```

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 10 (Friday, January 15, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4119-4123]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-01089]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Reclamation

[RR03240000, XXXR4079G1, RX.03441994.0209100]

Central Arizona Project, Arizona; Water Allocations

AGENCY: Bureau of Reclamation and the Office of the Secretary, 
Interior.

ACTION: Notice of final decision to reallocate non-Indian agricultural 
(NIA) priority Central Arizona Project (CAP) water.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of the Interior (Department) hereby issues 
notice of its final decision to reallocate NIA priority CAP water in 
accordance with the Arizona Department of Water Resources' (ADWR) 
recommendation for reallocation. The Department will implement this 
decision by offering to enter into a subcontract with the entities and 
for the quantities of NIA priority CAP water listed in this notice, as 
recommended by ADWR. Any NIA priority CAP water subject to this 
decision which remains uncontracted after completion of the contracting 
process shall be available for future round(s) of ADWR recommendation 
and subsequent contracting.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Leslie Meyers, Bureau of 
Reclamation, Phoenix Area Office, 6150 West Thunderbird Road, Glendale, 
AZ 85306-4001; telephone 623-773-6211; facsimile 623-773-6480; email 
[email protected]. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the 
deaf may call the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 TTY/ASCII to 
contact the Ms. Meyers during normal business hours or to leave a 
message or question after hours. You will receive a reply during normal 
business hours.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Previous Notices Related to CAP Water

    Previous notices related to CAP water were published in the Federal 
Register at 37 FR 28082, December 20, 1972; 40 FR 17297, April 18, 
1975; 41 FR 45883, October 18, 1976; 45 FR 52938, August 8, 1980; 45 FR 
81265, December 10, 1980; 48 FR 12446, March 24, 1983; 56 FR 28404, 
June 20, 1991; 56 FR 29704, June 28, 1991; 57 FR 4470, February 5, 
1992; 57 FR 48388, October 23, 1992; 65 FR 39177, June 23, 2000; 65 FR 
43037, July 12, 2000; 67 FR 38514, June 4, 2002; 68 FR 36578, June 18, 
2003; 69 FR 9378, February 27, 2004; and, 71 FR 50449, August 25, 2006. 
These notices and decisions were made pursuant to the authority vested 
in the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) by the Reclamation Act of 
1902, as amended and supplemented (32 Stat. 388, 43 U.S.C. 391), the 
Boulder Canyon Project Act of December 21, 1928 (45 Stat. 1057, 43 
U.S.C. 617), the Colorado River Basin Project Act of September 30, 1968 
(82 Stat. 885, 43 U.S.C. 1501), the Arizona Water Settlements Act 
(Settlements Act) (Pub. L. 108-451, 118 Stat. 3478), and in recognition 
of the Secretary's trust responsibility to Indian tribes.

Background of CAP Water Allocations

    In a Record of Decision (ROD) published on March 24, 1983 (48 FR 
12446), the Secretary, among other actions, superseded and replaced the 
1980 ROD (45 FR 81265, December 10, 1980), reiterated the allocations 
to Indian tribes reflected in that 1980 ROD, allocated CAP water for 
non-Indian municipal and industrial (M&I) uses, and allocated the 
remaining amount for NIA uses. Subject to certain conditions, the CAP 
water for Indian uses was allocated to 12 Indian tribes for irrigation 
use or for maintaining tribal homelands. Also subject to certain 
conditions, the CAP water for M&I uses was allocated based on the State 
of Arizona's 1982 allocation recommendations for non-Indian entities 
that provided an amount of CAP water for M&I use to certain non-Indian 
entities, with the remaining amount of CAP water allocated for NIA use. 
The CAP NIA water was allocated to 23 non-Indian irrigation districts 
or other agricultural entities as a percentage of the NIA water supply 
that was available in any given year.
    Two-party CAP water service contracts were executed between the 
United States and individual Indian tribes in 1980 pursuant to the 1980 
ROD. CAP non-Indian M&I water service subcontracts and CAP NIA water 
service subcontracts were executed with those entities allocated CAP 
water and desiring to enter into subcontracts for CAP water. The CAP 
water service subcontracts for the non-Indian M&I water and the NIA 
water are three-party subcontracts among the entity, the Central 
Arizona Water Conservation District (CAWCD), and the Bureau of 
Reclamation (Reclamation). Some of the entities that were allocated NIA 
water and M&I priority water elected not to contract for the offered 
allocations. After completing the initial subcontracting process, 29.3 
percent of the NIA water supply and 65,647 acre-feet per year of M&I 
water was not under contract.
    Congress enacted the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community 
Water Rights Settlement Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 2558) (SRPMIC Act). 
Pursuant to section 11(h) of the SRPMIC Act, the Secretary was required 
to request a reallocation recommendation from ADWR for the remaining 
NIA water that was not under contract. The Secretary was also required 
to reallocate the uncontracted CAP water for NIA use and to offer new 
or amendatory subcontracts for such water.
    By letter dated January 7, 1991, ADWR recommended an allocation to 
the Secretary. The Secretary published a notice on June 20, 1991 (56 FR 
28404), inviting public comments on the proposed reallocation of CAP 
water. After considering the public comments, the Secretary published a 
final decision on February 5, 1992 (57 FR 4470). That decision 
contemplated that new or amendatory CAP water service subcontracts 
would be offered soon thereafter.
    CAP water service subcontracts for the reallocated water were not 
executed for several reasons, including but not limited to the 
following: (1) Some entities could not meet the financial feasibility 
requirements for receipt of CAP water; (2) lack of agreement on the 
form of the CAP water service subcontract, and (3) financial 
difficulties in the CAP NIA sector.
    Beginning in the early 1990s, long-term utilization of the CAP 
water available for reallocation under the 1992 decision and of the 
uncontracted CAP M&I priority water was a central issue in negotiations 
to resolve various operational and financial disputes between 
Reclamation and CAWCD. After attempts at negotiations failed, water 
contracting issues were included in litigation and the resulting 
stipulated settlement between the United States and CAWCD. To implement 
some of the conditions contained in the stipulated settlement, new 
Federal legislation was required.
    After the 1992 decision but before Federal legislation was enacted, 
the Secretary published on June 4, 2002 (67 FR 38514), a notice of 
proposed modification to the 1983 decision. The 1983 decision provided 
that the M&I allocation can be made more firm by execution of feasible 
non-potable effluent exchanges with Indian tribes and the M&I 
allocation was subject to

[[Page 4120]]

adoption of a pooling concept, whereby all M&I entities share in the 
benefits of effluent exchanges. The pooling concept provision was 
included in the CAP M&I water service subcontracts. The 2002 proposed 
modification to the 1983 decision was to delete the mandatory effluent 
pooling provision in M&I subcontracts with the cities of Chandler and 
Mesa, and from other M&I water service subcontracts upon request. That 
provision in the CAP M&I water service subcontracts was an impediment 
to effluent exchanges and effective water management in central 
Arizona. After review and consideration of the public comments, the 
final decision was published on June 18, 2003 (68 FR 36578), deleting 
the mandatory effluent pooling provision.
    The Settlements Act was enacted on December 10, 2004, and provides, 
among other things, for: (1) A final allocation of CAP water, with a 
CAP supply permanently designated for Indian uses and a CAP supply 
designated for non-Indian M&I or NIA uses; (2) a reallocation by the 
Secretary of 65,647 acre-feet per year of currently uncontracted CAP 
M&I water to 20 specific M&I entities; (3) ratification of the Arizona 
Water Settlement Agreement (the ``Master Agreement'') among the United 
States, ADWR, and CAWCD, which provides a statutory-based framework to 
enable the CAP NIA districts to relinquish existing rights to the 
delivery of CAP NIA priority water under their CAP water service 
subcontracts, including their rights, if any, to the reallocated water; 
and, (4) a reallocation of the relinquished and uncontracted NIA water 
supply to various Arizona Indian tribes and ADWR for future M&I use.
    On August 25, 2006, the Secretary published a final reallocation 
decision (71 FR 50449) that, among other things, reallocated the CAP 
NIA water and the uncontracted CAP M&I water. The August 2006 
reallocation decision is summarized below:
    The Secretary's decision reallocated up to 96,295 acre-feet of 
agricultural priority water per year to ADWR, pursuant to section 
104(a)(2)(A) of the Settlements Act and subject to subparagraph 9.3 of 
the Master Agreement, to be held under contract in trust for further 
allocation pursuant to section 104(a)(2)(C) of the Settlements Act. 
Direct use of the agricultural priority water by ADWR is prohibited 
under the Master Agreement.
    In accordance with section 104(a)(2)(C) of the Settlements Act, 
before water could be further allocated, the Director of ADWR had to 
submit to the Secretary a recommendation for reallocation. After 
receiving the recommendation, the Secretary carried out all of the 
necessary reviews for the proposed reallocation in accordance with 
applicable Federal law. If the Director's recommendation was rejected, 
the Secretary was mandated to request a revised recommendation from the 
Director of ADWR and proceed with any reviews required.
    The reallocation of agricultural priority water to ADWR pursuant to 
section 104(a)(2)(A) and section 104(a)(2)(C) of the Settlements Act 
was subject to the Master Agreement, including certain rights provided 
by the Master Agreement to water users in Pinal County, Arizona. The 
agricultural priority water reallocated to the ADWR was subject to the 
condition that the water retain its non-Indian agricultural delivery 
priority.
    As required in Section 104(a)(2)(C)(i)(I) of the Settlements Act 
and the August 25, 2006 final reallocation decision, ADWR submitted to 
the Secretary a recommendation for reallocation of agricultural 
priority water. This recommendation was transmitted by letter dated 
January 16, 2014, and ADWR requested the Secretary carry out all of the 
necessary reviews of the proposed reallocation in accordance with 
applicable Federal law.
    Reclamation prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in accordance 
with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, 
and pursuant to Section 104 of the Settlements Act. Public scoping was 
initiated on November 30, 2015 with a newsletter that was sent to 
interested parties and published on Reclamation's website. Scoping 
comments were accepted via facsimile, email, U.S. mail, and in-person 
at the scoping meetings, which were held on December 8-10, 2015 in 
Phoenix, Casa Grande, and Tucson, Arizona, respectively. Reclamation 
received two public responses during this initial scoping period, one 
of which resulted in Reclamation honoring a request for a comment 
period extension to January 18, 2016.
    In June 2016, Reclamation mailed Notices of Availability of the 
Draft EA to Federal, state, and local agencies, Indian tribes, 
organizations, proposed recipients, and other interested stakeholders. 
A public meeting was held on June 22, 2016 in Casa Grande, Arizona, and 
the commenting period closed on July 22, 2016. Reclamation conducted 
in-person consultation with the Tohono O'odham Nation on February 17, 
2017, and with the San Carlos Apache Tribe on June 16, 2017. The draft 
EA was revised in response to the comments received. A Notice of 
Availability for the Final Environmental Assessment--Arizona Department 
of Water Resources Recommendation for the Reallocation of Non-Indian 
Agricultural Priority Central Arizona Project Water in Accordance with 
the Arizona Water Settlements Act of 2004 was issued on November 15, 
2019 and the Final Finding of No Significant Impact--Arizona Department 
of Water Resources Recommendation for the Reallocation of Non-Indian 
Agricultural Priority Central Arizona Project Water in Accordance with 
the Arizona Water Settlements Act of 2004 was signed on November 8, 
2019.

Rationale for Decision

    The Department's decision is to allocate CAP NIA water in 
accordance with ADWR's recommendation. The ADWR recommendation covered 
the initial phase, reallocating 46,629 acre-feet per year of NIA 
priority CAP water of the 96,295 acre-feet per year to be reallocated, 
as shown in the table in this notice. The total of 46,629 acre-feet per 
year of CAP NIA priority water in this phase is in two pools: (1) A 
municipal pool of 34,629 acre-feet for M&I water providers within the 
CAP service area and the Central Arizona Groundwater Replenishment 
District, and (2) an industrial pool of 12,000 acre-feet for industrial 
water users within the CAP service area. The rationale for the decision 
is based on the following:
    (1) ADWR's extensive public outreach, in consultation with 
Reclamation, to interested parties regarding its recommendation.
    (2) An EA evaluating impacts of the proposed reallocation, in 
accordance with NEPA, and the resulting Finding of No Significant 
Impact (FONSI).
    The Final EA and FONSI can be found on Reclamation's website at: 
https://www.usbr.gov/lc/phoenix/reports/reports.html.

Comments on the Proposed Reallocation and Responses

    The proposed allocation was published in the Federal Register on 
June 3, 2020 (85 FR 34232). Comments were accepted through July 6, 
2020. The comments received, and responses to those comments, are 
summarized below.
    Three comment letters were received during the Federal Register 
notice public comment period. Two letters, one from the City of Buckeye 
and one from Rosemont Copper Company, dated June 30, 2020 and June 24, 
2020, respectively, were submitted in support of the proposed action. 
One letter from the San Carlos Apache Tribe dated July 6, 2020, was 
submitted opposing the

[[Page 4121]]

proposed action. The issues raised in this comment letter and 
Reclamation's response to those comments are summarized here:
    Comment 1: The San Carlos Apache Tribe opposes the proposed 
reallocation of NIA Priority CAP water and respectfully requests that 
the Secretary decline to approve the proposed reallocation as described 
in Table 1 of the Final EA (p. 9 of Final EA).
    Response 1: The comment is noted.
    Comment 2: Reclamation has failed to fulfill its obligation to 
satisfy all applicable Federal Law in the Final EA. `The Arizona Water 
Settlements Act (AWSA) states that, prior to making a decision to 
accept or reject ADWR's recommendation, the Secretary shall carry out 
all necessary reviews in accordance with applicable law' (p. 1 of Final 
EA). The Final EA does not satisfy that requirement.
    The Final EA contains no legitimate material analysis of the 
impacts of any of the proposed reallocations. ``. . . prior to 
recipients taking and using the NIA Priority CAP Water reallocation, 
all environmental compliance, including NEPA, would have to be 
completed'' (p. 9 of Final EA). This quotation reflects the fact that 
there has been no specific environmental analysis of any of the 
individual recommended reallocations and that there has been no 
evaluation of the cumulative impact of the combined recommended 
reallocations. This approach ensures that there will never be an 
analysis of the cumulative impact of the recommended reallocations. 
'The AWSA obligates the Secretary to approve or reject ADWR's 
recommendation for reallocation' (p. 5 of Final EA). Therefore, this is 
a singular decision by the Secretary, the potential impacts of which 
must be reviewed in a comprehensive cumulative Environmental Impact 
Statement.''
    Response 2: The Final EA was developed in compliance with NEPA, the 
AWSA, and other applicable authorities.
    The scope of the Final EA was to evaluate the proposed decision of 
the Secretary to approve or reject ADWR's recommendation for NIA 
Priority CAP water reallocation. The EA has identified the baseline 
conditions and evaluated impacts on the human environment associated 
with the Proposed Action to the degree they are known or reasonably 
foreseeable. Where potential future impacts might occur from a Proposed 
Recipient's future construction of infrastructure to take and use its 
NIA Priority CAP water allocation, but no other details are known about 
the associated location of, or amount of ground disturbance anticipated 
by, this infrastructure, environmental compliance for such activities 
cannot be evaluated until those details are known. Further, CAP water 
service subcontracts that would entitle recipients of the reallocations 
to actually receive delivery of water in a particular year have not yet 
been issued. Each CAP water service subcontract typically includes a 
clause that states, in part, ``notwithstanding any other provision of 
this subcontract, Project Water shall not be delivered to the 
Subcontractor unless or until the Subcontractor has obtained final 
environmental compliance from the United States . . .'' This is to 
ensure that any site-specific environmental compliance processes that 
may be appropriate will be completed prior to actual delivery of any of 
the reallocated water.
    Comment 3: A decision to adopt the recommended reallocation would 
imprison what little unallocated CAP water remains available to the 
Central Arizona Project and would establish avenues of unjust 
enrichment for the proposed recipients of the recommended 
reallocations. Upon execution of the contracts, each proposed recipient 
would be in the position to `bank' such water that is available to them 
under their reallocation, even though they may have no immediate need 
and/or delivery systems to accept and use the water within the proposed 
recipients' service or project area.
    Response 3: The AWSA provides that the Director of ADWR shall 
submit to the Secretary a recommendation for reallocation of certain 
NIA Priority CAP water. The Secretary must either approve or reject the 
recommendation for reallocation. The AWSA does not authorize the 
Secretary to change certain recipients or direct alternate uses of the 
water. ADWR conducted a public process to evaluate and select the 
proposed recipients that were identified in its recommendation for 
reallocation. The proposed recipients identified by ADWR have indicated 
they will use the reallocated water in accordance with applicable laws, 
for direct use and/or recharge purposes. The Final EA evaluated, 
pursuant to NEPA, the effects on the human environment of the 
Secretary's decision whether to approve or reject ADWR's 
recommendation.
    Comment 4: The Final EA fails to disclose the length of time during 
which the reallocations would exist. Without the time component for 
each and all recommended reallocations, no credible impact analysis can 
be developed.
    Response 4: No particular length of time was specified because the 
reallocations would exist indefinitely. The analysis of impacts within 
the Final EA was framed as such. The Final EA further explains that 
actual delivery of the reallocated water will occur only after 
appropriate subcontracts have been executed.
    Comment 5: The Final EA fails to address that the growing demand is 
unsustainable as both a physical and economic fact. The analysis fails 
to show how the recommended reallocation would meet or lead to the 
achievement of a sustainable balance between water supply and water 
consumption under current conditions. `In 2014, municipal water demand 
was 1.4 million acre-feet annually (MAFA), which was 21 percent of 
Arizona's water demand' (p. 5 of Final EA). It also fails to analyze 
how the recommended reallocation would fuel the increased consumption 
of water and the exacerbation of demand. `The projected statewide water 
demand will increase to between 8.1 and 8.6 MAFA by 2035, and between 
8.6 and 9.1 MAFA by 2060 (Water Resources Development Commission (WRDC) 
(2011)' (p. 5 of Final EA). The recommended reallocation based upon 
such growth is unsustainable and therefore irresponsible.
    Response 5: The Final EA addresses the issue of growing water 
demand in the State of Arizona. Additionally, the AWSA empowers the 
Director of ADWR to make a recommendation for reallocation of NIA 
Priority CAP water to the Secretary, and thus gives ADWR discretion to 
weigh, in the first instance, questions of sustainability and competing 
needs for the water. The recommendation for reallocation was based on 
ADWR's evaluation criteria. The Secretary must either approve or reject 
the recommendation.
    Comment 6: The Final EA further fails to illustrate how the 
reduction of groundwater overdraft will occur in the face of increased 
water use by proposed recipients such as Resolution Copper.
    Response 6: As stated on pages 9-10 of the Final EA, the Proposed 
Action includes reallocation of up to 2,238 acre-feet (AF) annually to 
Resolution Copper. On pages 12-14, the Final EA further describes why 
Resolution Copper is not dependent on the reallocation of NIA water for 
mine operations and as such the mine would still be developed in the 
absence of this reallocation. The Final EA evaluated the impacts of the 
proposed reallocation of 2,238 AF annually of NIA water to Resolution 
Copper to be used for groundwater recharge. An Environmental Impact 
Statement (EIS) addressing impacts resulting from the

[[Page 4122]]

proposed mining operations and associated water use is being prepared 
by the Tonto National Forest (TNF) for the proposed Resolution Copper 
Mine.
    Comment 7: The Final EA fails to show how some of the recommended 
reallocations are hydrologically connected and therefore fails to 
analyze the impacts of the interconnections.
    Response 7: The Final EA analyzes both the affected environment and 
the anticipated impacts of the proposed reallocation on water 
resources. For Apache Junction and Town of Queen Creek, page 50 of the 
Final EA explains that ``. . . based on their proposed direct use of 
their allocation, no adverse impacts are anticipated because there 
would be no change from the current uses.'' Groundwater modeling using 
ADWR models for the Active Management Areas (AMAs) potentially affected 
by Proposed Recipients intending to directly use their CAP allocation 
has not been performed due to the direct use of the Proposed 
Recipients' CAP allocation.
    Page 50 of the Final EA identifies that Johnson Utilities and 
Resolution Copper Mining would use its CAP allocation for recharge to 
offset their groundwater use. Central Arizona Groundwater Replenishment 
District's (CAGRD) CAP allocation would be used to meet replenishment 
obligations incurred as a result of excess groundwater use by CAGRD 
members. No adverse impacts are anticipated from the use of CAP water 
to offset groundwater use and the use of existing infrastructure to 
convey the water. Groundwater modeling using ADWR models for the AMAs 
potentially affected by Proposed Recipients recharging their allocation 
has not been performed because of the small NIA allocation volumes for 
each subbasin affected and the net positive benefit to the AMAs from 
the Proposed Action.
    Pages 51-52 of the Final EA state that Resolution Copper would not 
be ``. . . required to offset their permitted groundwater usage, [its] 
allocation would help in achieving or maintaining safe yield conditions 
in [Resolution's] respective AMA.'' Direct use of the CAP allocation by 
the mine, if developed, would help to alleviate groundwater decreases 
around the proposed wellfields.
    Additionally, as Page 53 of the Final EA states, Resolution Copper 
Mine is not dependent on the reallocation of NIA water for mine 
operations. Therefore, the Proposed Action under this EA is not a 
connected action with the development of the mine (see Section 3.1 of 
the Final EA). The effect mining operations would have on the East Salt 
River Valley Subbasin is not currently known but would be determined as 
part of the TNF NEPA process for the mine. Accrual of Long-Term Storage 
Credits under the Proposed Action until the mine is operational or for 
potential future direct use of the CAP allocation once the mine is 
operational will only benefit the East Salt River Valley Subbasin.
    Comment 8: The Final EA fails to analyze the impacts of recommended 
reallocation to proposed recipients on the San Carlos Apache Tribe and 
other Arizona tribal governments and entities that would be impacted by 
the development of the Resolution Copper Mine. It fails to recognize 
the vital and essential role that the recommended reallocation directly 
to Resolution Copper Mine would have on these Tribes.''
    Response 8: Please see Response #6.
    Pages 12-14 of the Final EA explain why the proposed Resolution 
Copper mine is not dependent on the reallocation of NIA water for mine 
operations; the two actions are separate and ``not interdependent parts 
of a larger action, nor do they depend on a larger action for their 
justification.'' An EIS is being prepared by the TNF for the Resolution 
Copper Mine project. The EIS will address any impacts on the human 
environment resulting from the proposed mining project. The Secretary's 
decision regarding whether to approve or reject ADWR's recommendation 
for reallocation of NIA Priority CAP water has no bearing on the 
viability of the proposed mine, and TNF's decision regarding Resolution 
Copper's proposed operations will be made after completion and review 
of its Final EIS.
    Comment 9: Clearly, Reclamation has failed to comply with all the 
applicable laws when it has not evaluated the cumulative impact of the 
entire proposed reallocation, including the environmental impact of the 
use of CAP water at the various locations and for the various 
activities anticipated by the reallocation.
    Response 9: Please see response #2.
    The EA has evaluated indirect and cumulative impacts associated 
with the Proposed Action to the degree those impacts are reasonably 
foreseeable, and not speculative or totally unknown. Most of the 
locations at which reallocated water may be used in the future are 
geographically distant, and it is therefore speculative whether, or 
how, cumulative impacts may arise from the use of CAP water in these 
locations. Pages 12-14 of the Final EA state ``. . . water service 
subcontract for the Proposed Recipients contains language that requires 
completion of site-specific environmental clearances prior to any 
ground-disturbing activities related to constructing infrastructure 
necessary to take and use the reallocated water.''
    Comment 10: The Final EA does not analyze certain impacts, relies 
on incomplete or misleading calculations or information, or makes 
improper assumptions.
    Response 10: The comments appear to relate primarily to the 
sufficiency of the Final EA and not the proposed allocation decision 
itself. Reclamation considered all comments received relating to the 
Draft EA and made appropriate revisions before releasing the Final EA 
and issuing a FONSI. The Final EA and FONSI contained a thorough 
assessment of the potential effects of the proposed reallocation of NIA 
priority water on the quality of the human environment. The Final EA 
and FONSI fully comply with NEPA and appropriately inform the 
Secretary's decision whether to approve or reject ADWR's recommendation 
for reallocation.

Secretarial Decision

    I hereby give notice of the Department's decision to allocate CAP 
NIA priority water in the amounts and to the entities as set forth in 
the table in this notice, and direct the Commissioner of Reclamation, 
through the Regional Director, Lower Colorado Basin Region, Boulder 
City, Nevada, to proceed to enter into contracts in accordance with 
this decision. This decision is made after consideration of the 
comments received after a proposed allocation was published in the 
Federal Register on June 3, 2020 (85 FR 34232). A summary of those 
comments, and responses to those comments are contained below.
    CAP NIA priority water allocations are hereby modified in 
accordance with the information contained in the table below. This 
decision is effective as of the date of this notice. Insofar as 
previous allocation decisions are inconsistent with this allocation 
notice, the affected provisions of such decisions are hereby rescinded.
    The Department is publishing this decision of the reallocation of 
NIA priority CAP water in accordance with the Settlements Act, 118 
Stat. 3478, and the Secretary's Final Decision of CAP Water 
Reallocation, 71 FR 50449 (August 25, 2006). The following table lists 
the entities to receive NIA priority CAP water and the quantities 
reallocated to each.

[[Page 4123]]

                         Secretary's Decision for Reallocation of NIA Priority CAP Water
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Municipal pool                                           Industrial pool
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Amount in acre-                                    Amount in acre-
           State of Arizona entity              feet per year        State of Arizona entity       feet per year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carefree Water Company.......................             112   Viewpoint RV and Golf Resort....             400
Metropolitan Domestic Water Improvement                   299   New Harquahala Generating                    400
 District.                                                       Company.
Town of Cave Creek...........................             386   Rosemont Copper Company.........           1,124
EPCOR--Sun City West.........................           1,000   Salt River Project..............           2,160
Town of Queen Creek (Acquired H2O Water                 4,162   Resolution Copper Mining........           2,238
 Company).
Town of Marana...............................             515   Freeport-McMoRan-Sierrita Inc...           5,678
Apache Junction Water Utilities Community                 817
 Facilities District.
City of El Mirage............................           1,318
Town of Gilbert..............................           1,832
City of Buckeye (Formerly was Town of                   2,786
 Buckeye).
Johnson Utilities............................           3,217
Central Arizona Groundwater Replenishment              18,185
 District.
    Total NIA Priority CAP Water Reallocated           34,629   Total NIA Priority CAP Water              12,000
     to Municipal:                                               Reallocated to Industrial:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Total NIA Priority CAP Water Reallocated: 46,629 Acre-Feet Per Year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Timothy R. Petty,
Assistant Secretary for Water and Science.
[FR Doc. 2021-01089 Filed 1-14-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4332-90-P
```