WRRC WEBINAR March 3, 2020 The Next 40 Years: Central Arizona Project Long-Range
History of Central Arizona Project | 2
Patrick Dent, Director of Water Policy CAP: The Past 40 Years |
1968 & 1980 |
1980s 1980s Deliveries: 1.6 MAF Ot her Excess Ag Subcont ract s M&I Subcontract s Federal Contracts 750,000 500,000 250,000 - |
1990s 1990s Deliveries: 8.8 MAF Full Arizona allocation used 1,500,000 Ot her Excess Ot her Excess 1,250,000 Ag Pool Ag Subcont ract s Ag Subcont ract s New Waddell Dam & Lake Pleasant M&I Subcontract s M&I Subcontract s 1,000,000 Federal Contracts Federal Contracts 750,000 500,000 250,000 - Avra Valley Recharge Project |
2000s 2000s Deliveries: 15.3 MAF CAP Long-Term Contracts 1,500,000 Total = 1.415 MAF 1,250,000 Non-Indian Indian Subcontracts Contracts 1,000,000 54% 46% 750,000 500,000 Ot her Excess Ag Pool Ag Subcont ract s 250,000 M&I Subcontract s Federal Contracts - Agua Fria Recharge Project |
2010s 2010s Deliveries: 14.9 MAF 1,500,000 1,250,000 Ot her Excess Ag Pool Ag Subcont ract s 1,000,000 M&I Subcontract s Federal Contracts 750,000 500,000 Ot her Excess Ag Pool Ag Subcont ract s 250,000 Drought Contingency Plan signing ceremony M&I Subcontract s Federal Contracts - |
1980—2019 Total Deliveries: 40.6 MAF 1,500,000 1,250,000 Ot her Excess Ag Pool Ag Subcont ract s 1,000,000 M&I Subcontract s Federal Contracts 750,000 500,000 250,000 - |
Supply & Demand in the CAP Service Territory | 10
Supply & Demand Projections in the CAP Service Area AUSTIN CAREY, PLANNING ANALYST
The Next 40 Years • Projecting water supply & demand 2060 conditions over the next 40 years… • Is challenging Today • Is highly uncertain • Is full of assumptions • Requires technical capability and capacity | 12
CAP Service Area Model (CAP:SAM) • Tool for projecting supply & demand in CAP’s three county service area • 135+ entities (municipal providers, irrigation districts, Tribes, AWBA, CAGRD, etc) • 16 water supply types • Not a hydrological model • Designed to easily generate “what-if” scenarios | 13
Basin Studies • Goal : Evaluate future water supply Study Tasks & demand imbalances in key basins through the year 2060 • Three studies in Arizona: • West Salt River Valley – 2014 • Eloy and Maricopa-Stanfield – 2018 • Lower Santa Cruz – 2015 • Sector demand varies amongst study areas | 14 Source: ADWR’s AMA Historic Templates and Summaries
Scenario Approach Factors Scenario Projection • “Driving forces” of water supply, • Combination of multiple, • Magnitude and spatial demand & reliability: internally consistent factors distribution of water demand • Growth through 2060 • Represents a plausible • Climate Variability narrative about how the • Supplies available to meet • Agricultural Trends future might unfold demands • Policy Changes • Socio-Economic Changes • Behavioral Shifts • … | 15
Building Scenarios Scenario A: Highest Demand Pumping • Fully replaces Growth Pattern • Partially replaces • Spillover Climate • Limited to current/planned • Official • Hotter and drier • Dense urbanization • Irrigation Efficiency Hot and dry • Local growth • • Historic Rapid • Part of the supply and demand • Steady (i.e. current) Conservation • Slow • Rapid • Steady (i.e. current) • Slow subcommittee process Development • Preference for on Ag Growth Rate • No preference • High • Preserve Ag (bare desert) • Official • Low 25 | • Involves collaborative exercises SUPPLY AND DEMAND | 07.16.19 Eloy and Maricopa- Stanfield Basin Study amongst stakeholders • Results in selection of a handful of unique and plausible scenarios to model | 16
Scenario Examples Scenario A Demand Scenario B | 17
Growth Rate: Spatial Distribution: Water Providers Official Growth Pattern | 18
DRAFT Effect of Growth Municipal Demand Housing Unit Projection: Suburban Growth Annual Housing Units (3-County) 80000 60000 40000 140,000 Projected 20000 Historic 0 2001 2005 2009 2013 2017 2021 2025 2029 2033 2037 2041 2045 2049 2053 2057 120,000 Johnson Util. Pinal 100,000 Volume [ AF] Rate: Rapid Global Water 80,000 Florence Pattern: Outward 60,000 Casa Grande Picacho WC AZWC PVS 40,000 Eloy 20,000 0 Total Housing Units = 362,305 Housing Unit Projection: Max Redevelopment Annual Housing Units (3-County) 80000 Projected 60000 5 Historic 40000 20000 0 4 2001 2005 2009 2013 2017 2021 2025 2029 2033 2037 2041 2045 2049 2053 2057 140,000 4 Johnson Util. 120,000 Pinal 3 Global Housing Units Water Rate: Slow 3 100,000 Volume [ AF] Florence 2 80,000 Casa Grande Pattern: Infill Picacho WC 2 AZWC PVS 60,000 40,000 Eloy 20,000 Total Housing Units = 133,279 0 2018 2021 2024 2027 2030 2033 2036 2039 2042 2045 2048 2051 2054 2057 2060 Housing Units | 19
DRAFT Colorado River Shortages Climate 1,000,000 750,000 AF 500,000 • Per capita water use 250,000 • Increase in crop consumptive - 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034 2038 2042 2046 2050 2054 2058 use • Shortages to water supply Surface Water Availability 100% • Frequency 90% 80% • Duration 70% 60% 50% • Severity 40% 30% 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034 2038 2042 2046 2050 2054 2058 | 20
DRAFT Effect of Climate – Water Provider | 21
DRAFT Effect of Climate – Irrigation Districts Example Irrigation District In-Lieu GW AgPool Acres Irrigation Intensity 300,000 60,000 No Irrigation Low 55,000 250,000 50,000 45,000 200,000 Volume (AF) 40,000 Acres 150,000 35,000 High 30,000 100,000 25,000 20,000 50,000 15,000 0 10,000 | 22
DRAFT Takeaways Small Provider, Rapid Growth, 140,000 No Renewable • Per capita use has been on the 120,000 Supplies Growth decline but growth rate drives 100,000 850,000 Effluent Demand Rate 80,000 municipal sector demand Demand 800,000 60,000 Ag Demand [ AF] • The location of growth is critical for: 750,000 40,000 Medium Provider, 20,000 700,000 • Community characteristics Rapid Growth, - Some Renewable 650,000 Scenario A Scenario B • Types of water supplies Supplies, Member Land Provider 600,000 140,000 Conservation • Regulatory requirements CAP 120,000 Fulfilled Demand 550,000 100,000 • Agriculture demand is influenced by Demand 500,000 80,000 pumping capacity and surface water 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036 2038 2040 2042 2044 2046 2048 2050 2052 2054 2056 2058 2060 60,000 Large Provider, availability Modest Growth, 40,000 Renewable Supply 20,000 • Industrial demand is site-specific CAP Portfolio - Effluent | 23
Recovery planning | 24
ANGIE LOHSE Recovery of Banked Water Planning and Implementation
Water Banking and Recovery • Water banking and recovery is one of Arizona’s strategies for mitigating future shortages on the Colorado River • Storing (banking) water underground • Recharge earns credits tracked by ADWR • More than 12 MAF of water stored • During shortages, the stored water is pumped (recovered) from wells to supplement (firm) deliveries of Colorado River water | 26
Arizona Water Banking Authority • The State established the AWBA in 1996 • ABWA has accrued 4.28 MAF • 3.68 MAF for Arizona uses • .61 MAF for Nevada • AWBA stores for a variety of purposes • To firm CAP M&I Priority Pool • To firm P4 M&I On-River users • To firm a specific portion of the CAP water held by tribes • To meet interstate obligations for Nevada | 27
Recovery Planning • Over time there have been a number of separate recovery planning efforts by AWBA, ADWR and CAWCD • In 2014, a Joint Recovery Plan was developed • Describes the basic framework, methods timing, volume and potential partnering opportunities • Recovery Planning Advisory Group was convened by ADWR, AWBA and CAP to further refine recovery implementation | 28
Likelihood, Timing and Magnitude | 29
CAP System Use Agreement • CAP and Reclamation staff developed a legal framework outlining how non- project water will move through the system • “Firming Water” is available to satisfy reductions to contract orders due to shortage • Sources of firming water are identified • Direct recovery into the canal • Exchanges | 30
How Recovery will be Implemented • Direct Recovery • Pump water through wells, treat and introduce directly into the CAP system • Development of Exchange Agreements and partnerships with cities, irrigation districts and Indian communities • CAP staff have developed exchange partnership agreements • Exchange partnerships are mutually beneficial • Lower recovery cost • Increased flexibility • May not require new infrastructure | 31
Recommend
More recommend
