Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Arizona Water Settlement Act and urban water supplies

  • Published:
Irrigation and Drainage Systems

Abstract

The 2004 Arizona Water Settlements Act (AWSA 2004) when implemented will allocate to two Native American tribes, the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC) and the Tohono O’odham Nation (TON) almost ten percent of Arizona’s total developed water supply, which is 7.04 million acre-feet a year. The successful passage of AWSA, given the scale of the water rights settlement and competing uses for finite water supplies, is the topic of this paper. Key motivations for the settlement are that: (1) the 653,500 acre-feet a year allocation is around a third of the GRIC’s Gila River Adjudication 2001 claim; (2) the GRIC signed a number of water leases and exchanges providing water to municipalities and has not ruled out signing more; and (3) AWSA resolved more than tribal water claims; it also settled thorny issues of Central Arizona Project (CAP) debt repayment (for $2 billion in construction costs) and division of water allocation between federal (Indian) and state (non-Indian) uses including the reallocation of high priority uncontracted CAP water to cities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. At present there are no allocated environmental uses, though future ESA regulations may force the state to set aside water for instream flows.

  2. Arizona has entitlement to 2.8 million acre feet a year (mafy) of Colorado River water (1928 Boulder Canyon Project Act, 43 U.S.C. 617 et seq., Sec 4(a)(1)(a)). Just under half of this allocation is used directly on the main stem of the Colorado River; the remainder (1.415 mafy) is conveyed by the CAP via a 336 mile long system of aqueducts, tunnels, pumping plants and pipelines into Arizona’s three most urbanized counties, Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal. The CAP carries Colorado River water from Lake Havasu near Parker, AZ, to the southern boundary of the San Xavier Indian Reservation southwest of Tucson. In 1968, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed a bill approving construction of CAP. The bill provided for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) to fund and construct CAP and for another entity to repay the federal government for certain costs of construction when the system was complete. In 1971, the Central Arizona Water Conservation District (CAWCD) was created to provide a means for Arizona to repay the federal government for the reimbursable costs of construction and to manage and operate the CAP. Construction began at Lake Havasu in 1973 and was completed twenty years later. The entire project cost over $4 billion to construct. The CAP is the largest single source of developed surface water supplies in the state of Arizona.

  3. “CAP Excess water is defined as water from the Central Arizona Project that is available for delivery, but not ordered by CAP contract and subcontract holders.” (CAGRD 2009); CAP water is part of Arizona’s entitlement of Colorado River water.

  4. Their groundwater rights were not quantified until the AWSA. The AWSA imposes limits on how much groundwater the GRIC can pump: the cap is 156,700 afy.

  5. Globe equity (Gila) water 300,000 afy = 125,000 afy (Gila) water actually delivered = 175,000 afy replacement (CAP) water required.

  6. Individual trust allotment (tribal) landowners who were allotted land after the 1887 Dawes Act.

  7. The TON 79,200 afy water allocation now consists of: 37,800 afy of CAP Indian water; 28,200 afy of CAP non-Indian agricultural water firmed to M&I priority; and 13,200 afy in on-reservation groundwater.

  8. The Hohokam the culture of the ancient agricultural populations inhabiting the Salt and Gila river valleys of Arizona built extensive irrigation networks between the 7th and 14th Centuries.

  9. Of which 28,200 afy replaced disputed treated effluent previously allocated to the TON. The settlement includes 120,600 afy CAP NIA for the GRIC, of which 87,000 afy is a new CAP NIA allocation, another 15,000 afy will be firmed to M&I priority, and 18,600 afy was reallocated from the Roosevelt Water Conservation District.

  10. The actual increase will be somewhat more than 6% because a proportion of this additional supply will be reused by the city in the form of treated wastewater.

  11. Groundwater credits are created by active or in lieu recharge activities. The groundwater can be pumped at some later date.

  12. Pers. comm. Tim Henley, Henley Consulting (former Manager AWBA) on June 3, 2009.

  13. Basically water would be set aside within the CAP Excess category for M&I firming. Currently, most of this water is used for non-Indian agriculture irrigation and the AWBA can only access what no one else wants to use.

  14. GRIC signed 100-year leases with the cities of Goodyear and Peoria for 7,000 afy each, Phoenix for 15,000 afy, and Scottsdale for 12,000 afy, equaling 41,000 afy.

  15. The pricing formula is based on a water valuation completed for the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community Water Rights Settlement Act of 1988 (SRP-MIC WRSA 1988). The cost analysis estimates the costs to replace CAP water capitalized over the period of the 100-year lease period. The base price is $1,203 per af but the price paid is determined by a price escalator. This escalator is the ratio of the Consumer Price Index for Urban Consumers in the month the lease term begins divided by the value of the Consumer Price Index for Urban Consumers in December 1991 (137.9). For example, if the City of Goodyear agreement were paid in full in January 2008 the formula would result in total costs of $12.98 million for 7,000 afy delivered for 100 years: (212.52/137.9) × $1,203/afy x 7,000 afy  = $12.98 million.

  16. The AMAs are broadly based on the geography of watersheds not counties. The City of Tucson is located in the Tucson AMA. The City of Tucson insisted on language that gives it the first right of refusal to lease any water leased by TON. The reasoning behind this is to keep additional water supplies included in the AWSA for TON in southeast Arizona rather than losing these supplies to the Phoenix-area cities.

  17. TON tribal governance is different from the GRIC, which partly explains why the TON has not yet signed lease agreements.

  18. The AWSA included over 85 side agreements or separate contracts between the GRIC and other parties; e.g., between GRIC and the City of Phoenix over lease water and between the GRIC and the cities of Mesa and Chandler to exchange CAP water for treated effluent.

  19. The GRIC will receive up to 29,400 afy of Mesa Reclaimed Water and up to 11,200 afy of Chandler Exchange Reclaimed Water (AWSA, Exhibit 18.1 at para. 2.1.1–2.1.2). In return it will deliver 23,630 afy and 8,970 afy CAP water to the cities, respectively. These exchanges are based on a 4-to-5 ratio, see Fig. 2.

  20. AWSA includes options to lease water whereby the lease holder can exercise the lease to purchase additional water, or not.

  21. Consisting of an original 173,100 afy CAP-Indian subcontract+ 18,100 afy Harquahala Valley Irrigation District CAP-Indian + 17,000 afy Asarco CAP-M&I + 15,000 afy CAP-NIA firmed to CAP-M&I = 223,200 afy. See also Fig. 3.

  22. On the addition side: 102,000 afy new NIA CAP + 18,600 afy of Roosevelt Water Conservation District CAP+17,800 afy of Harquahala Valley Irrigation District CAP+17,000 afy Asarco CAP + 40,600 afy Chandler/Mesa reclaimed = 196,000 afy. On the subtraction side: 41,000 afy in city leases + 17,000 afy Asarco lease + 12,000 afy Phelps-Dodge lease + 32,500 afy Chandler/Mesa exchange = 102,500 afy. Net additions are 196,000 afy – 102,500 afy = 93,500 afy. See also Fig. 3.

  23. Tribes can always claim additional parcels of land for religious, spiritual or historic reasons. These lands by definition are off-reservation.

  24. Every acre-foot of groundwater pumped from the buffer zone in excess of a pre-set limit must be replaced by an acre-foot of surface water within either 12 months or 24 months of the exceedence depending on the type of use.

  25. 87,000 afy new NIA + 18,100 HVID Indian + 17,000 afy Asarco M&I + 15,000 afy NIA firmed to M&I + 18,600 afy RWCD + net exchange water with Mesa and Chandler ((29,400 afy + 11,200 afy) – (23,530 afy + 8,970 afy)) = 163,800 afy.

  26. The water rights appurtenant to the remaining 1,100 acres are being held for the benefit of other (unnamed) tribes who have not yet settled their tribal water claims.

  27. In 2008, 826 af of water rights were purchased on the Little Colorado River for the benefit of the Zuni Heaven.

  28. Early estimates from USBR are that the buy out will cost around $3,750 per acre, note this is not a per af price (pers comm Lawrence Marquez, Arizona Water Settlements Act Manager, USBR). At this price the 2,000 acre buy out will cost taxpayers $7.5 million.

  29. This total consists of water from Asarco (17,000 afy), two irrigation districts (18,100 afy + 18,600 afy), Mesa and Chandler exchange water (8,100 afy), Chandler reclaimed water (4,500 afy) , SRP contributed water (25,900 afy), and additional RWCD surface water (4,500 afy). See Fig. 2.

  30. Only the White Mountain Apaches would have any claim to the Gila, the other tribes are on tributaries to the Colorado, and the Navajos do not have many water resources to call upon.

  31. Others impacted by opportunity costs include the State of Arizona, the U.S. government, the GRIC, the TON, other tribes.

  32. In response to its 2006 Strategic Plan, in 2007 CAP created Project Add Water in to establish a collaborative process to determine when new supplies need to be acquired and how those supplies could be shared. A public stakeholder process, “ADD Water”—the Acquisition, Development and Delivery of Water— is addressing questions such as, Where will municipal providers get the water they need to meet future demands? How will they pay for those new supplies? What role will the CAP play in developing new water supplies for its three-county service area? “ADD Water” invites input about CAP’s Future Water Delivery Role, Tom McCann, CAP resource planning and analysis manager–published by U of A. 07/01/08. http://ag.arizona.edu/AZWATER/awr/1c6e0e01-c0a8-0164-00b5-792753b3c6a3.html.

References

  • ADWR (2004) Issue Summaries for Governor Janet Napolitano, from the Groundwater Users Advisory Council, Tucson Active Management Area. Arizona Department of Water Resources, Groundwater Users Advisory Council, Tucson Active Management Area. Water Listening Session, Tucson, December 14, 2004. www.azwater.gov/dwr/WaterManagement/content/amas/TucsonAMA/TAMA_documents/Top_Five_TAMA_GUAC_Issues.doc (Accessed 21 Oct 2008)

  • ADWR (2006) Technical Assessment of the Gila River Indian Community Water Rights Settlement. In re The General Adjudication of the Gila River System and Source. Arizona Department of Water Resources, August 23, 2006. http://www.azwater.gov/dwr/Content/Hot_Topics/AZ_Water_Settlements/GRIC_files/Technical_Assessment_GRIC_Water_Rights_Settlement_2006.pdf

  • ADWR (2009). Securing Arizona’s Water Future. http://www.azwater.gov/dwr/Content/Publications/files/supplydemand.pdf (Accessed 2 March, 2009)

  • Arizona v. California (1964). 373 U.S at 600, 83 S. Ct. at 1498

  • AWSA (2004) Arizona Water Settlement Act, Public Law 108–451-Dec. 10, 2004

  • AWSA Hearing (2003) Arizona Water Settlements Act: J. Hearing on S. 437 Before the Subcomm. on Water and Power of the Comm. on Energy and Natural Resources and the Comm. on Indian Affairs, 108th Cong. 23 (2003) (testimony of Richard Narcia, Governor, Gila River Indian Community). http://energy.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=945&wit_id=2661 (Accessed 14 Sep 2007)

  • Bark RH, Jacobs KL (2009) Indian Water Rights Settlements and Water Management Innovations: The Role of the Arizona Water Settlements Act. Water Resour. Res. accepted February 2009

  • Blumm MC, Becker DH, Smith JD (2006) The Mirage of Indian Reserved Water Rights and Western Streamflow Restoration in the McCarran Amendment Era: A Promise Unfulfilled. Environ Law 36(4):1157–1203

    Google Scholar 

  • CAGRD (2009) Water Supplies: CAGRD’s Authority to Hold Water Rights. http://www.cagrd.com/operations/water-supplies/ (Accessed 17 Apr 2009)

  • CAP (2008a) Allocations. http://www.cap-az.com/operations/allocations/ then click on Subcontract Status Report April 2009 (Accessed 1 Jun 2009)

  • CAP (2008b) Acquisition, Development & Delivery of New Water Supplies. Project ADD water. http://www.projectaddwater.com/ (Accessed 17 Apr 2009)

  • CAP (2009) Rates. http://www.cap-az.com/operations/water-rates/ ( Accessed 17 Apr 2009)

  • CAWCD (2001). Background to Shortage Sharing Agreement. http://www.azwater.gov/dwr/Content/Find_by_Program/Colorado_River_Management/AZ_CO_files/shortage_sharing_background.doc

  • CAWCD (2008) Central Arizona Water Conservation District Public Policy Committee meeting, Dec 4, 2008, public comments by Larry Dozier, Deputy General Manager of Central Arizona Project

  • Christensen NS, Lettenmaier DP (2007) A multimodel ensemble approach to assessment of climate change impacts on the hydrology and water resources of the Colorado River Basin. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 11:1417–1434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colby BG, Thorson JE, Britton S (2005) Negotiating Tribal Water Rights: Fulfilling Promises in the Arid West. The University of Arizona Press. ISBN 0-8165-2455-6

  • Dejong DH (2007) “The Sword of Damocles?” The Gila River Indian Community Water Settlement Act of 2004 in Historical Perspective. Wicazo SA Rev 22(2):57–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fed Reg (1990) Criteria and Procedures for the Participation of the Federal Government in Negotiations for the Settlement of Indian Water Rights Claims. 55 Fed. Reg. 9223 (1990)

  • Gila River Adjudication (2001) In the Gen. Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in the Gila River Sys. & Source, 35 P/3d68, 79 (Ariz. 2001)

  • Gila III (1999) In re the General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in the Gila River System and Source, 195 Ariz. 411, 414, ¶5, 989 P.2d at 748

  • GRIC Settlement (2003) Gila River Indian Community Water Rights Settlement, February 4, 2003. 43 USC 1501

  • Glennon RJ, Culp PW (2002) The last green lagoon: how and why the Bush Administration should save the Colorado River Delta. Ecol Law Q 28(4):903–992

    Google Scholar 

  • Globe Equity (1935) United States of America v. Gila Valley Irrigation District, Globe Equity No. 59, et al., entered in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona

  • IGA (2000) A resolution of the Board of Supervisors of Pima County relating to water; authorizing and approving the execution of a supplemental intergovernmental agreement with the City of Tucson and Pima County Flood control District regarding effluent. Pima County Resolution No. 2000-28. Sec. 5.2.2.1

  • IFSC (2005) Indian Firming Study Commission Interim Report Draft 10-06-05. Indian Firming Study Commission http://www.awba.state.az.us/annc/Indian_Firming_Study_Comm/default.htm (Accessed 6 May 2006)

  • Hoerling MP, Eischeid JK (2007). Past peak water in the southwest. In the special issue Inconvenient Hydrology? in Southwest Hydrol., 6 (1) January/February

  • Lewis RB, Hestand JT (2006) Federal reserved water rights: Gila River Indian Community Settlement. J Contemporary Water Res Educ 133:34–42

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy R (2004) The Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Federal Trust Obligation to American Indians. The BYU J Public Law 19(1):1–160

    Google Scholar 

  • Raley BW (2003) Statement of Bennett W. Raley, Assistant Secretary, Water And Science, Before The Senate Energy & Natural Resources And Select Indian Affairs Committee On S. 437 Arizona Water Rights Settlement Act Of 2003 September 30, 2003. http://www.doi.gov/ocl/2003/s437.htm (Accessed 17 Apr 2009)

  • ROD (2007) Record of Decision: Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and the Interim Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead. December 2007. Department of the Interior, Washington D.C.

  • SAWRSA (1982) Southern Arizona Water Rights Settlement Act, P.L. 97-293, 96 Stat. 1274 (1982)

  • SAWRSA (1992) Southern Arizona Water Rights Settlement Act, P.L. 102–497, 106 Stat. 3255 (1992)

  • SRP-MIC WRSA (1988) Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community Water Rights Settlement Act, Pub. L. 100–512

  • Smith D (2005) Note, Doctrinal Anachronism?: Revisiting the Practicably Irrigable Acreage Standard in Light of International Law for the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Ariz J Intl Comp Law 22(3):712–713

    Google Scholar 

  • Udall C (2008) A Brief Overview of Agricultural Water Use in Arizona. http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:RgfSCLE9M7sJ:www.azwater.gov/dwr/Arizona_Mexico_Water/Meetings/2008-03-0_WaterWorkshopHermosillo/Presentations/Az%2520Ag%2520Water%2520Use_Udall_English_Mar08.ppt (Accessed 17 Apr 2009)

  • United States v. Haggard (1903) U.S. v. N.W. Haggard, No. 19 (D. Ariz. 3d Jud. Dist. June 11, 1903

  • USBR (2007) Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and Coordinated Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead. Final Environmental Impact Statement. October 2007

  • Water Strategist (2008) The Water Strategist, June 2008, p2

  • Winters vs. United States (1908) 207 U.S. 564

  • Worster D (1985) Rivers of Empire: Water, Aridity, and the Growth of the American West. Pantheon Books, New York. ISBN 0-19-507806-3 (PBK)

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by Sustainability of semi-Arid Hydrology and Riparian Areas (SAHRA), a National Science Foundation, Science and Technology Center (Agreement No. EAR-9876800). Thanks also to the helpful comments and suggestions of two anonymous reviewers.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Postdoctoral Research Associate, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Arizona, Room 319D, P.O. Box 210023, Tucson, AZ, 85721-0023, USA

    Rosalind H. Bark

Authors
  1. Rosalind H. Bark
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rosalind H. Bark.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bark, R.H. The Arizona Water Settlement Act and urban water supplies. Irrig Drainage Syst 23, 79–96 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10795-009-9075-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10795-009-9075-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation