EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ALLOCATION OF WATER SUPPLY AND

LONG-TERM CONTRACT EXECUTION

CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT
ES-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

I. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION

This draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) describes the environmental effects of

proposed modifications to previous Central Arizona Project (CAP) water allocation

decisions and associated long-term contract execution. The draft EIS has been prepared

in compliance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing NEPA

(40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1500-1508), which require the evaluation of

potential environmental impacts resulting from Federal actions.

Reclamation is proposing modifications to previous CAP water allocations. The

purpose and need for the Federal action is to allocate remaining available CAP water in

a manner that would facilitate the resolution of outstanding Indian water rights claims

in the State of Arizona. Authority for this action is pursuant to the Colorado River Basin

Project Act of 1968 (Public Law [PL] 90-537).

The proposed allocation is taking place in the context of settlement negotiations

concerning operation and repayment of the CAP and Indian water rights. These

negotiations are being conducted by the U. S. Departments of the Interior and Justice,

with representatives of the Central Arizona Water Conservation District (CAWCD),

several Indian Tribes, Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR), non-Indian

agricultural (NIA) districts, and several municipalities. The proposed action (or

Settlement Alternative) identified in the draft EIS is an allocation of CAP water

consistent with terms of the negotiated settlements currently under discussion with

these entities. The draft EIS also analyzes three alternative allocations of remaining

available CAP water. The Secretary of the Interior could implement any one of these

four action alternatives to achieve the purpose and need for the proposed action.

A final allocation of remaining available CAP water, and execution of contracts for

delivery of that water, would provide a level of certainty to all entities regarding

available future water supplies. This, in turn, would enable Arizona water users, Indian

and non-Indian alike, to develop and implement the systems and infrastructure

necessary to utilize those water supplies to meet future water demands and serve Tribal

and community needs.

This EIS, when final, will serve as NEPA compliance to allow the Secretary to make a

final overall allocation and enter into water service contracts and subcontracts. It is

anticipated that at the conclusion of the NEPA process, the Secretary will prepare a

Record of Decision (ROD) and offer and execute contracts pursuant to that ROD.
CAP ALLOCATION DRAFT EIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES-2

II. DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVES

II.A Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis

Three major considerations were taken into account in developing the range of

alternatives:

♦ Restrictions or conditions that apply to any CAP water made available for

reallocation as a result of authorizing legislation and/or water settlement

agreements;

♦ Amounts of water believed to be sufficient to facilitate resolution of water rights

claims of Tribes being “actively” negotiated; and

♦ Water needs of the non-Indian sectors served by the CAP.

Several non-settlement alternatives were considered in addition to those included in the

draft EIS. Several of these were identified for consideration during the public scoping

process. The following were eliminated from further detailed analysis:

♦ Alternatives that would allocate water, made available for Federal purposes by

the Fort McDowell Indian Community Water Settlement Act of 1990 (PL 101-

628) to the Tonto Apache and Yavapai Apache Tribes, were eliminated after

determining that Act requires this water be used in the final settlement of Indian

water rights claims on the Salt and Verde River watershed;

♦ Alternatives that would allocate remaining available CAP water to Indian Tribes,

in addition to those evaluated in the draft EIS, were eliminated because

negotiations regarding settlement of water rights claims for those entities are not

sufficiently developed at this time (although this does not preclude future CAP

allocations being made to these Tribes);

♦ Alternatives that would allocate remaining available CAP water for

environmental purposes, on the Colorado River mainstem or for use in the

Colorado River Delta in Mexico, were eliminated as they would not be consistent

with the stated purpose and need of this proposed Federal action; and

♦ Alternatives that would allocate a specific portion of NIA priority water for nonIndian purposes, through a process and at a future time to be determined, were

eliminated from further consideration in recognition of the fact that such water

would need to first be offered to certain NIA districts pursuant to a 1992 Final

Reallocation Decision (57 Federal Register [FR]4470) (see draft EIS, Chapter I.B.2,

and Chapter II.C.4).
CAP ALLOCATION DRAFT EIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES-3

II.B. Alternatives Evaluated in the Draft EIS

The draft EIS describes in detail four alternative allocations of remaining available CAP

water, as well as a No Action Alternative. Implementation of any of the action

alternatives would fulfill the purpose and need of the Federal action.

Existing Indian and non-Indian municipal and industrial (M&I) CAP water allocations

are expressed as fixed volumes, whereas NIA allocations are expressed as a percentage

of the available CAP water supply that remains after the Indian and M&I sectors’

allocations have been ordered and delivered each year1. Under the Settlement

Alternative, all CAP water allocations would be expressed as fixed volume amounts.

Solely to provide a consistent basis for describing and comparing the alternatives in the

draft EIS, the NIA allocations have been converted from percentages to fixed volumes

for all the alternatives. The calculation of fixed volume amounts corresponding to

percentages of available CAP water supply may vary depending upon the order in

which specific calculations, reductions and conversions are made2. Use of specific

numbers in the EIS is not meant to imply a degree of precision that does not exist, and it

should be noted the various amounts of water attributed to the NIA sector are estimates

for purposes of describing alternative allocation scenarios. There is one exception,

however. NIA priority water previously allocated and contracted to Harquahala Valley

Irrigation District (HVID) pursuant to the Fort McDowell Indian Community (FMIC)

Water Rights Settlement Act of 1990 (PL 101-628), has been converted from an NIA

percentage allocation to a fixed volume of 33,251 acre-feet per year (afa) and is

considered to be Indian priority. Of this amount, 13,933 afa were allocated and

contracted to FMIC in December 1993. The remaining “HVID water” (19,318 afa) is

being reserved for Federal use in the settlement of Indian water rights claims to the Salt

and Verde River watershed.

II.B.1. Settlement Alternative (Proposed Action)

The Settlement Alternative, referred to as the proposed action during the scoping

process, would result in the allocation of remaining available CAP water consistent with

both the settlement stipulation between the United States and CAWCD3, and ongoing

negotiations among the United States, CAWCD, Gila River Indian Community (GRIC),

the State of Arizona, and other affected parties, including other Indian Tribes. In the

event a final settlement contains modifications that are different from those analyzed in

this process, Reclamation would evaluate them to determine what additional NEPA

compliance is required prior to implementation.

Under the Settlement Alternative, remaining available CAP water would be allocated as

follows:

 

1 For purposes of this EIS, the total amount of CAP water available in a normal year, for diversion and use after deducting

estimated system losses, is 1,415,000 acre-feet annually (afa). This includes some higher priority Colorado River water

that has been allocated to Indian Tribes also holding CAP water contracts. The Secretary, in his capacity as Water Master

for the Colorado River, makes an annual determination of whether Colorado River water supplies are “normal,”

“surplus,” or “shortage,” based upon water storage levels and other factors. See Appendix A for details.

2 For a detailed explanation of the method by which these conversions were made for the EIS, see Appendices A and B.

3 On May 9, 2000, the United States and CAWCD reached agreement on a stipulated settlement agreement which would

resolve and “stay” or suspend the active litigation of the CAWCD v. United States lawsuit (Appendix O).
CAP ALLOCATION DRAFT EIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES-4

♦ A total of 65,647 afa of currently unallocated M&I priority water would be

allocated and contracted to M&I entities consistent with State recommendations.

♦ A total of 17,000 afa of M&I priority water currently contracted to ASARCO

would be voluntarily transferred to GRIC pursuant to an agreement between the

two parties, and would be put under contract to GRIC.

♦ A total of 37,918 afa of CAP water currently held by the Secretary, as a result of

the Roosevelt Water Conservation District (RWCD) and HVID CAP

relinquishments, would be used to facilitate Indian water rights claims (36,400

afa would be allocated and contracted to GRIC; the remaining 1,518 afa would

continue to be held for use in settling Indian water rights claims in the Salt and

Verde River watershed).

♦ All allocations of NIA-priority water would be converted to fixed volumes based

upon a total CAP water supply of 1,415,000 afa. It is assumed that CAP water

allocated to NIA entities would be voluntarily relinquished (estimated to affect a

maximum of 295,263 afa). To facilitate this relinquishment, some degree of

Federal debt relief and Reclamation Reform Act (RRA) relief would be provided

for NIA users. It is further assumed that, consistent with past and current

practice, CAWCD would continue to make NIA priority water available during

the 2001 to 2030 period. Assuming the maximum amount would be

relinquished, the following is envisioned to occur:

 102,000 afa would be reallocated to GRIC as part of a water rights settlement

agreement; and 28,200 afa would be allocated to the Tohono O’odham Nation

(TON) to satisfy Federal obligations under the Southern Arizona Water

Rights Settlement Act of 1982 (PL 97-293) (SAWRSA).

 69,800 afa4 would be reserved for Federal use, primarily to facilitate future

Indian water rights settlements. Although allocations to Tribes would be

made when appropriate, for purposes of identifying environmental

consequences in this EIS, it is assumed this block of water would be made

available as excess water5 for the remainder of the 50-year study period,

continuing to be used by the NIA sector, and for groundwater recharge or

other uses. This assumption is consistent with project operations since 1993

and represents a continuation of the ongoing administration and operation of

the project by CAWCD.

 Up to 95,263 afa would be distributed for use by the M&I or NIA sectors by

the State of Arizona, through a process to be established at a future date. For

 

4 Current negotiations indicate this amount would be reduced by 2,500 afa; the final EIS will reflect the most current

amounts agreed upon, including this change.

5 Excess water has been made available on an annual basis through two-party contracts with CAWCD. The United States

is challenging provisions of these agreements for consistency with Reclamation law in ongoing litigation regarding

operation of the CAP. These issues have been addressed in the settlement stipulation. Under the Non-Settlement

Alternatives, it is assumed that current CAP operations allowing delivery of these water supplies would continue

pending resolution of the ongoing litigation.
CAP ALLOCATION DRAFT EIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES-5

the purpose of the draft EIS, this water is treated as excess water during the

period of analysis.

♦ The manner in which shortages are allocated within the CAP would be as

follows: when CAP water supply is less than the total Indian water plus the

total M&I water, both M&I and Indian CAP water users would begin to take

shortages based on the proportions contemplated (approximately 64 percent

and 36 percent, respectively) in the 1980 and 1983 FR notice. The agreed-to

schedule resolves differing interpretations of the 1980 and 1983 FR notices.

NIA priority water would maintain its original priority similar to existing

CAP operation schedules. Water that would be voluntarily relinquished and

assigned to different user sectors would retain its original NIA priority. It

should be noted that higher priority Colorado River water delivered by CAP

would continue to retain its priority under the Settlement Alternative.

II.B.2. Non-Settlement Alternative 1

Under Non-Settlement Alternative 1, remaining available CAP water would be allocated

as follows:

♦ A total of 65,647 afa of currently uncontracted M&I priority water would be

allocated and contracted to M&I entities consistent with State recommendations

referenced above under the Settlement Alternative.

♦ A total of 17,000 afa of M&I priority water currently contracted to ASARCO

would be voluntarily transferred to GRIC pursuant to an agreement between the

two parties, and would be put under contract to GRIC.

♦ A total of 18,600 afa of NIA priority water, relinquished by RWCD for the

Secretary to reserve for contracting to GRIC pursuant to the Agreement among

the United States, GRIC and RWCD of 1992, would be put under contract to

GRIC.

♦ NIA entity allocations would continue to be expressed as a percentage of the

CAP water supply remaining after the M&I and Indian allocations have been

ordered and delivered each year.

♦ There would be no change from current practices regarding the manner in which

CAP water is handled during shortage or surplus conditions on the Colorado

River.

II.B.3. Non-Settlement Alternative 2

Under Non-Settlement Alternative 2, remaining available CAP water would be allocated

as follows:

♦ A total of 65,647 afa of currently uncontracted M&I priority water would be

allocated and contracted to Indian Tribes for use in facilitating settlement of
CAP ALLOCATION DRAFT EIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES-6

Indian water rights.

♦ A total of 17,000 afa of M&I priority water currently contracted to ASARCO

would be voluntarily transferred to GRIC pursuant to an agreement between the

two parties, and would be put under contract to GRIC.

♦ A total of 18,600 afa of NIA priority water, relinquished by RWCD for the

Secretary to reserve for contracting to GRIC pursuant to the Agreement among

the United States, GRIC and RWCD of 1992, would be put under contract to

GRIC.

♦ A total of 38,999 afa of currently relinquished and/or declined NIA priority

water would be reallocated to Indian Tribes for use in facilitating settlement of

Indian water rights claims.

♦ NIA entity allocations would continue to be expressed as a percentage of the

CAP water supply remaining after the M&I and Indian allocations have been

ordered and delivered each year.

♦ There would be no change from current practices regarding the manner in which

CAP water is handled during shortage or surplus conditions on the Colorado

River.

II.B.4. Non-Settlement Alternative 3

Under Non-Settlement Alternative 3, remaining available CAP water would be allocated

as follows:

♦ A total of 65,647 afa of currently uncontracted M&I priority water would be

reallocated to Indian Tribes for use in facilitating settlement of Indian water

rights claims.

♦ A total of 17,000 afa of M&I priority water currently allocated to ASARCO would

be voluntarily transferred to GRIC pursuant to an agreement between the two

parties, and would be put under contract to GRIC.

♦ A total of 18,600 afa of NIA priority water, relinquished by RWCD for the

Secretary to reserve for use by GRIC, pursuant to the Agreement among the

United States, GRIC and RWCD of 1992, would be put under contract to GRIC.

♦ A total of 38,999 afa of currently relinquished and/or declined NIA priority

water would be reallocated to Indian Tribes for use in facilitating settlement of

Indian water rights claims.

♦ A total of 184,449 afa of NIA priority water which is considered to have reverted

to the Secretary would be allocated and contracted to several Indian users, or

would be reserved for use in facilitating settlements of Indian water rights

claims.
CAP ALLOCATION DRAFT EIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES-7

♦ NIA entities would be offered an estimated 71,815 afa consistent with the 1992

NIA reallocation process. For purposes of evaluating the environmental

consequences of this alternative, it is anticipated one of two outcomes would

result:

 Option 3A - Under this option, it is anticipated the six affected districts6

would satisfy the eligibility requirements for receiving the reallocated 1992

NIA water, and water service subcontracts would be executed for the

amounts identified through that process.

 Option 3B - Under this option, the six affected districts would not be able to

meet the eligibility requirements for receiving, or would decline, the

reallocated 1992 NIA water. The water would revert to the United States,

consistent with the 1992 NIA reallocation process described in 57 FR 4470.

The United States would make this estimated 71,815 afa of NIA priority

water available for M&I purposes. It is assumed this water would be

distributed pro rata among the M&I entities based upon the

recommendations received from the State as described earlier. These

contracts would be offered and executed.

♦ NIA entity allocations would continue to be expressed as a percentage of the

CAP water supply remaining after the M&I and Indian allocations have been

ordered and delivered each year.

♦ There would be no change from current practices regarding the manner in which

CAP water is handled during shortage or surplus conditions on the Colorado

River.

II.B.5. No Action Alternative

The No Action Alternative provides a baseline for comparing the impacts of the

alternatives discussed in the draft EIS. For purposes of this document, “no action” is

defined as no additional Federal action being taken regarding allocation or contracting

of CAP water. No blocks of water would move from one sector to another. No CAP

water transfers would be approved by Reclamation. Even actions that have already

been agreed upon, such as the transfer to GRIC of 17,000 afa of water previously

allocated to ASARCO, would not occur, since Secretarial approval or Federal action

would be required.

It is assumed under the No Action Alternative that the status quo would continue for

the 50-year study period. There would be no additional water allocated or reallocated

within the M&I sector7. The NIA districts would continue to use CAP water as they do

 

6 Maricopa-Stanfield Irrigation & Drainage District (MSIDD), Central Arizona Irrigation and Drainage District (CAIDD),

New Magma Irrigation and Drainage (NMIDD), Chandler Heights Citrus Irrigation District (CHCID), San Carlos

Irrigation and Drainage District (SCIDD), Roosevelt Irrigation District (RID).

7Transfer of M&I allocations and/or amendments to the existing M&I subcontracts, already recommended by ADWR and

being processed by Reclamation, would be completed.
CAP ALLOCATION DRAFT EIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES-8

currently under two-party excess water agreements, and the status of their CAP water

service subcontracts would remain unresolved. No additional water would be

provided to facilitate settlement of Indian water rights claims, and the uncertainty of the

status of water rights would remain. Current water rights litigation would continue, as

well as litigation over repayment of the CAP. No particular outcome of these lawsuits is

assumed under the No Action Alternative.

An optional way to define the No Action Alternative would have been to identify

reasonably foreseeable actions that might be expected to occur in the absence of the

Settlement Alternative. The action alternatives considered in this EIS, however, already

comprise various alternative futures that could result in the absence of a settlement.

Moreover, in the absence of any reallocation at all, it is difficult to envision reasonably

foreseeable actions that would be likely to occur, because so much would depend upon

the outcome of litigation between CAWCD and the United States. In light of these

considerations, Reclamation determined it was most reasonable, and most consistent

with Council on Environmental Quality regulations, to define the No Action Alternative

as truly one in which no additional Federal action occurs, without speculating on future

possibilities.

II.C. Description of CAP Water Use by Sector

Tables ES-1, ES-2, and ES-3 provide the allocations that would occur under each of the

alternatives.

II.C.1. M&I Sector

Under the Settlement Alternative and Non-Settlement Alternatives 1 and 3B, 20 of 21

potential M&I entities would receive an allocation of CAP water. The allocation would

be made consistent with the recommendations received from the State (see Appendix

N). Water service subcontracts would be executed with those entities. It is anticipated

that the M&I entities would use the CAP water to supply existing and future M&I

demand and/or to offset current groundwater pumping. Under Non-Settlement

Alternative 3B, it is assumed that the M&I entities would directly use 65,647 afa of their

allocation of 71,815 afa of NIA priority water and recharge the balance in order to help

firm up this water supply. Under the Settlement Alternative, seven Maricopa County

municipalities would receive a portion of 41,000 afa leased from GRIC; and the Cities of

Chandler and Mesa would also participate in a “reclaimed water for CAP water”

exchange with GRIC.
CAP ALLOCATION DRAFT EIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES-9

Table ES-1

CAP Allocation Draft EIS

Summary Table of New Allocations – M&I

Allocation Under Alternative

(acre-feet per year)

Entity

Settlement

Alternative

No

Action

NonSettlement

Alternative 1

NonSettlement

Alternative 2

NonSettlement

Alternative

3A(d)

NonSettlement

Alternative

3B(d)

Arizona Water

Company –Apache

Junction(a)

285 0 285 0 0 312(b)

AVRA Water

Cooperative

808 0 808 0 0 884(b)

Cave Creek Water

Company 806 0 806 0 0 882(b)

City of Chandler 4,986 0 4,986 0 0 5,454(b)

Chaparral City Water

Company

1,931 0 1,931 0 0 2,112(b)

Community Water

Company of Green

Valley

1,521 0 1,521 0 0 1,664(b)

City of El Mirage 508 0 508 0 0 556(b)

City of Glendale 3,053 0 3,053 0 0 3,340(b)

City of Goodyear 7,211 0 7,211 0 0 7,889(b)

H20 Water Company

147 0 147 0 0 161(b)

City of Mesa 7,115 0 7,115 0 0 7,784(b)

Metropolitan Domestic

Water Improvement

District (MDWID)

4,602 0 4,602 0 0 5,034(b)

Town of Oro Valley 3,557 0 3,557 0 0 3,891(b)

City of Peoria 5,527 0 5,527 0 0 6,046(b)

City of Phoenix 8,206 0 8,206 0 0 8,977(b)

City of Scottsdale 2,981 0 2,981 0 0 3,261(b)

Town of

Superior/Arizona Water

Company-Superior

285 0 285 0 0 312(b)

City of Surprise 2,876 0 2,876 0 0 3,146(b)

City of Tucson 8,206 0 8,206 0 0 8,977(b)

Vail Water Company

1,071 0 1,071 0 0 1,172(b)

Valley Utilities Water

Company 250 0 250 0 0 273(b)

M&I and/or NIA

Reserved for Future

Use(c)

95,263 0 0 0 0 0

Total 65,647 0 65,647 0 0 71,815

Notes:

(a) If the allocation is not accepted, then the 285 acre-feet from Town of Superior would be recommended for the Arizona

Water Company for use in its Superior or Apache Junction system.

(b) NIA-priority water.

(c) In a process to be developed later and not included in total.

(d) Under Non-Settlement Alternative 3, allocations would be offered on a percentage basis and are shown here as fixed

volumes for ease in describing and comparing all the alternatives.
CAP ALLOCATION DRAFT EIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES-10

Table ES-2

CAP Allocation Draft EIS

Summary Table of New Allocations – NIA

Allocation Under Alternative

(acre-feet per year)

Entity

Settlement

Alternative

No

Action

NonSettlement

Alternative 1

NonSettlement

Alternative

2

NonSettlement

Alternative

3A(a)

NonSettlement

Alternative

3B(a)

CAIDD 0 0 0 0 27,342 0

Chandler Heights

Citrus ID 0 0 0 0 173 0

Maricopa-Stanfield

IDD 0 0 0 0 26,497 0

New Magma IDD 0 0 0 0 3,396 0

Queen Creek ID 0 0 0 0 0 0

Roosevelt ID 0 0 0 0 6,122 0

San Carlos IDD 0 0 0 0 8,284 0

San Tan ID 0 0 0 0 0 0

Tonopah ID 0 0 0 0 0 0

M&I and/or NIA

Reserved for Future

Use(b)

95,263 0 0 0 0 0

Total 0 0 0 0 71,815 0

Notes:

(a) Under Non-Settlement Alternative 3, allocations would be offered on a percentage basis and are shown here as

fixed volumes for ease in describing and comparing all alternatives.

(b) In a process to be developed later and not included in total.

II.C.2. NIA Sector

Although entities in the NIA sector would receive an allocation only under NonSettlement Alternative 3A, it is assumed that under all alternatives, this sector would

continue to have access to affordably-priced CAP Ag Pool water (which consists of

lower priority excess water). The annual quantity of the Ag Pool varies substantially by

alternative, with the largest total Ag Pool available under the Settlement Alternative.

The anticipated distribution of the Ag Pool to the various NIA entities also varies

between the Settlement Alternative and all other alternatives (see Appendix A). It is

assumed that given access to reasonably priced CAP water, the NIA entities would use

it for agricultural irrigation on existing CAP-eligible lands and offset groundwater

pumping.
CAP ALLOCATION DRAFT EIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES-11

Table ES-3

CAP Allocation Draft EIS

Summary Table of New CAP Allocations – Indian

Allocation Under Alternative

(acre-feet per year)

Entity

Settlement

Alternative

No

Action

NonSettlement

Alternative 1

NonSettlement

Alternative

2

NonSettlement

Alternative

3A

NonSettlement

Alternative

3B

GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY

Allocated 155,400 0 35,600 75,099 170,200 170,200

Designated 0 0 17,800 17,800 17,800 17,800

GRIC Total 155,400 0 53,400 92,899 188,000 188,000

Tohono O’odham Nation

San Xavier District 23,000 0 0 23,000 23,000 23,000

Schuk Toak District 5,200 0 0 5,200 5,200 5,200

TON Total 28,200(a) 0 0 28,200(a) 28,200(a) 28,200(a)

SCAT 0 0 0 23,447 40,000 40,000

Navajo/Hopi 0 0 0 13,500 13,500 13,500

Reserved for

Future Settlements 33,400(b) 0 0 0 34,877(b) 34,877(b)

Totals 217,000 0 53,400 158,046 304,577 304,577

Notes:

(a) Under the Settlement Alternative and Non-Settlement Alternatives 2 and 3, the 28,200 AF annually of

additional water to the TON per SAWRSA are identified as a CAP allocation.

(b) Reserved for Federal use, primarily to facilitate future Indian water rights settlements. Water for

environmental purposes within the State of Arizona could be available on an annual basis.

II.C.3. Indian Sector

Hypothetical, non-binding plans for the Tribes’ uses of CAP allocations are briefly

described below. These plans have been developed solely for purposes of preparing this

document, and are intended only to provide examples of the types of uses for which

these Tribes could use the allocated water. The Tribes themselves will determine the

actual uses of water; accordingly, these examples should not be considered binding on

the part of any user with regard to developing plans, once water is allocated and

contracted. More comprehensive descriptions are included in Appendix L.

II.C.3.a Gila River Indian Community

Under the Settlement Alternative, GRIC would receive an additional 155,400 afa of CAP

water, which would contribute to satisfying GRIC’s total water budget of 653,500 afa8.

GRIC's Gila River water rights claims would be settled.

 

8 GRIC’s total water budget for its water rights settlement includes the following sources: CAP water, obtained as an

allocation as well as from other entities through water rights settlements; Globe Equity 59 Decree water from the Gila

River; groundwater; Salt River Project (SRP) water and reclaimed water.
CAP ALLOCATION DRAFT EIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES-12

Based upon current water rights settlement negotiations, it is anticipated that 41,000 afa

of Indian priority water to be received as part of the Settlement Alternative would be

leased by GRIC to seven municipalities within Maricopa County for a 100-year period.

It is also anticipated GRIC would exchange 32,500 afa of CAP water with the Cities of

Mesa and Chandler for 40,600 afa of reclaimed water, resulting in a net addition of 8,100

afa of water to GRIC's total water budget. The specific plans for transporting and using

this reclaimed water are unknown at this time.

Based upon previous agreements, it is anticipated that 17,000 afa of the 155,400 af of

CAP water would be available to be leased to ASARCO; 12,000 afa could also be leased

to Phelps Dodge Corporation. The details of the lease arrangements and specific uses of

the leased water are not known at this time.

For purposes of evaluating the environmental consequences in the draft EIS, it is

anticipated that all CAP water not leased or exchanged would be used for agricultural

purposes. GRIC has developed a master agricultural development plan, called the

Pima-Maricopa Irrigation Project (PMIP), which consists of rehabilitating existing

agricultural lands and developing new lands for agriculture within the Reservation, up

to a maximum of 146,330 acres. This additional net 93,500 afa of CAP water would

support continued agricultural use/development of about 20,800 acres, consistent with

the PMIP, for which a programmatic EIS was prepared (Reclamation 1997) and a ROD

issued (Reclamation 1998).

Under the non-settlement alternatives, it is assumed that GRIC would develop varying

amounts of land for agricultural purposes based on the volume of additional CAP water

received.

II.C.3.d. Tohono O’odham Nation

Among its other provisions, the SAWRSA directed the Secretary to secure and deliver

28,200 afa of water to TON as a component of settlement of water rights claims of the

TON. This water was identified to be of a quality suitable for agricultural use; however,

the source of this water was not identified. Under the Settlement Alternative and NonSettlement Alternatives 2 and 3, the source of this water would be CAP water. Of this

total amount, San Xavier District would receive 23,000 afa and Schuk Toak District

would receive 5,200 afa. These are specific amounts established by the SAWRSA.

For purposes of evaluating the environmental consequences in the draft EIS, it is

envisioned that water received as a result of this allocation would be used by each

district primarily for agriculture and/or recharge. For the San Xavier District, it is

anticipated approximately 15,000 afa would be used for agricultural purposes. An

estimated 3,000 acres could be farmed with that amount of water. It is anticipated the

remaining 8,000 afa would be recharged (directly and/or indirectly) within the district.

It is anticipated the Schuk Toak District would use its 5,200 afa for agriculture, which

could serve an estimated 1,000 acres.
CAP ALLOCATION DRAFT EIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES-13

II.C.3.c. San Carlos Apache Tribe

Under Non-Settlement Alternative 2, the SC Apache Tribe would receive a total of

23,447 afa (3,947 afa of M&I priority, and 19,500 afa of NIA priority water); and under

Non-Settlement Alternative 3, the Tribe would receive a total of 40,000 afa (3,947 afa of

M&I priority water, and 36,053 afa of NIA priority water). It is anticipated that in order

to use the CAP water, the SC Apache Tribe would need to enter into an exchange

agreement with a downstream party that has both rights to use Gila River water and

access to CAP water. Water would most likely be used for agriculture (up to 8,000 acres

could be farmed), although the Tribe could decide to leave some water in San Carlos

Reservoir to maintain a minimum pool in the reservoir.

II.C.3.b. Navajo Nation and Hopi Tribe

Under Non-Settlement Alternatives 2 and 3, the Navajo Nation and Hopi Tribe would

together receive a total of 13,500 afa of M&I priority water. For purposes of evaluating

the environmental impacts in this draft EIS, it is anticipated the Navajo Nation and Hopi

Tribe would both utilize this water for M&I purposes. The water would likely be

diverted out of Lake Powell and delivered via pipeline for use in the lower Colorado

River basin9.

II.C.3.e. Other Tribes

Under the Settlement Alternative and Non-Settlement Alternative 3, 69,800 afa10 and

72,795 afa of NIA priority water, respectively, would be reserved for Federal purposes.

Unless and until specific amounts are allocated and contracted11 to facilitate the

settlement of future water rights claims, this water would be made available as excess

water, available on an annual basis through two-party contracts with CAWCD. For

purposes of this EIS, it is assumed this water would remain in the excess water pool for

the remainder of the 50-year study period, continuing to be used primarily by the NIA

sector and for groundwater recharge.

III. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

III.A. Introduction

The technical studies, which are included as appendices to this draft EIS, became the

basis for predicting the potential environmental impacts associated with each alternative

described and addressed in this document. To establish inputs for the technical studies,

it was necessary to develop a wide array of assumptions. Development of the

background assumptions common to all analyses is described in detail in Appendix A.

 

9 It is anticipated that issues related to this diversion and the associated delivery system would be addressed as part of

water rights settlement.

10 Current negotiations indicate this amount would be reduced by 2,500 afa. The final EIS will reflect the most current

amounts agreed upon, including this change.

11 When allocated and contracted, this water could be delivered via the CAP system, diverted from the Colorado River

mainstem (as proposed for the Navajo/Hopi allocation under Non-Settlement Alternatives 2 and 3), or exchanged with a

CAP partner (as proposed for the SC Apache Tribe under Non-Settlement Alternatives 2 and 3).
CAP ALLOCATION DRAFT EIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES-14

Development of assumptions utilized for a specific resource area can be found in its

respective technical appendix.

The majority of these assumptions had to do with water availability, water demand and

cost of available water. The background assumptions developed for this draft EIS that

are common to all analyses are grouped into the following major categories: water

availability and pricing; population projections; and land uses. Evaluation of the

background assumptions resulted in quantification of water demands of, and water

supplies available to, each individual entity for the 50-year study period used for this

analysis (2001-2051).

The water availability and pricing assumptions were developed to assess not only the

volume of CAP water available by priority class12, but also the possible price of CAP

water. The water availability assumptions included: capacity of the CAP system as a

whole; capacity within the CAP system; possible shortages in the Colorado River

system; possible surplus Colorado River water available to CAP; and water demands by

users of excess CAP water, including the Arizona Water Bank Authority, Central

Arizona Groundwater Recharge District, and NIA districts.

Projected water uses by the individual entities within each use sector (M&I, NIA, and

Indian) were developed. NIA projected water uses were also based upon an economic

analysis conducted by Reclamation (included as Appendix D), cropping patterns, entity

interviews, and water supply analyses. As mentioned above, Indian users' potential

water uses were developed solely for purposes of this document, and are intended only

to provide examples of the types of uses for which these Tribes could use the allocated

water. Each of the potentially affected 35 entities' projected water use is included in

Appendix L.

Because specific/definitive details are not known regarding entities’ plans for taking

and using CAP water allocation as a result of this proposed allocation, direct impacts

were identified and summarized on a programmatic level. The vast majority of

environmental impacts that are described in the draft EIS are considered to be indirect

impacts that would occur as a result of choices made by water users due to the

availability or unavailability of CAP and other sources of water.

Table ES-4 displays a summary of the impacts of the alternatives on the various

resources discussed in the draft EIS. Impacts from the proposed allocation are briefly

described below. The No Action Alternative provides a baseline against which the

impacts of the action alternatives are compared. Due to the nature and extent of the

assumptions made to conduct the technical studies, the analyses provide more value as

a comparison of each action alternative to the others and to the No Action Alternative’s

baseline, rather than as a prediction of actual changes that would occur within a

particular resource area.

 

12 It is assumed that CAP water would be delivered by priority class. These priority classes are defined in Appendix A.
CAP ALLOCATION DRAFT EIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES-15

III.B. Water Resources

Groundwater level changes that would occur under the No Action Alternative were first

modeled. Groundwater level changes that would occur under each of the action

alternatives were then modeled and compared to those anticipated to occur under no

action. Under all the action alternatives, the magnitude of groundwater level declines

over the 50-year study period would not be large enough to substantially limit the

physical or legal ability of any entity to recover groundwater. In general, the increased

costs associated with pumping at greater depths would be small in relation to the costs

of developing alternative water supplies for M&I use.

A significant factor in the relatively small groundwater level impacts experienced under

all alternatives is the availability of substantial amounts of excess water during the early

years of the analysis. This excess water availability means that many entities which do

not get CAP allocations would have continued access to CAP water through excess

water agreements with CAWCD. Larger groundwater level impacts would be

anticipated if either the contracted CAP water supply was fully used (thus reducing the

amount of excess water available), or if different assumptions were made as to the

distribution of the excess water.

The amount of water that could be recharged at direct recharge facilities would be

affected by the different alternatives. This is because the allocations under each of the

action alternatives would affect the size of the Recharge Pool (which consists of lower

priority excess water).

Unlike most of the areas evaluated in this analysis, the water demands on GRIC vary

among the alternatives, as does the portfolio of water supplies used to meet those

demands. This can result in groundwater level impacts that are at first glance counterintuitive. For example, while surface water supplies available to GRIC are greatest

under the Settlement Alternative, groundwater levels on GRIC generally drop and the

lowest groundwater levels for most locations generally occur, under this alternative.

The lower groundwater levels primarily reflect that the Settlement Alternative has the

greatest cropped acreage (and so the greatest irrigation demand), and the greatest

groundwater pumping of any alternative. Groundwater levels on GRIC for all

alternatives also reflect that: (1) there is a net groundwater outflow under all

alternatives; and (2) improvements in the distribution facilities tend to reduce the

incidental recharge under all alternatives.

III.B.2. Effluent

The level of effluent discharge from existing wastewater treatment plants is projected to

continue at current or increased levels under the No Action and all action alternatives.

As population increases, it is anticipated that effluent would not be sent to the regional

wastewater treatment plants, such as Phoenix’s 91st Avenue Wastewater Treatment

Plant, but rather would be treated locally in smaller wastewater treatment plants, such

as the one at the Anthem development north of Phoenix. These local wastewater

treatment plants may use the reclaimed water for turf facilities, groundwater recharge,

or discharge to streams. Under Non-Settlement Alternatives 2 and 3A, and the No
CAP ALLOCATION DRAFT EIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES-16

Action Alternative, in which the M&I entities would not receive an additional CAP

allocation, it is estimated that more reclaimed water would be used for turf facilities

than for the other alternatives (see tables of Summary of Projected Water Uses for Each

Entity in Appendix C for estimated differences in effluent reuse by alternative).

III.B.3. Colorado River Mainstem

Under the No Action and Settlement Alternatives, and Non-Settlement Alternative 1, no

change in the diversion pattern off the Colorado River would occur from the current

practice of full CAP diversion at Parker Dam; there would be no impacts to the Colorado

River mainstem.

Under Non-Settlement Alternatives 2 and 3, 13,500 afa for the Navajo Nation and Hopi

Tribe would likely be diverted from Lake Powell. This diversion is estimated to lower

the Colorado River water surface between Lake Powell and Lake Mead less than 0.02

inch; these impacts are considered de minimis.

III.C. Socioeconomic

III.C.1. M&I Sector

Analysis of current and potential future water resources compared to project future

water demands concluded all M&I entities potentially receiving a CAP allocation could

meet their projected demands without receiving additional CAP water through this

proposed allocation (see Appendix C). The cost of water would be impacted, however.

The cost of delivering and treating CAP water would be about $154 per af. Alternative

sources of water (such as CAGRD or reclaimed water) would cost about $214 to $301 per

af. Therefore, those entities having a larger proportion of their water supplies consisting

of CAP water would have reduced water costs. Under the Settlement Alternative, and

Non-Settlement Alternatives 1 and 3B, CAP water is allocated to M&I entities pursuant

to State recommendations. No additional CAP water allocations are made to M&I

entities under Non-Settlement Alternatives 2 and 3A. Water supplies that could be used

under each of the alternatives are identified for each M&I entity in Appendix C.

Within reason, M&I water demand is relatively insensitive to water rates and it is

recognized that increased water costs would likely be passed on to consumers via rates,

resulting in potentially decreased spending on household discretionary items such as

recreation. These secondary impacts were not quantified, because the increased cost for

water under the different alternatives is so small, and would be spread over a large

number of users

III.C.2. NIA Sector

Forecasts were made of NIA acreage changes over the 50-year study period, and the

corresponding groundwater and CAP water usage for all of the alternatives, including

the No Action Alternative (see Appendix D).
CAP ALLOCATION DRAFT EIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES-17

For the combined nine NIA districts that could be affected by any of the alternatives, the

amount of farmed acreage and water use patterns would be similar under all

alternatives. The underlying reason is the similarity in water availability under each

action alternative. In every study year, the difference in the amount of CAP water

available to NIA users (including Ag Pool and in-lieu water13) across all alternatives is

less than 80,000 af. The change in agricultural output projected to occur under the No

Action Alternative is estimated to be a reduction of $23.6 million from 2001 to 2051.

Under the Settlement Alternative, this would be expected to be reduced an additional

$5.1 million, or $28.7 million. Under Non-Settlement Alternative 1, the change in

agricultural output is expected to be $22 million, a net change of +$1.6 million over the

No Action Alternative. The agricultural outputs resulting from Non-Settlement

Alternatives 2 and 3 are expected to be the same as under the No Action Alternative.

III.C.3. Indian Sector

Estimates were made of schedules when agricultural infrastructure would be completed

and lands would be put into full agricultural production. Socioeconomic impacts within

this sector were based principally upon the incremental increase in acreage farmed

under each action alternative over acreage farmed under the No Action Alternative, and

the associated economic outputs. Detailed forecasts are provided in Appendix D.

As Indian lands are converted to agricultural use, water distribution systems would

need to be constructed. This is expected to provide employment and income during the

years in which construction is expected to occur. Even under the No Action Alternative,

it is expected that water delivery facilities would be constructed for Tribes with existing

CAP water allocations, whose systems have not yet been completed. Socioeconomic

impacts evaluated for the Navajo Nation and Hopi Tribe, resulting from an allocation of

M&I priority CAP water under Non-Settlement Alternatives 2 and 3, were limited to

direct impacts associated with construction of delivery facilities. Regional economic

impacts associated with Indian water delivery construction projects would be positive

under all alternatives. The greatest impact would occur under Alternative 3.

In comparing the negative economic impacts on the NIA sector and the positive

economic impacts on the Indian sector, it is important to keep in mind that these impacts

would fall on different communities. Impacts of abandoning NIA lands and developing

Indian lands for agriculture would affect different sectors of the population, but

subsequent secondary regional impacts would affect the same sector primarily. Thus,

even though the positive impacts would offset the negative impacts from an economic

perspective, non-Indian farmers would bear the costs of declining agriculture under all

alternatives.

The total economic impact on the three-County area caused by declines in NIA and

increases in Indian agriculture is smallest in the early years under all the alternatives.

The largest impacts would occur in the later years.

 

13 Under Arizona State law, in-lieu water consists of surface water delivered to farmers, who use it in lieu of groundwater,

which would otherwise be pumped. Groundwater credits are accrued which may be used at a later point in time.
CAP ALLOCATION DRAFT EIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES-18

III.C.4. Power Generation Sector

No water would be diverted from Lake Powell under the No Action Alternative,

Settlement Alternative, and Non-Settlement Alternative 1; therefore, no changes in

power generation at the Glen Canyon Dam would occur.

Under Non-Settlement Alternatives 2 and 3, there would be a withdrawal of 13,500 afa

of water from Lake Powell for M&I use by the Navajo Nation and Hopi Tribe. This

withdrawal would reduce energy production at Glen Canyon Dam. Replacing this

foregone energy production with spot market purchases and associated transmission

services would cost about $226,000 per year. Over the 50-year study period, assuming

the water diversions start in 2001, the present value of foregone energy production

would be about $7.8 million. Details on the analysis are presented in Appendix J.

III.C.5. CAP Repayment

CAP construction costs are costs allocated to non-Indian and Indian irrigation,

commercial power, M&I water, fish and wildlife, recreation, and flood control. Changes

in CAP water allocation do not significantly affect the allocation of costs to commercial

power, fish and wildlife, recreation, and flood control. Changes in CAP water allocation

do, however, impact the costs assigned to non-Indian and Indian irrigation and M&I

water supply. The total project construction cost is just under $5 billion and includes all

expenditures by the United States in constructing the CAP plus interest during

construction.

The CAWCD is the primary repayment entity for the CAP. Under the Settlement

Alternative, CAWCD’s repayment obligation is $1.650 billion, a fixed, negotiated

number. Under the No Action Alternative, CAWCD’s repayment obligation is

calculated to be $2.183 billion14, based on Reclamation’s revised cost allocation study

(CASII). The difference between total project costs and the portion which is to be repaid

by local beneficiaries becomes construction costs that are not recovered by the United

States through repayment. The difference in cost to the United States between the

Settlement Alternative and the No Action Alternative, in terms of a reduction in the

repayment amount, is about $500 million. CAWCD would also experience an estimated

reduction of $450 million in interest payments to the United States over the repayment

period.

III.C.6. RRA

Under the No Action Alternative, it is assumed that all provisions of the RRA would

remain in effect. Affected irrigation district landowners would continue to file

certification forms and be subject to the excess acreage and full cost pricing provisions of

the RRA. Certain lands would continue to be ineligible for project water delivery and

commingling fees would continue. Reclamation and the irrigation districts would still

need to maintain staff and would incur costs carrying out the RRA program.

 

14 It is noted that in CAWCD vs. United States, the Court ruled in its Phase One decision that the repayment ceiling is

$1.781 billion. In order to provide a basis of comparison, the repayment obligation shown for all Non-Settlement

Alternatives is based solely on costs resulting from changes in water allocation.
CAP ALLOCATION DRAFT EIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES-19

Under the Settlement Alternative, it is expected that CAP irrigation districts would be

provided some degree of relief from the acreage limitation and full cost pricing

provisions of RRA. If full relief was provided by Congress, Reclamation irrigation water

could be delivered to all CAP irrigation district lands without the ownership and leasing

limitations and full cost charges. Commingling fees for delivering non-project

groundwater would be eliminated. All of these changes together could make farming

more profitable, and potentially increase the use of CAP water and reduce groundwater

pumping. Costs to oversee and implement the RRA program would not be incurred on

the part of both the irrigation districts and the United States.

III.C.7. Indian Water Rights Settlement Litigation Costs

Under the No Action Alternative and all non-settlement alternatives, it is assumed

ongoing litigation would continue among numerous Indian Tribes, the United States on

behalf of the Tribes, the State of Arizona, and municipalities, along with the attendant

litigation costs. The Settlement Alternative would avoid millions of dollars in future

litigation expenditures. The potential savings, relative to the other alternatives, is

millions of dollars but the precise amount cannot be determined.

III.D. Land Use

The analysis regarding land use changes within the M&I sector focused primarily on

projecting future population growth during the 50-year study period (2001 through

2051) and on identifying the likely areas within each M&I entity's municipal planning

area (MPA) and/or service area that would likely be developed to accommodate this

growth. The development would occur through the conversion of acres from

agriculture and desert to urban use.

In the NIA sector, the abandonment of farming would be the primary land use change

associated with the proposed allocations. This land use change is anticipated to occur

over time due to increasing unavailability of CAP water, and the increased cost of

groundwater supplies.

In the Indian sector, major land use changes associated with the proposed allocations

would be the result of rehabilitation of existing, retired or fallowed farm lands, the

development of new agricultural lands, and construction of distribution systems. An

estimated 101,280 acres would be put under agricultural production under the No

Action Alternative. For purposes of this draft EIS, it was assumed that funds would be

available to develop the infrastructure that is necessary to take and use CAP water for

agriculture. As shown in Appendix A, it was also assumed that the delivery systems

would be completed and functioning by the year 2040. This assumption was made

based upon expected build-out schedules for Tribal systems and also ensures that

allocated water is taken into account in the analysis. To provide a "worst" case analysis,

the draft EIS assumes all agricultural development resulting from receipt of CAP water

through any of the proposed allocation alternatives would be new development

occurring on desert land.
CAP ALLOCATION DRAFT EIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES-20

Under the No Action Alternative, it was estimated approximately 46,900 acres of

agricultural land would become urbanized and 40,926 acres of agricultural land would

be abandoned as a result of economic conditions. The total amount of acres that would

be urbanized would be the same for all action alternatives, since it was determined that

M&I entities would meet their population projections under all alternatives (see

Appendix C). The total number of agricultural acres abandoned within the NIA sector

was found to be the same for all the alternatives, including the No Action Alternative;

however, the timing of when those acres are taken out of production varies somewhat

by alternative. Appendix D provides detail on acres abandoned by year, by alternative.

III.E. Biological Resources

Urban growth is expected to continue under all alternatives, including the No Action

Alternative, affecting an estimated 240,000 acres of native desert land. In addition,

impacts to habitat would occur from new agricultural development on Indian lands.

Assuming all new agricultural development on Indian lands would occur in native

desert areas (representing a “worst case”), between 8,000 and 50,000 acres of desert land

would be lost, depending upon the alternative. The Settlement Alternative would affect

24,800 acres.

Twenty-four federally threatened and endangered (T&E) species have been recognized

as potentially occurring within the general project area, of which 10 were determined to

potentially be affected by Tribal agricultural development or urban growth.

Reclamation determined that the allocation alternatives considered in the EIS would

have no effect on T&E species; however, further Endangered Species Act Section 7

evaluation would take place once the affected Tribes’ plans for taking and using the

reallocated water are known.

III.F. Cultural Resources

Impacts to cultural resources within the areas of individual entities are expected to be

similar under all proposed alternatives, although the acreage of new agricultural

development on Indian lands varies among the alternatives. Any ground-disturbing

activity has the potential to impact known and/or as yet undiscovered cultural

resources. Cultural impacts can be anticipated in any undertaking involving: 1)

subjugation of natural desert for agriculture, an action which has the potential to

adversely impact intact cultural deposits presently on the surface and within the

plowzone; 2) urbanization of farmland, actions which have the potential to adversely

impact intact cultural deposits that might still exist below the plowzone; or 3) any

related ground-disturbing activity that might result from implementation of the

proposed allocation.

The alternative water allocations could result in additional agricultural development of

8,000 to 50,000 acres on Indian lands. These developments are expected to occur in areas

that may contain significant cultural resources. Specific locations of the agricultural

developments have not yet been determined. Reclamation would consult with the State

Historic Preservation Officer and the Tribes under Section 106 of the National Historic
CAP ALLOCATION DRAFT EIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES-21

Preservation Act, once project planning and cultural resources surveys have been

completed. Based upon these consultations, appropriate mitigation for any identified

impacts would be implemented

Under all alternatives, including that of no action, urban growth is expected to continue.

An estimated 240,000 acres of desert land and 68,150 acres of farm land would be

urbanized within the planning areas of the 21 potentially affected M&I entities. An

additional 46,900 acres are estimated to become urbanized within the NIA irrigation

districts. Impacts to cultural resources from urban growth are not a consequence of the

proposed allocations, since they would occur regardless of the allocation decision.

Avoidance or mitigation of cultural resource impacts would be the responsibility of the

local jurisdictions.

Under all alternatives, an estimated 40,926 acres of irrigation agricultural lands would

be permanently taken out of production due to economic reasons. No impacts to

cultural resources are expected from this abandonment of agricultural lands.

III.G. Air Quality

The proposed allocation would result in minor short-term increases in air emissions

associated with construction of water conveyance and associated support facilities.

Those short-term air emissions are addressed qualitatively because specific information

regarding the type, number, and location of additional water transfer conveyance

facilities is currently unknown. The long-term direct effects of water transfer are

expected to be negligible. The long-term indirect air quality effects associated with

water-reallocation-induced economic activity could be substantial; however, due to the

timeframe in which they would occur (year 2043 and beyond) and the uncertainty of

conditions and standards that may apply at that time, these impacts can only be

discussed at a programmatic level.

Agricultural production has the highest potential for generating significant emissions of

air pollutants. Changes in water allocations to NIA and Indian sectors would, to

varying degrees under each alternative, generate changes in the quantity of agricultural

lands put into production in central and southern Arizona. This impact would be

greatest in Pinal County during the latter portion of the study period. The analysis

indicates current threshold limits would be exceeded by year 2043 and beyond.

III.H. Summary of Environmental Consequences

Table ES-4 summarizes the environmental consequences associated with all alternatives.
ES-22

Table ES-4

CAP Allocation Draft EIS

Effects of Alternatives on Selected Resources

Conditions from 2001 to 2051 Impacts (Impacts are Changes in the Action Alternatives Relative to the No Action Alternative) 

o Action Alternative Settlement Alternative Non-Settlement Alternative 1 Non-Settlement Alternative 2 Non-Settlement Alternative 3A Non-Settlement Alternative 3B

Water Resources

r levels generally continue to

pt in areas where CAP water

roundwater recharge or is used

stantial amounts of existing

r pumping

Groundwaterlevels reflect thatadditional CAPwater is availablefor direct use, andless CAP water isavailable forrecharge

Groundwaterlevels reflect thatadditional CAPwater is availablefor direct use, andless CAP water isavailable forrecharge

Groundwaterlevels reflect thatless CAP water isavailable for directuse andgroundwaterrecharge

Groundwaterlevels reflect thatless CAP water isavailable for directuse andgroundwaterrecharge

Groundwaterlevels reflect thatadditional CAPwater is availablefor direct use, andless CAP water isavailable forrecharge

roundwater levels indicate

ould not be achieved by year

No appreciabledifference from NoAction Alternative

No appreciabledifference from NoAction Alternative

No appreciabledifference from NoAction Alternative

No appreciabledifference from NoAction Alternative

No appreciabledifference from NoAction Alternative

 legal ability to recover

r not substantially limited

No appreciabledifference from NoAction Alternative

No appreciabledifference from NoAction Alternative

No appreciabledifference from NoAction Alternative

No appreciabledifference from NoAction Alternative

No appreciabledifference from NoAction Alternative

subsidence in most areas with

roundwater level declines

No appreciabledifference from NoAction Alternative

No appreciabledifference from NoAction Alternative

No appreciabledifference from NoAction Alternative

No appreciabledifference from NoAction Alternative

No appreciabledifference from NoAction Alternative

worsening of water quality as

drop in areas with poorer

ndwater at depth

No appreciabledifference from NoAction Alternative

No appreciabledifference from NoAction Alternative

No appreciabledifference from NoAction Alternative

No appreciabledifference from NoAction Alternative

No appreciabledifference from NoAction Alternative

ndwater levels in QCID, STID,

. No appreciable impacts to

r levels in NMIDD and TID.

ndwater levels in MSIDD,

 SCIDD.

No appreciableimpacts togroundwater levelsin MSIDD, CAIDD,and RID. Highergroundwater levelsin SCIDD. Lowergroundwater levelsin QCID, NMIDD,STID, CHCID, andTID.

No appreciableimpacts togroundwater levelsin TID, MSIDD,CAIDD, SCIDD,QCID, STID,CHCID, and RID.Lowergroundwater levelsin NMIDD.

No appreciableimpacts togroundwater levelsin TID, MSIDD,CAIDD, SCIDD,and RID. Lowergroundwater levelsin QCID, NMIDD,STID, and CHCID.

No appreciableimpacts togroundwater levelsin MSIDD, CAIDD,SCIDD, and RID.Lowergroundwater levelsin QCID, NMIDD,STID, CHCID, andTID.

No appreciableimpacts togroundwater levelsin MSIDD, CAIDD,SCIDD, and RID.Lowergroundwater levelsin QCID, NMIDD,STID, CHCID, andTID.

roundwater levels indicate

ould not be achieved by year

No appreciabledifference from NoAction Alternative

No appreciabledifference from NoAction Alternative

No appreciabledifference from NoAction Alternative

No appreciabledifference from NoAction Alternative

No appreciabledifference from NoAction Alternative
ES-23

Table ES-4

CAP Allocation Draft EIS

Effects of Alternatives on Selected Resources

Conditions from 2001 to 2051 Impacts (Impacts are Changes in the Action Alternatives Relative to the No Action Alternative) 

o Action Alternative Settlement Alternative Non-Settlement Alternative 1 Non-Settlement Alternative 2 Non-Settlement Alternative 3A Non-Settlement Alternative 3B

 legal ability to recover

r not substantially limited

No appreciabledifference from NoAction Alternative

No appreciabledifference from NoAction Alternative

No appreciabledifference from NoAction Alternative

No appreciabledifference from NoAction Alternative

No appreciabledifference from NoAction Alternative

subsidence in most areas with

roundwater level declines

Increasedsubsidencepotential in QCID,STID, CHCID,NMIDD, and TID.Reducedsubsidencepotential in SCIDD.

Increasedsubsidencepotential inNMIDD.

Increasedsubsidencepotential inQCIDD, NMIDD,STID, and CHCID.

Increasedsubsidencepotential in QCID,NMIDD, STID,CHCID, and TID.

Increasedsubsidencepotential in QCID,NMIDD, STID,CHCID, and TID.

worsening of water quality as

drop in areas with poorer

ndwater at depth

No appreciabledifference from NoAction Alternative

No appreciabledifference from NoAction Alternative

No appreciabledifference from NoAction Alternative

No appreciabledifference from NoAction Alternative

No appreciabledifference from NoAction Alternative

r levels on GRIC would

cline

Additional declinewould occur

No appreciabledifference from NoAction Alternative

No appreciabledifference from NoAction Alternative

Additional declinewould occur

Additional declinewould occur

r levels on SC Apache Tribe

remain stable

Same as No ActionAlternative

Same as No ActionAlternative

No appreciabledifference from NoAction Alternative

No appreciabledifference from NoAction Alternative

No appreciabledifference from NoAction Alternative

r levels on TON, San Xavier

d rise

Additionalgroundwater levelrise would occur

No appreciabledifference from NoAction Alternative

Additionalgroundwater levelrise would occur

Additionalgroundwater levelrise would occur

Additionalgroundwater levelrise would occur

r levels on TON, Schuck Toak

d decline

No appreciabledifference from NoAction Alternative

No appreciabledifference from NoAction Alternative

No appreciabledifference from NoAction Alternative

No appreciabledifference from NoAction Alternative

No appreciabledifference from NoAction Alternative

oundwater levels for most

e safe yield would not be

year 2025. Safe yield would be

SC Apache Tribe.

No appreciabledifference from NoAction Alternative

No appreciabledifference from NoAction Alternative

No appreciabledifference from NoAction Alternative

No appreciabledifference from NoAction Alternative

No appreciabledifference from NoAction Alternative

 legal ability to recover

r not substantially limited

No appreciabledifference from NoAction Alternative

No appreciabledifference from NoAction Alternative

No appreciabledifference from NoAction Alternative

No appreciabledifference from NoAction Alternative

No appreciabledifference from NoAction Alternative
ES-24

Table ES-4

CAP Allocation Draft EIS

Effects of Alternatives on Selected Resources

Conditions from 2001 to 2051 Impacts (Impacts are Changes in the Action Alternatives Relative to the No Action Alternative) 

o Action Alternative Settlement Alternative Non-Settlement Alternative 1 Non-Settlement Alternative 2 Non-Settlement Alternative 3A Non-Settlement Alternative 3B

subsidence in most areas with

roundwater level declines

Increasedsubsidencepotential in GRICand reducedpotential in TONSan Xavier

No appreciabledifference from NoAction Alternative

Reduced potentialfor subsidence inTON, San XavierDistrict

Reduced potentialfor subsidence inTON, San XavierDistrict

Reduced potentialfor subsidence inTON, San XavierDistrict

substantial changes in

r quality not identified

No appreciableimpacts

No appreciableimpacts

No appreciableimpacts

No appreciableimpacts

No appreciableimpacts

Socioeconomic

rnative water supplies

d reclaimed water) range from

per af. M&I entities would

oximately 95,000 afa, absent

AP water.

ble to meet projected water

Cost to deliverCAP water is $154per af

Costs of alternativewater supplies(CAGRD andreclaimed water)range from $214 to$301 per af. M&Ientities wouldrequireapproximately30,000 afa, absentadditional CAPwater.

Costs of alternativewater supplies(CAGRD andreclaimed water)range from $214 to$301 per af

Costs of alternativewater supplies(CAGRD andreclaimed water)range from $214 to$301 per af

Costs of alternativewater supplies(CAGRD andreclaimed water)range from $214 to$301 per af. M&Ientities wouldrequireapproximately30,000 afa, absentadditional CAPwater. Additionalcost to recharge6,168 afa of NIApriority water.
ES-25

Table ES-4

CAP Allocation Draft EIS

Effects of Alternatives on Selected Resources

Conditions from 2001 to 2051 Impacts (Impacts are Changes in the Action Alternatives Relative to the No Action Alternative) 

o Action Alternative Settlement Alternative Non-Settlement Alternative 1 Non-Settlement Alternative 2 Non-Settlement Alternative 3A Non-Settlement Alternative 3B

s of land and/or agricultural

hose farmers no longer able to

ir family farms.

-$5.1 M(relative to NoAction Alternative)Potential loss ofland and/oragriculturallifestyle for thosefarmers no longerable to maintaintheir family farms.

+$1.6 M(relative to NoAction Alternative)Potential loss ofland and/oragriculturallifestyle for thosefarmers no longerable to maintaintheir family farms.

Same as No ActionAlternative

Same as No ActionAlternative

Same as No ActionAlternative

ibal economy from revenue

om agriculture.

+$32.4 M(relative to NoAction Alternative)Improved Tribaleconomy fromrevenue generatedfrom agricultureand water leases.

+$7.6 M(relative to NoAction Alternative)Improved Tribaleconomy fromrevenue generatedfrom agriculture.

+$18.3 M(relative to NoAction Alternative)Improved Tribaleconomy fromrevenue generatedfrom agriculture.

+$50.1 M(relative to NoAction Alternative)Improved Tribaleconomy fromrevenue generatedfrom agriculture.

+$50.1 M(relative to NoAction Alternative)Improved Tribaleconomy fromrevenue generatedfrom agriculture.

Land Use

 of desert urbanized Same as No Action

Alternative

Same as No ActionAlternative

Same as No ActionAlternative

Same as No ActionAlternative

Same as No ActionAlternative

of farmland urbanized Same as No Action

Alternative

Same as No ActionAlternative

Same as No ActionAlternative

Same as No ActionAlternative

Same as No Action

Alternative

fallowed due to economic

Same as No ActionAlternative

Same as No ActionAlternative

Same as No ActionAlternative

Same as No ActionAlternative

Same as No Action

Alternative

urbanized Same as No Action

Alternative

Same as No ActionAlternative

Same as No ActionAlternative

Same as No ActionAlternative

Same as No ActionAlternative

 developed for agriculture 24,800 additional

acres developed foragriculture

8,000 additionalacres developed foragriculture

25,400 additionalacres developed foragriculture

50,000 additionalacres developed foragriculture

50,000 additionalacres developed foragriculture

Biological Resources

00 acres of desert and wildlife

Same as No ActionAlternative

Same as No ActionAlternative

Same as No ActionAlternative

Same as No ActionAlternative

Same as No ActionAlternative

s of suitable habitat for Cactus

Pygmy Owl, Pima Pineapple

ol’s Turk’s Head Cactus,

ve, and Arizona Cliffrose

Same as No ActionAlternative

Same as No ActionAlternative

Same as No ActionAlternative

Same as No ActionAlternative

Same as No ActionAlternative
ES-26

Table ES-4

CAP Allocation Draft EIS

Effects of Alternatives on Selected Resources

Conditions from 2001 to 2051 Impacts (Impacts are Changes in the Action Alternatives Relative to the No Action Alternative) 

o Action Alternative Settlement Alternative Non-Settlement Alternative 1 Non-Settlement Alternative 2 Non-Settlement Alternative 3A Non-Settlement Alternative 3B

es may provide suitable

urrowing owls and other

Same as No ActionAlternative

Same as No ActionAlternative

Same as No ActionAlternative

Same as No ActionAlternative

Same as No ActionAlternative

 101,280 acres of wildlife

Loss of 24,800additional acres ofwildlife habitat

Loss of 8,000additional acres ofwildlife habitat

Loss of 25,400additional acres ofwildlife habitat

Loss of 50,000additional acres ofwildlife habitat

Loss of 50,000additional acres ofwildlife habitat

Cultural Resources

ral resources resulting from

 of 240,000 acres of desert and

of farmland

Same as No ActionAlternative

Same as No ActionAlternative

Same as No ActionAlternative

Same as No ActionAlternative

Same as No ActionAlternative

ral resources resulting from

 of 46,900 acres of farmland

Same as No ActionAlternative

Same as No ActionAlternative

Same as No ActionAlternative

Same as No ActionAlternative

Same as No ActionAlternative

ral resources resulting from

development of 101,280 acres

Loss of culturalresources due todevelopment of24,800 additionalacres

Loss of culturalresources due todevelopment of8,000 additionalacres

Loss of culturalresources due todevelopment of25,400 additionalacres

Loss of culturalresources due todevelopment of50,000 additionalacres

Loss of culturalresources due todevelopment of50,000 additionalacres

Air Quality

mentation Plan (SIP) would

e increases of PM10, CO, and

rsor emissions

Same as No ActionAlternative forM&I emissions.Similar to NoAction Alternativefor agriculturalemissions

Same as No ActionAlternative forM&I emissions.Similar to NoAction Alternativefor agriculturalemissions

Same as No ActionAlternative forM&I emissions.Similar to NoAction Alternativefor agriculturalemissions

Same as No ActionAlternative forM&I emissions.Similar to NoAction Alternativefor agriculturalemissions

Same as No ActionAlternative forM&I emissions.Similar to NoAction Alternativefor agriculturalemissions

CO, and PM10 will steadily

.5 percent per year through

By 2043, PM10

emissions couldsubstantiallyexceed currentthresholds

Same as No ActionAlternative

By 2034, PM10emissions couldexceed currentthresholds

By 2043, PM10

emissions couldsubstantiallyexceed currentthresholds

By 2043, PM10emissions couldsubstantiallyexceed currentthresholds

and PM10 will increase by 1.5

year through 2020. CO

ll level off after 2010 per SIP.

Same as No ActionAlternative forM&I emissions.Similar to NoAction Alternativefor agriculturalemissions.

Same as No ActionAlternative

Same as No ActionAlternative forM&I emissions.Similar to NoAction Alternativefor agriculturalemissions.

Same as No ActionAlternative forM&I emissions.Similar to NoAction Alternativefor agriculturalemissions.

Same as No ActionAlternative forM&I emissions.Similar to NoAction Alternativefor agriculturalemissions.