firming for indian settlements overview of water settlement elements

Firming For Indian Firming For Indian Settlements Settlements

OVERVIEW OF OVERVIEW OF

WATER SETTLEMENT WATER SETTLEMENT ELEMENTSELEMENTS

Firming For Indian Firming For Indian

Settlements Settlements What Is “Firming?”• Background

• Section 105 of Arizona Water Settlements Act (S.437)

• Un-contracted 65,647 of M&I priority water was relinquished for use in settlements in early versions of settlement

• State parties proposed compromise using firming of NIA concept

• Agreement reached on split responsibility between Fed and State.

Firming For Indian Firming For Indian SettlementsSettlements“In the same manner”• State perspective – firm only if NIA

supply falls below target level• Federal perspective – firm based

on assumption that target amount should have been M&I priority.


Settlements Settlements Examples• #1 – Full supply – no difference• #2 – 33% shortfall

• State – no obligation• Fed – 4,600 af obligation

• #3 – 50% shortfall• State – no obligation• Fed – 7,500 af obligation


Settlements Settlements Examples• #4 – 90% shortfall

• State – 3,000 af obligation• Fed – 13.600 af obligation

• #5 – 100% shortfall• Both State and Fed – 15,000af obligation

• #6 – 20% M&I shortfall• Both Fed and State – 11,250 af

obligation

SOUTHSIDE SOUTHSIDE REPLENISHMENT REPLENISHMENT

PROGRAMPROGRAM

STATE LEGISLATION REQUIRED Southside Protection Program must be enacted

by Arizona Legislature in order for GRIC Settlement to take effect--minimum requirements:

Establish the Protection Zones Establish Southside Replenishment Bank Provide export prohibitions Provide replenishment obligations of State Provide for enforcement of Program by ADWR

Southside Replenishment Southside Replenishment ProgramProgram

PROTECTION ZONES

Western Protection Zones M&I Zone Industrial Zone

Eastern Protection Zones North South

Central Protection Zone


PROHIBITION ON UNDERGROUND WATER EXPORTATIONS

No Exportation From A Protection Zone For A New Use

No Exportation From A Protection Zone For Use In Excess Of The Highest Historic Non-irrigation Use In 1999, 2000 Or 2001


SOUTHSIDE REPLENISHMENT BANK

State To Deliver 1,000 af each year to Reservation for 15 Years

create a 15,000 af Bank

When Balance In Bank Falls Below 5,000 af, State Obligated To Replace The Balance To 5,000 af


STATE REPLENISHMENT OBLIGATION WESTERN ZONE

The amount by which non-irrigation pumping in M&I Zone exceeds 2.0 af per acre

The amount by which pumping for municipal purposes in Municipal Zone exceeds 2.0 af per acre


STATE REPLENISHMENT OBLIGATION

EASTERN ZONE The amount by which non-irrigation

pumping in the Eastern Zone North Zone exceeds 2.33 af per acre

The amount by which non-irrigation pumping in the Eastern Zone South exceeds 2.33 af per acre


STATE REPLENISHMENT OBLIGATION ARIZONA WATER

COMPANY In years before 2024, pumping in excess

of 1,275 af/yr from Eastern Zone South transported to outside Eastern Zones

After 2023, AWC shall replenish any such excess pumping

AWC to assign to State unused CAP for AWC Coolidge system


STATE REPLENISHMENT OBLIGATION IRRIGATION PUMPING

Pumping in excess of cumulative IGFR allotments under TMP Base Ag Conservation Program Western zones treated as a single zone Eastern zones treated as a single zone

Imported water used for irrigation excluded


OPTIONS FOR REPLENISHMENT Debiting the Southside Replenishment

Bank

Direct Delivery

Extinguishment of Long Term Credits In Western Zones, must be earned under state

law within 5 years prior to extinguishment In Eastern Zones, must be earned under state

law within 7 years prior to extinguishment


Firming For Indian Firming For Indian Settlements Settlements

SHORTAGE SHORTAGE

SHARING SHARING

AGREEMENTAGREEMENT


Settlements Settlements Shortage Sharing Agreement• Background

• Shortage potential recognized• Differences in methodology emerged as

contracts were written• New agreement in paragraph 8.16 of GRIC

Settlement• Non-Indian Ag priority

• Change from % basis to fixed volume• Shortages shared on pro-rata basis


Settlements Settlements Shortage Sharing Agreement• M&I/Indian Priorities

• Fixed maximum pools• Change in M&I pool after2044 to reflect Cliff

Dam replacement contract• New agreement

• Neither side must reduce first – steps eliminated

• Formula will establish split for any value of CAP available supply

• Separate formulas to split shortage among like pool contractors

Firming For Indian Firming For Indian SettlementsSettlements

WATER AVAILABILITYWATER AVAILABILITY

Firming For Indian Firming For Indian SettlementsSettlementsWATER AVAILABILITYWATER AVAILABILITY• Colorado River Operations

• Water Operation Model & Model Assumptions

• Calculation of Firming Requirements

• Estimated Firming Obligation

• Current Commitments

“Law of the River”

1922 Colorado River Compact 1929 Boulder Canyon Project Act 1944 Treaty with Mexico 1964 AZ v. CA Supreme Court Decree 1968 Colorado River Basin Project Act 1974 Minute 242 & Salinity Control Act 2000 Interim Surplus Guidelines

Firming For Indian Firming For Indian SettlementsSettlementsColorado River OperationsColorado River Operations

1922 Colorado River Compact

AllocationsUpper Basin – 7.5 MAF

Lower Basin - 7.5 MAF

CA – 4.4 MAF

AZ – 2.8 MAF

NV – 0.3 MAF

AZ 50 KAF

Upper Basin

Lee Ferry

MX – 1.5 MAF

Hoover Dam

Parker Dam

Imperial Dam

1964 AZ v. CA Supreme Court Decree

Charged the Secretary with determining “surplus”, “shortage”, “normal” flows

Secretary enjoined from delivering more than 7.5MAF to Lower Basin during “normal water supply conditions”

Provided for use of unused apportionment between Lower Basin states


1968 Colorado River Basin Project Act Requires the Secretary to develop coordinated long-

range operating criteria for the operation of storage reservoirs in the Upper Basin and the Lower Basin.

Requires the Secretary to develop criteria for determining normal, surplus and shortage conditions.

Annual Operating Plan – annual declaration of supply conditions.


Firming For Indian Firming For Indian SettlementsSettlementsWater Operation ModelWater Operation Model

Computer Model developed by US Bureau of Reclamation

ADWR uses model output to identify the potential future water supply conditions and availability.

ADWR quantifies the potential shortages - - representing the amount of water that will need to “firmed”

INFLOW

LOWER BASIN

STATES

UPPER BASIN USES

PROJECTING WATER SUPPIESPROJECTING WATER SUPPIES

EVAPORATION

MEXICO

7.5MAF

1.5MAF

NORMAL SUPPLY

INFLOW

LOWER BASIN

STATES

UPPER BASIN USES

PROJECTING WATER SUPPIESPROJECTING WATER SUPPIES

EVAPORATION

MEXICO

8+ MAF

1.7MAF

SURPLUS SUPPLY

Firming For Indian Firming For Indian SettlementsSettlementsModel AssumptionsModel Assumptions

Upper Basin Water Demand Build-Up

Lake Mead Protect Levels (Shortage Strategy)

Surplus Strategy (Interim Surplus Guidelines)

AZ Water Demand – Shortage Strategy

Operation of the Yuma Desalter

Other (Hydrology, LB Water Demand, Mexican Surplus)


Upper Basin Water Demand Build-Up

AWBA Study Commission Projections

USBR Projections

1000’

895’

Normal (2.8 MAF)

Begin Shortages (2.3 MAF)

Shortage (2.3 MAF or less)

Minimum Pool

Surplus or Flood Control Releases

Firming For Indian Firming For Indian SettlementsSettlementsLake Mead Protect Levels

1145’ (62% full)

1125’ (54% full)

1000’ (17%)

895’

/ Full Domestic Surplus (2.8+ maf)

/ Partial Domestic Surplus (2.8+ maf)

Normal (2.8 maf)

Begin Shortages

MWD of CA takes first 1 MAF of shortages to AZ

Minimum Pool

Surplus or Flood Control Releases

Firming For Indian Firming For Indian SettlementsSettlementsInterim Surplus Guidelines

When the Sec. of DOI determines that insufficient water is available to deliver 7.5 MAF, then water will be delivered to:

First priority – pre-1929 rights in order of priority (Pre-Hoover Dam/Boulder Canyon Project Act)

Then, delivery to other pre-1968 contractors in CA up to 4.4 MAF, and similar contracts in other states. In Arizona, most of the contracts on the river are either pre-1929 or pre-1968.

Then, post 1968 contracts, or the CAP and 165,000 acre-feet of use on the mainstream

Firming For Indian Firming For Indian SettlementsSettlementsArizona Water Rights


Water Demand – Priority 4 Users Water Demand – Priority 4 Users Shortage StrategyShortage Strategy

Mainstream & CAP

CAP M&I Subcontractors & CAP Indian Contractors


Operation of the Yuma Desalter

Early Start Date (2004)

Delayed Start (2030)


Projections of CAP and Mainstream Water Use

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

2001 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

LOW

SHORT

Mainstream

AG M&I & Indian Tribes

AWBA

Losses

Increasing

GRD

Firming For Indian Firming For Indian SettlementsSettlementsCalculation of Firming RequirementCalculation of Firming Requirement

Assumption Component

Scenario A Scenario D

Hydrology Start Year 1906 1906

Starting Reservoir Levels

Jan. 1, 2003 Jan. 1, 2003

Yuma Desalinization Plant

Begin Operation 2004

Begin Operation 2030

Upper Basin Demands 4.8 MAF 5.4 MAF

Surplus Strategy 70R ISG

Shortage Strategy 80P1000 80P1083

Hydrology 100 Year Analysis(1906 – 2002)

using 96 traces

100 Year Analysis(1906 – 2002) using 96 traces

Firming For Indian Firming For Indian SettlementsSettlementsEstimatedEstimated Firming Requirement Firming Requirement

Firming Component Scenario A Scenario D

GRIC (15,000AF)

NIA 6,000 67,000

M&I 272,000 533,000

TOTAL 278,000 600,000

GRIC (15,000AF) + Unallocated (8,724AF) = 23,734 AF

NIA 9,000 120,000

M&I 430,000 843,000

TOTAL 439,000 963,000


CURRENT CURRENT COMMITMENTS COMMITMENTS

FOR FOR CAP WATERCAP WATER

Firming For Indian Firming For Indian SettlementsSettlementsCurrent Commitments for CAPCurrent Commitments for CAP M&I Subcontractors

Indian Contractors

Agricultural

Incentive Recharge

CAGRD Obligation

Others CAGRD Reserve AWBA Intrastate AWBA Interstate

Firming For Indian Firming For Indian SettlementsSettlementsCurrent Commitments for CAPCurrent Commitments for CAP

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

Contracts/ SubContracts Indian Incentive Recharge CAGRD Obligation Other

Firming For Indian Firming For Indian SettlementsSettlementsCurrent Commitments for CAPCurrent Commitments for CAP

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

KAF

Contracts/SubContracts Indian Incentive Recharge CAGRD Obligation

CAGRD Reserve AWBA Intrastate AWBA Interstate Remaining Supply


POTENTIAL OPTIONSPOTENTIAL OPTIONS

• Payment In-Lieu of Damages

• Demand Reduction - Water conservation - Minimizing waste of all water supplies- Maximizing efficiency in indoor and

outdoor watering- Encouraging reuse of water supplies- Forbearance/Land Fallowing

Firming For Indian Firming For Indian SettlementsSettlementsOPTIONS FOR OPTIONS FOR NON- AWBA PARTICIPATIONNON- AWBA PARTICIPATION

• On-Reservation Recharge & Recovery• Off-Reservation Recharge/On-

Reservation Recovery• Off Reservation Recharge/Off-

Reservation Recovery• Lease/Exchange• Recovery of Existing Credits• Groundwater Transfers• Various Combinations

Firming For Indian Firming For Indian SettlementsSettlementsOPTIONS FOR AWBA OPTIONS FOR AWBA PARTICIPATIONPARTICIPATION


FUNDING AVAILABILITYFUNDING AVAILABILITY

Firming For Indian Firming For Indian SettlementsSettlementsFUNDING AVAILABILITYFUNDING AVAILABILITY

• Estimated Cost

• Funding Sources

• Current Statutory Restrictions

• Historic Use


Cost to Meet Obligation

• Firming• In-Lieu• USF

• Southside Replenishment Bank• Direct Delivery of Water

Firming For Indian Firming For Indian SettlementsSettlementsEstimatedEstimated Costs CostsComponent Scenario A Scenario D

GRIC (15,000AF) 278,000AF 600,000AF

In-Lieu $9,452,000 $20,400,000

USF $18,626,000 $40,200,000

GRIC (15,000AF) + Unallocated (8,724AF) = 23,734 AF

439,000AF 963,000AF

In-Lieu $14,926,000 $32,742,000

USF $29,413,000 $64,521,0000

Southside Replenishment Bank 15,000 AF

Delivery $900,000


General Fund Appropriation

• Source

• Limitations on Use

• Historic Income/Use


Ad-Valorem Tax

• Source




Groundwater Withdrawal Fees

• Source




SUMMARYSUMMARY

What Do We KnowWhat Do We Know• Why and What the Firming Obligation means;

• What the Southside Replenishment Program requires;

• The range of modeling assumptions that can be used to project the volume of water needed to meet the firming obligation;

• Approximate range of firming obligation volume;

Firming For Indian Firming For Indian SettlementsSettlementsSUMMARYSUMMARY

What Do We KnowWhat Do We Know• The variety of methods that can be used to meet the firming obligation;

• Current cost of excess CAP water supplies and cost to recharge;

• Current funding sources available; and

• Current statutory authorities.


Why AWBA??Why AWBA??

• AWBA has existing authority and has performed a similar role

for M&I

• Existing Funding Authority- General Fund- Withdrawal Fees

• Can Integrate Needs Into AWBA Plan


Form an AWBA Technical Form an AWBA Technical Advisory Committee to Develop Advisory Committee to Develop

Alternatives Alternatives that Benefit the State and the that Benefit the State and the

Tribes.Tribes.

Firming For Indian Firming For Indian SettlementsSettlementsRECOMMENDATIONRECOMMENDATION

Technical Advisory Committee ObjectivesTechnical Advisory Committee Objectives• Determine the modeling assumptions that are most appropriate to estimate the volume of water needed to meet the firming obligation;

• Determine the projections necessary to maintain or replenish the Southside Replenishment Bank;

• Develop options for meeting the firming obligations;

• Develop options to build the Southside Replenishment Bank;


Technical Advisory Committee ObjectivesTechnical Advisory Committee Objectives• Determine cost components for each of the firming options;

• Determine cost components to develop the Southside Replenishment Bank;

• Develop criteria for ranking the options;

• Determine the funding sources appropriate to finance the options;


Technical Advisory Committee ObjectivesTechnical Advisory Committee Objectives

• Determine the necessary changes to statute to meet the obligations; and

• Determine the impacts to other AWBA functions.


Technical Advisory Committee ObjectivesTechnical Advisory Committee Objectives


Develop alternative approaches for the Authority to review in order to make a recommendation to the Director of the

Department of Water Resources including the ranked options, the

estimated costs, and an identification of changes to statute.

QUESTIONS???QUESTIONS???


firming for indian settlements overview of water settlement elements

Documents