Santa Cruz AMA Delays Management Plan

A dispute between the Santa Cruz and Tucson Active Management Areas (AMAs) has contributed to a one-year delay in the release of the Santa Cruz AMA's Third Management Plan. At issue is the surface flow of the Santa Cruz River and its allocation in the water budgets of each active management area. The controversy has roots in the founding of SCAMA when it split off from the Tucson AMA in 1994 and allocation of Santa Cruz River flow was left unsettled.

At its July meeting, the Santa Cruz Groundwater Users Advisory Council questioned future TAMA claims on the Santa Cruz River, including effluent outflow from the international wastewater treatment plant. TAMA claiming surface flow as part of its "natural water" could limit SCAMA's management options.

In response, the Santa Cruz GUAC voted 3-0 to recommend a one-year delay in promulgating its Third Management Plan. Large water users in the area already had requested a delay. Arizona Department of Water Resources Director Rita Pearson approved the request.

Meanwhile work is underway to resolve the controversy of surface flows entering the TAMA from the SCAMA. Tucson AMA Director Katharine Jacobs is scheduled to meet with SCAMA staff to explain the accounting in TAMA's management plan. The bulk of Santa Cruz flow entering the TAMA is stormwater discharge, with minimal amounts originating from the international wastewater plant. SCAMA GUAC members, however, are concerned about legal precedents that could be set.

Author's Query For a history of water conservation in Arizona, I would appreciate receiving any information relevant to the topic. The history is to be based on the premise that water conservation is not strictly a modern movement and that conserving water has been a concern long before the invention of low-flow toilets and drip irrigation. I would be grateful for information about personal, domestic, agricultural and industrial practices, early laws and public policy, social or cultural attitudes, strategies, reminiscences and anecdotes that have to do with water conservation in the state, especially during the nineteenth and early 20th centuries. Joe Gelt, Water Resources Research Center, University of Arizona, 350 N. Campbell, Tucson, Arizona 85721; 520-792-9591; email: jgelt@ag.arizona.edu

The management plan delay also was motivated by expectations that a groundwater model for the AMA would soon be completed. Also, Director Alejandro Barcenas indicated that an ad hoc group of large water users, including the City of Nogales, has been working on a settlement of surface water rights. Though Barcenas indicated that major obstacles have to be overcome, a settlement would be a significant boost to long-range planning efforts and would affect the management plan.

The state's five active management areas originally were to complete third management plans by September.

Beavers to Return to San Pedro River

B eavers soon will be seen on the San Pedro River, after an absence of 100 years. Their return is the result of a final environmental study report recently issued by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. The beavers are expected to be released this fall or winter.

The beavers' homecoming to their former habitat raises some concerns with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service however. The service is concerned that the beaver's activities benefit and not harm the endangered southwestern willow flycatchers' habitat. To that end, the bureau must monitor the beavers' work.

Beavers at first make themselves at home at a river site by cutting down willow and cottonwood trees for food and building dams. Once dam building is complete, however, bureau biologists say beavers will eat just enough trees to ensure survival. They say their activities actually improve wildlife species numbers and diversity. For example, a study showed that when beavers arrived in the nesting territory of a willow flycatcher species in Idaho, the birds' numbers increased.

Beavers disappeared from the San Pedro River in the 1890s. Some say cattle grazing reduced vegetation and caused the decline of the beavers

DDT Found in Fish, Wildlife on Lower Gila

Although banned for over 25 years, DDT residues have been found in fish, birds, and other wildlife on the lower Gila River according to a study by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Concentrations are sufficiently high to possibly harm wildlife.

A follow-up to a 1986 report that documented contaminants in the area, the study focused on the effects of organochlorine pesticides and metal contaminants in fish and wildlife between Phoenix and Painted Rock Dam. The study indicated that concentrations of DDE, a metabolite of DDT, exceed federal and state human health guidelines.

Discovering unmetabolized DDT in fish concerns officials because it indicates that fish continue to be exposed to the banned compound. This could pose a human health risk if fishermen consume their catch. The report did not identify the source of the unmetabolized DDT.

Further, the study found that although high levels of aluminum and copper were found in fish, mercury levels in fish were generally low. High accumulations of mercury, however, were found in fish-eating herons.

Fish and wildlife were found to contain 11 potentially toxic metals, with concentrations of most metals remaining unchanged from 1985 to 1994-95. Carp from Allenville, however, contained the second highest level of aluminum ever recorded in Arizona. Also, copper concentrations in most fish were sufficiently high to cause concern.

Some good news was reported. The presence of pesticides other than DDT/ DDE significantly declined in local wildlife over the past decade. Of the 16 organochlorine pesticides found in fish, lizards, turtles and birds in 1985, only six were detected in the recent study, and they were found in fewer animals than a decade earlier. An exception was chlordane, now found in a greater number of Prescott Debates Safe Yield Status

A public hearing in response to the Arizona Department of Water Resources's (ADWR) preliminary declaration that the Prescott Active Management Area (PAMA) is not at safe yield — i.e., it is now pumping more groundwater than is naturally and artificially being recharged — has attracted varied opinions. Many speakers requested an independent review of opposing studies and/or a delay in the final decision. Others called the potential declaration "overdue" and urged ADWR to make the determination. A final determination is expected by April.

ADWR is required by law to declare groundwater mining in PAMA if data for three consecutive years show more groundwater is being pumped than is replenished. A groundwater mining declaration would force PAMA to follow Assured Water Supply (AWS) rules, requiring developers of new subdivisions to prove the availability of sufficient water supplies for at least 100 years. This in effect forces them to use renewable or imported supplies.

ADWR has determined that since 1995 groundwater overdraft has occurred in PAMA at an average rate of 10,800 acre-feet per year. Its report also indicated that in the last five years water levels have declined in more than 73 percent of monitored wells, with groundwater use increasing in PAMA by 25 percent during the 1990s.

Meanwhile, the State Legislature passed a bill this spring modifying the timetable for implementing the groundwater mining declaration. The bill set interim guidelines restricting groundwater use until final determination of groundwater mining is made. The interim guidelines include a grandfathering provision to allow approval of a final subdivision plat if a preliminary plat was approved before the effective date of the act, Aug. 21, 1998. These newly-approved subdivisions can reserve groundwater as "committed demand" under AWS rules.

In response to the August 21 deadline, and due to expectations that the City of Prescott would declare a moratorium on certain types of new development, there was a "mad rush" by developers to submit requests for approval of preliminary subdivision plats and annexation applications. When the dust finally settled, new subdivision approval created 8,338 acre-feet of committed demand, bringing the total potential committed demand to almost 13,000 acre-feet, or almost double the current municipal groundwater use in PAMA.

At the September 26 public hearing, Southwest Groundwater Consultants' hydrologist William Greenslade, commissioned by Shamrock Water Co. of Prescott Valley, presented a study concluding that PAMA is in fact at safe yield. The study estimates that natural groundwater recharge is occurring in PAMA four times greater than the amount ADWR used in its calculations. In another major departure from ADWR calculations, the consultants' study does not consider underground flow discharges in determining safe yield. ADWR has hired an outside consultant to review its data and other data submitted at the hearing.

The public has until October 26 to submit written comments, and ADWR will then have up to 180 days to review comments and challenges and to issue a final decision.

Prescott was one of four original Active Management Areas under the 1980 Groundwater Management Act, and was one of three original AMAs with safe yield as a management goal. With agricultural groundwater demand declining in the late 1970s and early 1980s, moderate population increases, and above-average precipitation, groundwater levels appeared to stabilize. In the early 1990s, ADWR found no clear evidence either way to determine whether the stabilization of groundwater levels was a result of achieving safe yield or a combination of short-term factors. ADWR now believes that PAMA never reached safe yield.carp and turtles.

The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality designated portions of the Gila River study area as eligible for Arizona's Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund. This fund was established to identify pollution sources and clean up hazardous substances.

The report is available from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological Services Field Office, 2321 W. Royal Palm Rd., Suite 103, Phoenix, AZ 85021; http://ifw2es.fws.gov/arizona/

State Agency Supplies Water Works Bonds

T he state Water Infrastructure Finance Authority issued $38 million in bonds to fund drinking water and wastewater construction projects across Arizona. Bullhead City, Tucson, Safford, Williams and Cave Creek will use the funding to update and improve existing systems.

A $24.4-million loan will enable Bull- head City to fund portions of the first phase of construction of a collection and transmission system for wastewater. The project will enable some residents to switch from septic tanks to the centralized treatment system. Bullhead City's contribution to the project is $2.2 million, funded by property assessments.

Tucson will receive $6 million to be used to replace 20 miles of galvanized steel water lines. This is part of a larger project to replace 275 miles of water lines. The replacement project is underway because Arizona soils are corrosive to galvanized steel.

Safford is pooling its $2 million WIFA funding with $3.5 million received from the Rural Development Division of the U.S. Department of Agriculture to improve the city water system. Improvements include constructing approximately seven miles of 24-inch transmission main from the well field to a storage reservoir.

Williams is undertaking a $5-million project funded equally by WIFA and USDA's Rural Development Division to replace most of its sewer lines and manholes. The project is in response to an ADEQ consent degree.

With $2.7 million received from WIFA, Cave Creek will construct a new 233,000 gallon-per-day wastewater treatment plant and rehabilitate the sewer collection system.

WIFA administers the Clean Water Revolving Fund (CWRF) for wastewater facilities and water reclamation construction projects and also the Drinking Water Revolving Fund (DWRF) for community drinking water construction projects. Qualifying communities can seek low interest subsidies for eligible projects. In 1998, the Arizona Legislature appropriated $4.3 million to match federal contributions to CWRF and $4.9 million for the state's share of DWRF.

Water Center Home -- AWR Home -- Search