatthe doctrine of prior appropriation applied acrossstate lines. The decision opened the door forCalifornia to claim senior water rights on the Colo-rado River if it were to use more than its allocationbefore Arizona began using its share. In protest,Arizona refused to ratify the Compact and foughtto have limits placed on California’s share.Congress, meanwhile, passed the Boulder CanyonProject Act in 1928 with the stipulation that it wouldbecome binding when six of the seven statesagreed, provided that California was among them.In 1929, six of the seven Basin States approvedthe compact and the Boulder Canyon Project Actwas declared effective June 25.

While the act authorized construction of Boulder(Hoover) Dam, it also limited California to no morethan one-half of any surplus river water in a givenyear and gave the other half of any surplus toArizona, as well as rights to all water in the GilaRiver that flowed through Arizona and into theColorado River. In 1935, the last concrete waspoured to build what was then the largest dam onearth, Hoover Dam.

Throughout, Arizona remained wary that Californiamight still claim senior rights to some of Arizona’swater. When construction began on a second damat Parker, also on the lower Colorado River, and thepoint from which urban California would take itsallocation through the Colorado River Aqueduct,Arizona objected. This time, taking matters into itsown hands, it sent the Arizona National Guard tostop construction on Parker Dam from the Arizonaside of the river. Cooler heads prevailed andCalifornia got the dam and aqueduct it needed tobring Colorado River water to Los Angeles and inlandsouthern California.

While California was busy building its aqueduct(completed in 1941), Arizona was building its ownwater infrastructure within the state. The state’spopulation grew dramatically after World War II, andgroundwater pumping increased at an alarming rate.Water leaders decided to focus on getting the state’sown canal system to bring Colorado River water tothe central and southern part of the state. This poseda considerable political challenge in getting Congressto approve and fund the CAP. Political leaders, suchas Arizona Rep. John Rhodes and Sen. Carl Hayden,who were instrumental in getting the project ap-proved, have achieved legendary status in Arizonawater affairs.

In an attempt to win support for the CAP, Arizonaratified the Colorado River Compact in 1944. Thismove did not win federal approval for the CAP, inpart because of remaining legal uncertainty:California could still win a prior appropriation claimin court that would make construction of the CAPsuperfluous.

To resolve the allocation dispute once and for all,Arizona sued California and in 1963 finally prevailedin the U.S. Supreme Court. The case lasted 11years and cost nearly $5 million. In the end, thecourt confirmed Arizona’s 2.8 million acre-feetallocation, as well as its rights to tributaries to theColorado within Arizona. It further established thatduring years when the river provided a surplus ofwater to the Lower Basin states that the surpluswould be split evenly between Arizona andCalifornia. Most significantly, the court ruled thatCalifornia could not stake a permanent claim tomore water simply by using it first.

After the verdict, the next step was obtainingcongressional approval for the CAP. Arizona wassuccessful, but at a price. To obtain the neces-sary California support, Arizona had to acceptjunior priority status for CAP Colorado River water.This means if a shortage is declared on the lowerColorado River, Arizona theoretically could lose itsentire 1.5 million acre-feet CAP allocation beforeCalifornia loses any of its allocation. Nevada alsoholds junior priority status.

Congress approved construction of the CAP in 1968.Construction began in 1973 and lasted 20 years, withthe first water deliveries celebrated in 1985 in theHarquahala Valley. Upon its completion in 1993 at aterminus 14 miles south of Tucson, the system cost$4 billion. Today the CAP delivers about 1.5 millionacre feet of water annually to Pima, Pinal andMaricopa counties.

12

Prior to 1980, Arizona’s groundwater was governedby the “American Rule” of reasonable use, whichbasically meant a landowner had the right to pumpand use groundwater, almost without question.Under this rule, productive agricultural areas devel-oped that were largely or entirely dependent ongroundwater. By the 1970s, the farm country of PinalCounty was already experiencing land subsidenceand earth fissuring because of over-pumping foragricultural irrigation.

Although the state is known for its desert landscapeand wide open spaces, Arizona is one of the mosturbanized states in the country. About 80 percent ofits 6 million people live in the metropolitan areas ofPhoenix and Tucson. Before the CAP was com-pleted, Tucson had become the largest metropoli-tan area in the country solely dependent on ground-water. The Phoenix area also was drawing downgroundwater aquifers, despite its rivers and systemof surface water storage reservoirs.

The use of groundwater had grown to the point thatin some basins the amount of water withdrawn fromaquifers exceeded the amount of recharge by a factorof three or more.

Before the federal government would approve fundingfor the construction of the CAP, it insisted that Arizonaaddress its groundwater overdraft problem. Withfederal CAP funding in the balance, the variousinterested parties met in a series of sessionsconvened by Gov. Bruce Babbitt and in 1980 agreedto the legislation that became the GroundwaterManagement Act (GMA). The GMA remains one ofthe most innovative and effective strategies formanaging water supplies in the nation.

The goal of the GMA was to eliminate severe ground-water overdraft in areas of the state where overuseof groundwater was considered a problem. Itprovided a new set of management tools to DWRand created a structure in which water managementstrategies could be tailored to local conditions. Over-

drafted groundwater basins were designated ActiveManagement Areas (AMAs) and managementdivisions of DWR were established in each AMA todevelop long-term plans, conservation strategies,regulations and enforcement mechanisms to reduceoverdraft. Four AMAs were created – Phoenix,Tucson, Pinal and Prescott. (In 1994 the Santa CruzAMA split from the Tucson AMA.) The GMA alsoestablished Irrigation Non-Expansion Areas (INAs),where the amount of irrigated acreage could notincrease. There are now three INAS.

Almost 85 percent of Arizona’s population resideswithin the five AMAs and this percentage is expectedto increase as overall population increases. Peopleand enterprises in the AMAs account for abouthalf of the state’s water withdrawals although AMAscomprise only about 13 percent of Arizona’s land.

THE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ACT

GroundwaterGroundwater is stored in the ground in materials suchas gravel or sand. Water also can move throughporous rock formations such as sandstone orthrough cracks in rocks. A geologic formation that issaturated with water and can be pumped with a wellis called an aquifer. Wells pump groundwater fromthe aquifer and then pipes or canals deliver the waterto homes and businesses, to industry or to crops.

Early Arizona law was based on established legalprinciples rather than principles of geology andhydrology. With increased knowledge andinformation came the realization that the inter-connection of groundwater and surface water is acomplex phenomenon.

13

Interior Secretary DonHodel, left, and ArizonaGov. Bruce Babbitt, right,at the 1985 celebration ofthe Central Arizona Projectcanal's first water deliveriesto the HarquahalaIrrigation District.

Today Arizona has one of the nation’s largest ground-water recharge programs. It was only fairly recently,however, that the state passed laws specificallydesigned to encourage groundwater storage. Indeed,if someone stored water underground prior to 1986,there was no guarantee that that individual or entitywould be able to establish and retain the right to usethat water, even in AMAs. The Underground WaterStorage, Savings and Replenishment Act addressedthis issue for projects within AMAs, providinglegislative protection to the people who stored thegroundwater. Since the first underground storagefacility was built in 1994, Arizona has developedapproximately 2 million acre-feet of annual storagecapacity in permitted recharge facilities.

Because AWS rules require that a substantial portionof an assured water supply be renewable (notgroundwater), communities and developers needaccess to renewable water supplies. For develop-ments that do not have physical access to renew-able water such as the CAP, Arizona created legalmechanisms for developers and growing communi-ties to comply with the law. If they store water from arenewable source in a recharge facility, they earncredits that they can then use to pump additionalgroundwater. The recharge facility must be in thesame AMA as the residential development, but it canbe anywhere within that area. DWR oversees therecharge and recovery program.

In addition, the state Legislature created the CentralArizona Groundwater Replenishment District(CAGRD). The CAGRD has become a popularvehicle for meeting the AWS requirement that the

assured water supply include renewable water.Developers and water providers can join the CAGRDand pay for the district to replenish groundwater usedwith renewable water. It then becomes the obligationof the CAGRD to offset pumping by its members withgroundwater replenishment anywhere in the sameAMA.

Under this system of recharge and replenishmentcredits, groundwater, surface water and recycledwater can be managed together, making for muchmore flexible and adaptable water management.Conjunctive management, as it is called, allowssurface water to be used when and where it is plen-tiful, saving groundwater for times and places ofshortage. It also provides an incentive to managewastewater as a resource to be reused.

Current rules that allow storage in one place andrecovery in another, however, have been criticizedfor having inadequate safeguards against potentialimpacts such as increased pumping costs, damageto or loss of riparian ecosystems, land subsidenceand water quality degradation.

The Arizona Water Banking Authority (AWBA) wascreated in 1996 to save Arizona’s unused ColoradoRiver water entitlement, and the bank stores thiswater in groundwater storage facilities within the CAPservice area. DWR maintains a credit account forthe bank that shows how much water is availablefor recovery. Most of the funds used to buy the waterand store it underground come from a tax on propertyand fees charged for pumping groundwater in areasserved by the CAP. Other states have operated

RECHARGE AND AQUIFER STORAGE

The GMA mandated conservation by agricultural,industrial and municipal users in AMAs. Conserva-tion requirements were specified in a series of10-year management plans that established maxi-mum annual groundwater allotments for irrigatedagriculture based on historical acreage and croptype. Farmers were not permitted to increase thenumber of acres they irrigated beyond their calcu-lated maximum and their annual water allotmentsdecreased as time passed, encouraging them toadopt conservation measures.

Municipal water providers were required to developconservation programs that reduced their custom-ers’ water use. Water use targets were based onthe concept of gallons per capita per day – the to-tal amount of water used by the provider in a day

divided by the number of people in the provider’sservice area. These targets were replaced with bestmanagement practices for many providers.

An innovative feature of the law is the AssuredWater Supply (AWS) Program, which requires thatnew residential developments demonstratesufficient water, including substantial supplies fromrenewable sources, to meet the needs of thenew residents for 100 years. Prior to plotting anew subdivision, a potential developer mustdemonstrate its supplies will meet applicablewater quality standards and water must be“physically, continuously and legally available for100 years.” In addition, the applicant must showthe financial capability to construct the necessaryinfrastructure.

14

water banks that essentially broker trades betweenentities with excess water and others who do nothave enough. In Arizona, the water bank operatesmore like a savings account in which excess wateris deposited and may be withdrawn in time of need.

In 2001, Arizona entered into an agreement withNevada to bank excess CAP water for use inNevada. Under terms of the agreement, the AWBApromised its “best effort” to build up a water storageaccount of 1.25 million acre-feet of long-term storagecredits for Nevada. Nevada would pay the full priceof water delivery and storage, as well as costs torecover the water and deliver it to CAP customers inArizona. Nevada would then be entitled to water fromArizona’s share of the Colorado River in exchangefor its banked credits. An amendment agreed to in2005 replaces the term “best effort” with “guaran-tee” of annual delivery amounts. The upper limit ofannual withdrawal under the amended agreementis 20,000 acre-feet until 2008 and 40,000 acre-feetthereafter, except during shortage years.

Beginning in January 2009, Arizona also will receive10 annual payments of $23 million from Nevada to

pay for storage. By the end of 2005, Nevada had awater bank account balance of 237,066 acre-feetand by the end of 2007, 42 percent of the Nevadawater will be stored. Nevada has asked for recoverybeginning in 2010.

Under the terms of a 1992 storage agreementbetween the Metropoli tan Water Distr ict ofSouthern California (MWD) and the CAP, MWDpaid the costs to store 89,000 acre-feet ofArizona’s water in the state’s groundwater storagesystem. In 2007, MWD began a five-year processof recovering that water.

Interstate banking activities have accelerated theneed to develop plans for recovering banked water.Concerns that complicate recovery planning arerelated to issues of cost, jurisdictional authority andcontrol. For example, it costs the AWBA less ingeneral to use groundwater storage available in thePinal AMA (Pinal County) than facilities in theTucson AMA. Local water managers are concernedthat the risks and costs of recovery could be greaterfor the Tucson area, and so far, ABWA has rejectedthis strategy.

15

Recharge ponds at theLower Santa Cruz andAura Valley recharge sites.

Rural Water IssuesSmaller cities such as Flagstaff and Yuma, smalltowns, farm fields and large expanses of undevel-oped land are all found in the remaining 87 percentof the state beyond AMA borders. Limited water andfinancial resources, uncertain authority and lack oftechnical information make effective water manage-ment difficult for local governments.

Some rural communities are growing dramaticallyand residential developments are being built onpreviously undeveloped deserts. In some areas,growing populations – seasonal and permanent –are straining existing infrastructure and developed

water supplies. Residential development plans areoften caught up in questions regarding adequatewater supplies and local officials are facing toughchallenges without the tools available within AMAs.

In parts of rural Arizona people sometimes have tohaul water to their homes because they are not closeto a local water source and live outside of the reachof community water systems. It is unknown howmany people have to haul water, but state officialssay water hauling is not uncommon in northernArizona. More than half of the people who live onthe Navajo Reservation haul water, as do hundredsof people in areas surrounding Flagstaff, Williamsand Kingman.

Rural communities adjacent to the borders of Utah,Nevada, Arizona and California are developing atrecord rates and their expansion is moving into theneighboring states. Mohave County, in northwest-ern Arizona, is one example. Plans are in the worksto build more than 200,000 homes in the county overthe next several decades. The reason for thisplanned boom is the construction of the Hoover Dambypass route on U.S. 93. The bypass will reducethe commute time from Las Vegas, Nev., across thestate border to Arizona, and could mean the creationof a bedroom community for Las Vegas in Kingmanand other parts of Mohave County.

As demands on Arizona’s water supply continue toincrease, water leaders are focusing on statewidewater management concerns. One such effort is theGrowing Smarter and Growing Smarter Plus acts thatrequire populous counties and fast-growing commu-nities to develop comprehensive plans that includea water supply element. These water elements aresupposed to match available supplies with theestimated demand for water. Where demand isexpected to grow beyond current supplies, the planis supposed to show what new water supplies thecounty or community will pursue.

Other statewide water resources initiatives havefocused on conservation and drought planning.Legislation passed in 2005 requires community water systems to develop plans that include a watersupply plan, a drought preparedness plan and awater conservation plan. It also requires thesesystems to report annual water withdrawals, diver-sion and deliveries.

The pressures of growth on of existing mechanismsfor water planning and management in the ruralareas of the sate has sparked statewide water policydiscussions. An issue getting increased attention iswhat kind of water management would be appropri-ate for non-AMA areas. Residents in these areasare wary of the AMA approach with its centralizedauthority and standardized plans.

Complicating the issue is the fact that governmentboundaries rarely match hydrogeographic bound-aries. This can sometimes lead to conflicts andfrequently hampers efforts to solve problems thataffect entire watersheds. In 1999, the Rural ArizonaWatershed Initiative (RWI) was launched to helpgroups outside of AMAs in their water resourceplanning efforts. These groups are encouraged todevelop the management strategies suitable for theirwatersheds with input from local citizens and stake-holders. DWR provides non-regulatory technical

16

Some rural communities aregrowing dramatically and

residential developments arebeing built on previously

undeveloped deserts.

assistance and the Arizona Department of Environ-mental Quality has funded water quality planningefforts.

Seventeen rural watershed groups were establishedunder the RWI. DWR carried out hydrologic studiesin several areas, including the Coconino Plateau andthe Upper San Pedro watershed. Some groups haveproduced substantial results in the form of studiesand plans, while the lack of technical and financialresources has limited the activity of others.

The Upper San Pedro Partnership (USPP) is oneof the most active watershed groups. Formed in1998, the USPP – a coalition of nearly two dozenorganizations – coordinates and cooperates in theidentification, prioritization and implementation ofcomprehensive policies and projects to assist inmeeting the area’s water needs in a manner thatprotects the San Pedro Riparian National Conser-vation Area (SPRNCA.) The need for collaborativeplanning here is strong because of the environ-mental importance of the SPRNCA and rapid growthin the watershed.

In 2006, the Statewide Water Advisory Group(SWAG) was formed, a panel of more than 50 stake-

holders charged with crafting recommendations forimproved water policy. SWAG recommendations ledto a bill that was passed in the 2007 legislativesession allowing rural (non-AMA) cities, towns andcounties to restrict development if adequate watersupplies are not available. However, the lawrequires the unanimous approval of the countyboard of supervisors. Another SWAG recommen-dation led to legislative authorization of a newspecial district in the San Pedro watershed, whichgives the area additional water management tools.

Most of Arizona’s residents receive water frompublic water providers, however, there are manyprivate water companies serving customersthroughout the state. Many of the planned devel-opments in rural areas are proposing that privatewater companies supply the new residents. Theseprivate companies are regulated by the ArizonaCorporation Commission (ACC), an independentbranch of government created by the ArizonaConstitution. In 2007 the ACC focused its attentionon issues of adequate water supply, wastewaterreuse and conservation. In the cases that comebefore it, the ACC is asserting its authority toconsider these water management issues in itsdecisions.

17

San Pedro riparian areaat Sierra Vista

Indian WaterMore than one-fourth of the state’s land is held intrust as reservations for the benefit of AmericanIndians. The determination of water rights and use

by Indian communitiescould have a significantimpact on water supplies inArizona.

Very little information isavailable on Indian wateruse in Arizona. Domesticuse is probably much lowerthan for urban areas andnon-Indian rural areas. Useon the Navajo reservation,for example, has been esti-mated as low as 10 gallonsper person per day. This lowamount results from a lackof potable supplies formuch of the population(approximately 40 percent).The Arizona Water Atlasestimated total Indian wateruse in the AMAs at 420,600acre-feet, but does notbreak out the usage forareas outside AMAs wheremost tribal lands arelocated. Currently, Arizona’sIndians use only a smallfraction of the water towhich they are or may beentitled. Although Indianwater rights defined throughadjudications and settle-

ments are large, unresolved claims may be evenlarger, possibly amounting to more than the state’stotal surface water supply. Until these claims areresolved, they introduce enormous uncertaintyinto water planning for Indian and non-Indiancommunities in Arizona.

The priority of tribal claims to water in the West wasestablished in 1908 with the “Winters Doctrine.”Under this doctrine, an Indian reservation’s waterright is linked to the date the reservation wasestablished and its purpose. Since the Arizona v.California decision in 1963, an agricultural purposehas been assumed and the quantity of tribal waterrights has been calculated based on a reservation’s“practicably irrigable acreage (PIA)”: land that couldbe farmed with irrigation at reasonable costs. Thisstandard is significant in Arizona where Indianreservation lands encompass 28 percent of the state.A 2001 Arizona Supreme Court decision, however,

substituted a “homeland” standard for PIA, with waterrights based on a tribe’s uses for the water – actualand planned.

Arizona was the first state to successfully settle atribal claim with the Ak-Chin settlement in 1978. Sofar, eight tribal settlements have been completed andseveral others are in various stages of development.Although they are preferable to adjudication in manyrespects, settlement processes are demanding andtime-consuming activities.

Legal and financial obstacles have hampered Indianwater development. However, recent settlementswere reached that have provided Indian tribes andcommunities with the needed legal and financialcapabilities to make use of their water. Some tribalwater settlements have included long-term waterleases to Arizona cities, which provide a long-termwater supply for growing cities and much-neededrevenues for tribal governments. Thirty years ago,tribes were not authorized to lease water for usesoutside the reservation.

The Arizona Water Settlements Act of 2004 repre-sents a significant accomplishment in settling anumber of difficult issues involving the Gila RiverIndian Community (GRIC) and the Tohono O’odhamNation. The Gila River, which runs through the centerof the Gila River Indian Community, is Arizona’slargest tributary to the Colorado River. Disputes be-tween tribes and non-Indian water users over claimsto water in the Gila River system had gone on largelyunresolved for more than 100 years. The largestclaim came from the GRIC – a combination of mem-bers from the Pima and Maricopa Indians of Arizona.

The signing of the Arizona Water Settlements Act of2004 was a major milestone in Arizona’s history andone that could ultimately prove as important to thestate’s future as authorization of the CAP. In it,significant funding is provided to enable the GRICand Tohono O’odham tribe to build water infrastruc-ture to meet the needs of their reservations. In fact,all tribes in Arizona that can use CAP water canbenefit, as the law created a fund to pay the yearlyoperation and maintenance costs for water deliveredto tribes through 2045. The law also set aside $250million that tribes may use to settle their water-rightsclaims in the future.

The Act allows tribes to use water rights that previ-ously existed only on paper. In addition, it brings long-sought certainty to cities and communities as theyplan their growth and development and is a majorcomponent of a long-term water plan for Arizona.

18

The Gila River, which runsthrough the center of the

Gila River IndianCommunity, is Arizona’s

largest tributary to theColorado River. The

Arizona Water SettlementsAct of 2004 represents a

significant accomplishmentin settling a number of

difficult issues involving theGila River Indian

Community (GRIC) and theTohono O’odham Nation.

Water QualityWater quality protection programs in Arizona arebased on federal and state law and are administeredby the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)or Arizona Department of Environmental Quality(ADEQ). The state Legislature established the ADEQin 1986 to develop a comprehensive groundwaterquality protection program; by the 1980s, ground-water contamination had caused numerous wells tobe shut down because of possible threats to humanhealth. The ADEQ also administers the state’senvironmental protection programs.

Drinking water, groundwater and surface water all areprotected through various permitting, monitoring andreporting, remediation, inspection and complianceassurance programs. The principal water qualityprotection programs in Arizona are the Safe DrinkingWater Act (SDWA), the Aquifer Protection Permitprogram, the Water Quality Assurance RevolvingFund program and the Clean Water Act (CWA).

Those who discharge pollutants directly to an aquifer,a land surface or the area between groundwater andthe land surface are required to obtain an AquiferProtection Permit. This state program, establishedin 1986, requires that all aquifers be protected fordrinking water use. Discharges are required to meetArizona’s aquifer water quality standards – theequivalent of the maximum contaminant level forpollutants set by the federal SDWA. Arizona’s WaterQuality Assurance Revolving Fund authorizes theADEQ to identify, assess and clean up soil, ground-water and surface water contaminated with hazard-ous substances.

Most Arizonans receive their drinking water fromlarge municipal water delivery systems, but manypeople depend on private water suppliers, smallpublic utilities or domestic wells. The quality of waterprovided by municipal and private water systems(that meet the “public water system” definition) isprotected by water quality regulators who work toensure the quality of tap water meets SDWAstandards. Meeting new SDWA standards can be afinancial challenge, especially for smaller providers.

Drinking water quality is directly affected by thequality of the source water. In many instances, waterthat would otherwise be put to beneficial use is leftin the ground because it is too contaminated to beeconomically treated. Water use practices, such asirrigation drainage and wastewater disposal –particularly on-site wastewater systems or septictanks – have impacted drinking water from under-ground sources. Large areas of groundwater havebeen contaminated with high levels of nitrogen from

agricultural fertilizers and residential wastewater.Mining and other industrial waste also has escapedto contaminate streams and aquifers. As a result,the amount of high quality water available in theseareas is reduced and water users can expect to payincreased costs for treatment when these degradedwaters are needed in the future. In addition, thesecontaminants can hurt plants and wildlife.

Arizona water quality is affected by a wide range ofcontaminants, some of which occur naturally; othersare synthetic or introduced to water sources byhuman activities. One widespread naturally occur-ring contaminant is arsenic, which is found in soiland rocks and is present in a large portion of thestate’s groundwater. Long-term exposure to highlevels of arsenic in drinking water causes skin, lung,urinary bladder and kidney cancer. Recent changesto federal standards reduced the amount of arsenicallowable in drinking water. According to ADEQ,about 145 public water systems in Arizona have oneor more sources that do not meet the new arsenicdrinking water standard of 10 parts per billion.However, more than 94 percent of the state’spopulation receives drinking water that meets thenew stringent standard.

Salinity is a large and growing water qualityproblem in Arizona surface water and groundwater.Measured as total dissolved solids (TDS), salinity iscomposed of salts, minerals and metals. A naturalcomponent of all surface water and groundwater, lowlevels of salinity have negligible or even positive im-pacts. Above 500 milligrams per liter (mg/L) TDS, watermay take on a salty taste but there are generally nohealth effects until concentrations exceed 3,000 mg/L.

About 9 million tons of salt per year are carried bythe Colorado River and cause an estimated $300million in damage annually in Southwestern states,according to Reclamation. Maricopa, Pinal and Pimacounties accumulate 1.75 million tons of salt per yearfrom the Colorado, Salt and Verde rivers. SomePhoenix area wells pump water with more than 3,000parts per million TDS.

Southern Arizona’s salt load will rise by about200,000 tons per year when Tucson reaches full useof its CAP water allocation over the next few years,according to a draft report of the Central ArizonaSalinity Study.

The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program,a collaboration of federal agencies, Colorado Riverstates and farming interests, has been working tokeep salt out of the river through improved irrigation

19

techniques, crop management and diversion of saltygroundwater. Estimates are that preventing salt fromentering the river costs about $30 per ton of saltblocked. Conversely, salt removal can cost more than20 times that.

In Scottsdale, decades of groundwater contamina-tion by the cancer-causing chemical trichloroethyl-ene (TCE) have led to cleanup efforts to tackle oneof the largest cases of contamination in the country.In 2002, a court-ordered $61 million settlement wasawarded to about 22,000 south Scottsdale residentsand people in parts of Phoenix for medical monitor-ing, personal injuries and property damage. Resi-dents had sued a handful of industries in 1992 forimproperly disposing of TCE since 1957, creatingtwo plumes in Phoenix and one in Scottsdale.According to EPA, with the treatment system in place,cleaning up the contamination in the Indian BendWash site will take between 30 and 50 years.

Passed in 1972, the federal CWA established anational commitment to restoring and maintainingnational waters in “fishable, swimmable” quality.Under the act, wastewater treatment standardswere set that have vastly improved the nation’swater quality. Since 2003, Arizona has administeredthe National Pollution Elimination DischargeSystem (NPDES). Under the NPDS, permits areissued for discharges that come from a discreetlocation such as a pipe. Point source discharge

standards and permits are based on effluent limitsdesigned to protect the use of the water – for ex-ample, drinking water, aquatic life, irrigation and,in some cases, on the adoption of the best avail-able pollution reduction technology.

Included in the CWA are total maximum daily loads(TMDLs), which are pollutant measurements bywhich regulators seek to maintain the health of rivers,lakes and streams. Arizona’s TMDL program isdesigned to address nonpoint source pollution –pollution from a broad or diffuse area caused byincreased urbanization, agricultural practices, aban-doned mine sites, forestry activities, home septicsystem failure and construction site activities. Thesepollution sources cannot be controlled at a singlelocation and can only be curbed through activities atthe watershed level.

Continuing challenges remain, such as the preva-lence of mercury in lakes and rivers. Emanating fromboth natural and industrial sources, mercury in waterbodies is taken up by organisms and accumulatesin fish, including food fish. High mercury levels infish present a health risk when consumed by people.Mercury is toxic to the nervous system, including thebrain. It is especially harmful to the babies andunborn children of mothers who consume fishcontaining mercury during pregnancy or whilenursing. The state has issued fish consumptionadvisories at more than a dozen sites.

CROSS-BORDER WATER QUALITY

The international border with Mexico presentsspecial challenges for water management becauseeven problems that are considered local can requirethe involvement of national level agencies. A specialbi-national commission, the International Boundaryand Water Commission (IBWC) has jurisdiction onmatters involving cross-border waters. As a result,local water matters have at times been enmeshedin international negotiations.

Compared with the United States, Mexico has fewereconomic resources, and the disparity is perhapsmost apparent at the border – where water qualityproblems have persisted for years. At the twin citiesof Nogales, Ariz., and Nogales, Sonora, for example,sewage mixed with stormwater runoff often over-whelms the inadequate collector system and flowsinto Nogales Wash. This cross-border tributary tothe Santa Cruz River flows into Arizona. Chlorinetablets supplied by the IBWC have reduced health

risks from these flows, but they are only a stop-gapmeasure. Sewage that leaks from the system alsocontaminates the international groundwater aquiferthat provides drinking water to both cities.

The 50-year-old Nogales International WastewaterTreatment Plant, located in Nogales, Ariz., treatssewage from both countries. (The plant is owned bythe city of Nogales and operated by the U.S. sectionof the IBWC). The plant was last upgraded in 1992and it is in need of a new upgrade to reduce ammo-nia and nitrates and to replace older technologies. Alawsuit challenging the facility’s compliance with EPAstandards resulted in court-ordered reductions ofcontaminant levels in the treated wastewater. Discus-sions between officials in both countries about solvingthe problem resulted in a $62 million upgrade to thetreatment plant that began in May 2007. Much of thefunding was provided by the North American Devel-opment Bank, a bi-national financial institution that

20

supports environmental projects along the U.S.-Mexico border. Recent federal legislation will helpaddress the groundwater issues in the border region.The U.S.-Mexico Transboundary Aquifer AssessmentAct calls for a collaborative effort to conduct hydro-logic studies of such aquifers, including Arizona’sSanta Cruz River Valley and San Pedro aquifers.

Management of Colorado River salinity has createdrecurrent cross-border problems for generations. The1944 United States-Mexico Treaty for Utilization ofWaters of the Colorado and Tijuana rivers and of theRio Grande provides Mexico a guaranteed annualquantity of water from these sources. The treatydoesn’t provide specifically for water quality, but thisdid not constitute a problem until the late 1950s. In1957 Reclamation built a conveyance channel toreturn highly saline drainage water from the Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation District along the Colorado Riverback into the river itself. However, the drainage waterincreased salinity in the river to levels that wereunacceptable to Mexico. Mexico protested andentered into bilateral negotiations with the UnitedStates. In 1974, these negotiations resulted in an inter-national agreement, Minute 242, that guaranteed aspecific level of water quality to Mexico.

Federal agencies were directed by Congress toimplement programs to reduce salinity on both sidesof the border. The most controversial salinity controlalternative is the Yuma Desalting Plant constructednear Yuma, Ariz. The plant, completed in 1992, was

built to desalt drainage return flows from the Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District prior to thewater entering to the Colorado River. But it wasoperated for only a few months before operationswere halted when flooding on the Gila River washedout the canal delivering irrigation drainage water tothe plant. Subsequent high flows in the ColoradoRiver made desalting the drainage uneconomical oreven unneeded.

When the plant was shut down, the drainage flowswere diverted to the Ciénega de Santa Clara inMexico, where they support a substantial wetlandsecosystem. Talk of reopening the plant alarmedenvironmentalists on both sides of the border,worried about impacts on the wetlands. But in April2005, an unlikely collaboration of environmentalists,CAP officials and state and federal representativesannounced agreement on a set of recommendationsunder which the YDP could be operated and thecurrent bypass flows that sustain the Ciénegareplaced by water from other sources.

In March 2007, the plant began desalting water forthe first time in 14 years. The plant ran at 10 percentcapacity for 90 days to test its operation capabilitiesand study its effects on the Ciénega. The plantdesalted about 4,200 acre-feet of irrigation waterduring the demonstration run with the desalted waterreturned to the river. The test run allowed Reclama-tion to gather data on potential operating costs andthe results are currently being analyzed.

21

The Yuma Desalting Plant,constructed near Yuma,Ariz., was completed in1992.

Environmental Issues

22

For many years development of Arizona’s water wasvirtually unimpeded as dams were built and waterdiversions were made for use in cities and on farms.But by the 1970s, environmental awareness hadgrown to an extent that environmental considerationsbegan to be factored into the water supply equation.With the affirmation of water rights dedicated tomaintain fish and wildlife – “instream uses” – theneeds of the environment are being considered.

One consequence of water diversions and ground-water pumping is the loss of rich riparian areas ofcottonwood-willow forests and bosques of mesquiteonce found along such waterways as the Salt, Gilaand Santa Cruz rivers. These plants provided habitatfor muskrats, beaver, fish and many species ofmigratory birds. The loss of this native vegetationallowed invasive and exotic plant species to take overin many instances, reducing habit for many nativespecies.

Any discussion about adverse environmentalconsequences must consider dams. Uncontrolledrivers and streams in the semi-arid West are riskysources of water. A dusty riverbed can turn into adestructive flood in just a few hours. Once waterflows past, it is beyond reach and use. Dams arebuilt to protect against floods and to store water foruse when it is needed. Water development in theWest responded to the two related needs of regulat-ing and increasing the supply of water.

A stream, however, needs more than water to forma healthy riparian area. A stream in its natural statetends to meander, over time changing its coursethrough a wide flood plain. These shifts of a water-way, along with intermittent flood flows, are vital tothe germination, growth and spread of riparianvegetation. Alterations made to streams for floodcontrol and water storage purposes have impairedthese natural processes.

While there is general agreement that the era of bigdam building is over in the western United States,efforts have arisen to create new storage projects tooffset the uncertain conditions brought about byclimate change. Nonetheless, the authorization,funding and construction of new dams face consid-erable obstacles.

Orme Dam is a case in point. Intended to be part ofthe CAP, the dam would have been built at theconfluence of the Salt and Verde rivers. Orme’ssupporters said the state needed the dam forincreased water storage and better flood control, aswell as for hydroelectric power. In 1981, after yearsof opposition by environmental groups and the FortMcDowell Yavapai Nation, the federal governmentdecided to scrap the Orme Dam concept and movedinstead to increase water storage and flood controlby raising the height of Roosevelt Dam andconstructing a new dam for a larger Lake Pleasanton the Agua Fria River.

A different kind of river-and-dam story involves FossilCreek. Its full flow was recently restored after nearly100 years when a hydroelectric dam, the first inArizona, was decommissioned and a biologicallyimportant watershed restored. With the creekrestored, Arizona gains 14 miles of wetland ecosys-tem valuable for wildlife and creek-side recreation.

Another impetus for greater consideration ofenvironmental impacts of water management is thefederal Endangered Species Act (ESA), which haschanged the method of water operations since itspassage more than 30 years ago. When a project

Fossil Creek’s Fossil fullflow was recently restored

after nearly 100 yearswhen a hydroelectric dam,

the first in Arizona, wasdecommissioned.

23

needs federal approval, the law requires consulta-tion with federal biologists to “insure that any actionauthorized, funded, or carried out … is not likelyto jeopardize the continued existence of any endan-gered species or threatened species or result in thedestruction or adverse modification of habitat of suchspecies.”

The ESA has provided for detailed consultation,project modifications and mitigation for many water-related activities, including those conducted byReclamation. One example is the construction of fishbarriers on Aravaipa Creek to reduce encroachmenton native fish habitat from the CAP aqueductsystem. Another example concerns the South-western willow flycatcher. When Roosevelt Dam wasenlarged, the 15-foot difference between the old andnew high-water provided significant new storagecapacity to Phoenix-area cities at a cost of about$44 million. Unfortunately, the new high-water markat Roosevelt Lake inundated a nesting area of thisendangered species. Mitigation measures requiredunder the ESA led Reclamation to fund habitat res-toration and maintenance in perpetuity elsewherein Arizona.

Efforts have been made to mitigate the effect of damson the environment, including modification ofoperations at Glen Canyon Dam on the ColoradoRiver to help protect endangered fish and otherdownstream resources. Built in the 1960s to providewater storage in Lake Powell and for power genera-tion, Glen Canyon Dam altered the river ecosystemdownstream by regulating and smoothing out itshighly variable flows. Natural water temperaturesdecreased, and sediment that provided security,nutrients and habitat for endangered fish wastrapped behind the dam.

The Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992 directedReclamation to ensure its operations are adequatelyprotecting Grand Canyon resources in a mannercompatible with other established uses of the dam.Since 1996, Reclamation has experimented withvarious flow regimes to partially mitigate the adverseeffects of the dam’s operations on the downstreamriver ecology.

Initiated in 1994 by Arizona, California and Nevada,the Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conser-vation Program (MSCP) is another noteworthy effortto balance the use of lower Colorado Riverresources with the need to conserve native speciesand their habitats as required by the ESA. TheMSCP is an ambitious, 50-year commitment toconserve at least 26 species along the Lower

Colorado River from Lake Mead to the internationalborder with Mexico.

The MSCP goals include conserving habitat, takingaction to recover threatened and endangeredspecies, reducing the likelihood of additional specieslistings, accommodating current water diversionsand power production, and optimizing opportunitiesfor future water and power development. It is amulti-state, multi-agencyeffort with Reclamation, theNational Park Service, Bureauof Land Management, Bureauof Indian Affairs, and WesternArea Power Administrationparticipating.

The program calls for creating8,132 acres of new habitat –5,940 acres of cottonwood-willow; 1,320 acres of honeymesquite; 512 acres of marsh;and 360 acres of backwaters.Also, 660,000 sub-adultrazorback suckers and620,000 boneytail are to beproduced to augment existingpopulations of these fish in thelower Colorado River.

In addition to working tomitigate the effects of dams,efforts also are underway toprotect the state’s remainingfree-flowing streams, includ-ing the San Pedro and UpperVerde that attract thousandsof visitors each year. Tourismis an important economicsector in many areas ofArizona, and a substantialpercentage of tourists enjoyriparian activities such as kayaking, fishing and bird-watching, which the National Park Servicedetermined is the top nature tourism activity in theU.S. The results of a survey carried out by the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service identified bird watching as“bigger than golf as a tourism and economic impactin Southern Arizona.” An estimated 75 percent ormore of Arizona’s wildlife are dependent uponriparian areas during some part of their life cycles.

In Arizona’s cities, efforts are underway to restoreurban river ecosystems. Significant investments havebeen made on many projects such as the Rio Saladoin Phoenix and the Yuma East Restoration Project.

Efforts to boostpopulations of therazorback sucker areincluded in the LowerColorado River Multi-Species ConservationProgram.

Stretching SuppliesScholars believe that when the Hohokam popula-tion grew beyond its ability to stretch its limited watersupplies, the civilization failed. But these early desertdwellers lacked the technological resources ofcontemporary water managers, and Arizona is nowdeveloping new ways to manage and extend thisscarce resource.

Arizona’s population has grown from about 750,000in 1950 to more than 6 million in 2006. The pace ofgrowth has been such that Arizona in 2006 eclipsedNevada’s 19-year reign as the fastest-growing statein the country. The largest population growth hasoccurred mostly in the Phoenix area. Expansionbetween Phoenix and Tucson is on course towardbeing a continuous metropolitan region.

By some accounts, there already is enough waterto support mega-growth in Arizona. Assuming thewater used to irrigate one acre of cotton is enoughto support four households for a year; it is obviousthat transferring a relatively small percentage ofwater from agricultural production to municipaluse could support a substantial increase inpopulation. Voluntary water transfers are seen asan important tool in the overall water supply picture,particularly during periods of drought. However,because moving water from one use to anotherfrequently can affect many people besides theparties directly involved in the transfer, such

transfers often require extensive negotiationsamong multiple parties.

Realizing the need to employ as many strategies aspossible in the diversification of water supply sources,officials in Arizona and other Colorado River Basinstates are looking to technology to help. Onetechnology is cloud seeding. Cloud seeding injectschemicals such as silver iodide into clouds to allowwater droplets or ice crystals to form more easily,increasing precipitation. Officials emphasize thatcloud seeding is a tool designed to get more waterout of existing storms but would not be useful duringa serious drought when storm fronts are nonexistent.

Officials also are looking at desalination as a meansto increasing potable water supplies. While somecoastal communities in the nation seek additionalwater supply through desalinated seawater,application of the technology in Arizona is confinedto brackish groundwater. The substantial energycosts of desalination have limited its implementa-tion. As improvements in the technology push costsdown, desalination will become more feasible.Officials are looking into potential arrangementswhere Arizona would pay to desalinate ocean waterin California or Mexico in exchange for ColoradoRiver water. Reclamation is considering options forusing the Yuma Desalting Plant such as for potable,domestic supplies.

24

The city of Phoenix

WATER RECYCLING

Reuse or recycling is the collection and treatment ofwastewater from homes and businesses andsubsequent distribution for use. Highly treated waste-water can be used for landscape irrigation, decora-tive water features, and in various industrialprocesses.

Arizona was the first state to recognize wastewateras a separate, growing source of water. Today,treated wastewater constitutes about 3 percent ofthe state’s supplies, with more being used torecharge groundwater aquifers for future use. As theonly source of water that grows with the population,recycled water will likely become a larger percent-age in the decades to come. Recycled waterconserves potable water and provides a readilyavailable and reliable source of water, even duringtimes of shortage.

Arizona statute defines effluent as that which iscollected in a sanitary sewer and treated in a watertreatment facility (also defined by statute). Legally,effluent is not groundwater or surface water andtherefore is not governed by groundwater or surfacewater law. With a few limited exceptions, the entity

that produces recycled water can use it in any way,as long as its use meets water quality regulations.

There are incentives for using recycled water inplace of groundwater because it is considered arenewable supply. Many golf courses are irrigatedwith recycled water and a large number of rechargeprojects accrue storage credits for using it forrecharge. The idea of marketing recycled water hasbeen talked about and may come about in thefuture.

The use of recycled water has growing publicacceptance, but public attitudes are limiting how itcan be used. Controversy erupted regarding plansto produce artificial snow using recycled water atthe Arizona Snowbowl, about seven miles northwestof Flagstaff. Ski operators said the move is necessaryto remain competitive, particularly in years whennatural snow is minimal. American Indian tribes andenvironmental organizations opposed the plansbecause a number of local tribes consider the peaksholy and continue to practice ceremonies there. Theissue was decided recently when the federal AppealsCourt agreed with the Tribes.

25

Many golf courses areirrigated with recycledwater.

CONSERVATION

At one time water conservation was viewed as onlya short term response to drought, which necessi-tated across-the-board temporary reductions bycommercial, industrial, agricultural and municipalusers. Today, conservation measures are a regularpart of doing business and have become incorpo-rated as a permanent source of the overall waterbudget at the state and local levels.

Conservation initiatives, including revisions toplumbing codes and water saving requirements fornew construction, have been implemented by cities,towns and counties. Conservation programs aremost advanced in areas already experiencing somewater stress, such as Payson and Flagstaff. Theseprograms include a public education componentalong with ordinances requiring low-water-uselandscaping and temporary drought restrictions.

Local conservation officials continue to stress wisewater use, emphasizing measures such as repair-ing leaky appliances as a means of achievingreduced use with minimal effort. Beyond that, thereare behavioral changes that take longer to instill. By

far, the largest potential for savings exists outdoors,where more than 60 percent of Phoenix’s residen-tial water use occurs. In addition to encouragingpeople not to use as much water on their grass, orto forego having turf, municipal conservationprograms also provide assistance on installing land-scape features such as native plants that requiremuch less water to maintain. In Tucson, where lowwater use landscaping is more common, outdoorwatering accounts for only about 40 percent ofresidential water use.

Other methods to achieve water conservation includerebate programs to replace old, wasteful appliancesand sprinkler systems with newer, more efficientmodels. School educational programs are helpingto ensure future generations are mindful of the needto use water wisely.

In the past, evaporative cooling was commonplacein Arizona homes and businesses. Water absorbsheat when it evaporates and evaporative coolingprovided a low cost and energy efficient method ofdealing with Arizona’s summer heat. The tradeoffbetween water and energy is obvious; and as waterconservation has become important and refrigera-tion has become more efficient, more homes andbusinesses are air conditioned. In an effort toconserve water, some Arizona counties and munici-palities have been looking into ordinances to restrictor eliminate evaporative cooling, including the useof misting technologies to cool exterior spaces suchas restaurant patios.

Some utilities are taking a closer look at the complexconnections between water and energy conserva-tion because water use consumes sizable amountsof energy for treatment, transportation and heating.Water providers use energy to produce and deliverdrinking water. Once the water is delivered, consum-ers burn energy to heat, cool and use the water. Afterthe water heads down the drain, energy is used totreat wastewater.

On the other hand, producing energy consumeswater. The second greatest U.S. water user afteragriculture is the electric industry. Although thermo-electric power generation makes up only about 1.5percent of Arizona’s total water use, power plantsare significant water users in certain areas. Nearlyone-third of all water used in Apache County andnearly one-half of all water used in Coconino Countyis used in power generation.

26

Outdoor water userepresents the lion’s share

of urban water demandsand Arizona cities

encourage residents tolandscape with native

plants that require lessirrigation.

ments in water supply infrastructure for thePhoenix and Tucson areas have providedsubstantial protection from the current drought,there are concerns about the future in the case ofcontinued droughts simultaneously affecting theSalt River-Verde River system and the ColoradoRiver system.

As Arizona looks to the future, several questions mustbe considered regarding a sustainable water supply,including the needs of the environment and riparianprotection, the continued discussion of Indian waterrights and the means by which the needs of a growingpopulation are met. Questions remain about whatwater management strategies will be most effectivein the future for growing urban communities and ruralareas. As the shift from agricultural to urban wateruse intensifies, questions are raised about facilitat-ing the transfer of water without harming agriculturalcommunities.

On all these matters, solutions will likely beachieved through the cooperation, innovation andpartnerships that have marked much of Arizona’swater legacy.

Arizona has made significant strides in watermanagement to ensure sustainability for the future.Part of that progress can be seen through changesto groundwater law such as the GMA, which focusedon a long-term water supply. The creation of newinstitutions for underground storage, aquifer replen-ishment, and conjunctive management of water re-sources demonstrates the ingenuity and commitmentof Arizonans to address the issue of sustainability.

Come deluge or drought, population growth isinextricably linked to water supply. Several issuesmust be confronted as Arizona charts its morepopulous future, and the ramifications of the choicesmade spread across the economic, environmentaland social landscape. The AWS program issignificant in that it establishes the vital connectionbetween water supply and municipal demand.Implementing the recommendations of the SWAGcould establish that connection for the rest of thestate, and the 2007 Water Adequacy Act for RuralArizona could be an important step.

Challenges remain, not the least of which is achanging climate. Although the extensive invest-

Summary

27

RESOURCES

As Arizona contemplates what approaches to apply to its water resource challenges, the knowledgeand involvement of its citizens will be crucial. The voice of the water-informed citizen – or “layperson”– can make a significant difference in state water affairs in various ways.

Citizens can get involved through local watershed groups, or advisory groups involving a mix ofcitizens, water professionals and public officials created to address specific issues. More informationabout local and statewide Arizona water issues can be found at these web sites:

Arizona Department of Water Resources www.azwater.gov

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/water

Central Arizona Groundwater Replenishment District http://www.cagrd.com

Central Arizona Project http://www.cap-az.com

University of Arizona Water Resources Research Center http://cals.arizona.edu/AZWATER

Water Education Foundation http://www.watereducation.org

GLOSSARY

acre-foot – common measurement for water;325,851 gallons, or enough water to cover anacre of land (about the size of a football field)one foot deep.

appropriative right – a water right based onmoving water from a stream to a point of usefor beneficial use.

aquifer – a geologic formation saturated withwater that can be pumped by a well.

conjunctive use – the planned and coordinateduse of surface water and groundwater suppliesto improve water supply reliability.

desalination – specific treatment processes todemineralize sea water or brackish (saline)water for use.

groundwater – water that has seeped beneaththe earth’s surface, is stored in aquifers, andis drawn to the earth’s surface through wells.

hydrologic cycle – the natural recycling processin which water flows over and through the sur-face of the earth; collects in groundwater aqui-fers, lakes and oceans; evaporates into theatmosphere; condenses; and returns to theearth as rain and snow.

instream use – use of water within a river orstream, such as providing habitat for aquaticand riparian life, sport fishing, river rafting orscenic beauty.

nonpoint source pollution – water pollutioncaused by diffuse sources of runoff from farmfields, urban areas, construction sites andother sources.

point source pollution – water pollution with adistinct, identifiable source point, such asdischarge from a pipe.

riparian right – a water right based on theownership of land bordering a river or water-way.

surface water – water that remains on theearth’s surface, in rivers, streams, lakes andreservoirs.

water recycling – the treatment and reuse ofwastewater to produce water of suitable qualityfor additional use.

watershed – region or land area drained by ariver. Also called a drainage basin.

28