Allocation of Water Supply and Expected Long-Term Contract Execution, Central Arizona Project, Arizona

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Reclamation

Allocation of Water Supply and Expected Long-Term Contract

Execution, Central Arizona Project, Arizona

AGENCY: Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of intent and public scoping meetings.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of

1969, as amended, and the Council on Environmental Quality's

Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA, the

Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) proposes to prepare an

environmental impact statement (EIS) concerning proposed modifications

to previous Central Arizona Project (CAP) water allocation decisions.

Reclamation is initiating public scoping for the proposed NEPA document

and will be conducting scoping meetings pursuant to section 102(2)(C)

of NEPA.

The Department anticipates it will reallocate and offer contracts

for certain quantities of CAP water in connection with (1) settlement

discussions arising out of operation of the CAP; (2) settlement

discussions arising from legal claims involving the Gila River Indian

Community (GRIC) and the San Carlos Apache Tribe (San Carlos); and (3)

negotiations regarding implementation of the 1982 Southern Arizona

Water Rights Settlement Act.

DATES: Three scoping meetings will be held to solicit comments on

issues that should be addressed in the EIS:

September 14, 1999, from 1:00-3:30 p.m.

National YWCA Leadership Development Center, 9440 N. 25th Avenue,

Phoenix, Arizona 85021-2789.

September 15, 1999 from 6:30-9:00 p.m.

Francisco Grande Resort Ballroom, 26000 Gila Bend Highway, Casa Grande,

Arizona 85222.

September 16, 1999, from 1:00-3:30 p.m.

Tucson Community Center, Maricopa-Mojave Room, 260 S. Church, Tucson,

Arizona 85701.

At each meeting, Reclamation will make a short presentation. Oral

comments from the audience will then be accepted. A court reporter will

prepare a written record of all comments made.

Hearing impaired, visually impaired, and/or mobility impaired

persons planning to attend the meeting(s) may arrange for necessary

accommodations by calling Ms. Janice Kjesbo (602-216-3864; fax 602-216-

4006) no later than August 30, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments concerning the proposal to Mr. Bruce

Ellis, Environmental Program Manager, Phoenix Area Office, Bureau of

Reclamation, P.O. Box 81169, Phoenix Arizona, 85069-1169. To be most

helpful, comments should be received by September 27, 1999. Written

comments received by Reclamation become part of the public record

associated with this action. Accordingly, such comments (including

name, address, or telephone information shown on written

correspondence) will be available to requestors of information through

the Freedom of Information Act.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions concerning the process, the

proposed action or alternatives, or this notice should be directed to

Ms. Sandra Eto, Environmental Resource Management Division, Phoenix

Area Office, Bureau of Reclamation, P.O. Box 81169, Phoenix, Arizona

850689-1169; telephone (602) 216-3857. To be placed on a mailing list

for any subsequent information, please write or telephone Ms. Janice

Kjesbo, Environmental Resource Management Division, Phoenix Area Office

(see address above), telephone (602) 216-3854 or fax (602) 216-4006.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Reclamation proposes to modify existing

allocations of CAP water under terms consistent with ongoing settlement

discussions regarding operation of the CAP, the status of CAP water,

and resolution of outstanding Indian water rights claims. In connection

with preparation of the EIS,

[[Page 46721]]

Reclamation will analyze the environmental consequences of a proposed

action that allocates and offers contracts for CAP water. This action

is consistent with contemplated reallocation of CAP water that has

emerged from extensive discussions among settlement parties.

Environmental analysis of the proposed reallocation does not preclude

additional adjustments being made to the final reallocations, depending

upon the course of negotiations.

In addition to the proposed action (i.e. reallocation of CAP water

based upon current settlement negotiations), Reclamation intends to

develop and evaluate alternative allocation scenarios as part of its

NEPA analysis. These ``action'' alternatives will identify other

reallocation and contracting scenarios the Secretary of the Interior

(Secretary) could implement in the absence of settlement. Thus far,

three alternative reallocation scenarios are being considered for

inclusion in the EIS. These alternatives could be modified, and/or

other alternatives developed based upon input received during the

scoping period.

CAP water, estimated for these purposes to be 1,415,000 acre-feet

1 (AF) of primarily Colorado River water available for use

within the Project service area, is divided into three basic

categories. The majority of the water in each of these categories has

been allocated and contracted; however, some in each category remains

unallocated and/or uncontracted. The categories can be described as

follows: Water previously allocated for use by municipal and industrial

(M&I) entities (620,678 AF); water allocated for ``Federal purposes''

(453,224 AF, the great majority of which is under contract to Indian

tribes); 2 and water previously allocated for use by non-

Indian agricultural (NIA) districts, consisting of the CAP water supply

that remains after water in the other two categories has been

contracted (for the purposes of this notice, the amount of water in

this NIA category is estimated to be 341,098 AF 3). The

following are assumed to occur or pertain to the proposed action and

all three action alternatives currently under consideration:

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

\1\ The 1,415,000 acre-foot amount is an agreed to approximation

of the number of acre-feet of Colorado River water available in a

normal year for diversion and use by the CAP, after deducting

estimated system losses.

\2\ In a Federal Register notice (48 FR 12446, March 24, 1983),

the Secretary allocated 638,823 AF of CAP water for M&I purposes,

and 309,828 AF of CAP water to Indian tribes in central Arizona.

Subsequent settlements of Indian water rights and reallocations of

CAP water increased the total water for ``Federal purposes'' to

453,224 AF--18,145 AF of which came from the M&I category.

\3\ The calculation of amounts of water with regard to the NIA

category varies; analysts among the settlement parties disagree on

the exact numbers associated with water in this category. These

differences are due to the order of the calculations made and other

assumptions used. Use of specific numbers in this notice is not

meant to imply a degree of precision that does not exist, and it

should be noted the various amounts of water attributed to the NIA

category in this notice are estimates for purposes of describing

alternative reallocation scenarios.

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

a. 17,800 AF of Indian priority water would be allocated and

contracted to GRIC. This represents CAP water that was previously

allocated and contracted to the Harquahala Valley Irrigation District

(HVID) but relinquished in 1992 to the Secretary for use in the

settlement of water rights claims of Indian tribes having claims to the

water in the Salt and Verde River system (which is already included in

the ``Federal purposes'' category);

b. an estimated 18,600 AF of NIA priority water would be allocated

and contracted to GRIC, in accordance with the ``Settlement Agreement

Among the Gila River Indian Community, Roosevelt Water Conservation

District, and the United States of America (May 10, 1999).'' This

represents CAP water previously allocated and contracted to the

Roosevelt Water Conservation District but relinquished in 1992 to the

Secretary to hold for the use and benefit of GRIC (which is already

included in the ``Federal purposes'' category);

c. 17,000 AF of M&I category water previously allocated to ASARCO,

Inc., that is anticipated to be voluntarily assigned to GRIC as part of

a settlement of GRIC water rights claims;

d. the NIA category includes an estimated 43,654 AF that has been

or is anticipated to be assigned to several cities within Maricopa

County through agreements with the Hohokam Irrigation and Drainage

District (HIDD); and

e. with the exception of the water previously allocated to HVID,

all CAP water would retain its current priority (which determines the

order of priority in reducing deliveries during times of shortages on

the Colorado River).

Proposed Action and Action Alternatives. Following are descriptions

of actions--in addition to those identified above--that are

contemplated to occur under the proposed action and the three

alternatives currently being considered:

A. Proposed Action

1. Water allocated for M&I use would total 603,678 AF (which

represents 620,678 AF less 17,000 Af of ASARCO water described in ``c''

above). An amount of 65,647 AF within this category, that is currently

uncontracted, would be reallocated to M&I entities after consultation

with the State of Arizona, Department of Water Resources (ADWR). CAP

M&I water service subcontracts would be offered to these allottees.

2. Water allocated for NIA use would be reduced by an estimated

200,000 AF. This water would be reallocated for Federal purposes. Of

the estimated 141,098 AF remaining in the NIA category, 97,444 AF would

be reserved for use by non-Indian agricultural or M&I entities under a

process to be developed. The remaining 43,654 AF represents the water

associated with HIDD that has been or is anticipated to be assigned to

several Maricopa County cities (see ``d'' above).

3. Water allocated for Federal purposes would be increased by an

estimated 200,000 AF from reallocation of water from the NIA category

described in A.2. above. This water would be contracted as follows:

102,000 AF to GRIC; 28,200 AF to the Tohono O'odham Nation; and 69,800

AF reserved by the Secretary for use in facilitating future Indian

water rights settlements.

B. Alternative #1

1. Water in the M&I category would be handled the same as under the

Proposed Action. The 65,647 AF that is currently uncontracted would be

reallocated and contracted as described under the Proposed Action.

2. The amount of water in the NIA category would not change from

present conditions (estimated for purposes of this action to be 341,098

AF); however, an estimated 112,578 AF of water in this category would

be made available for use by non-Indian agricultural and/or M&I

entities under a process to be developed. This amount is an estimate of

that portion of water within the NIA category for which allocations

were made in 1983, but for which no contracts were executed. No change

in status would occur to the remaining estimated 228,520 AF in the NIA

category.

3. An estimated amount of 1,518 AF of Indian priority water already

held for Federal purposes (originally allocated to HVID) would be

allocated and contracted to the Tonto Apache and Camp Verde Apache

tribes.

C. Alternative #2

1. Water allocated for M&I use would be reduced by 65,647 AF, the

amount within this category that is currently uncontracted. This water

would be reallocated for Federal purposes (see

[[Page 46722]]

C.3. below). The water remaining in this category would be 538,031 AF

(which includes a reduction of 17,000 acre-feet of ASARCO water; see

``c'' above).

2. Water allocated for NIA use would be reduced by an estimated

28,665 AF. This estimate represents NIA water previously allocated to

Queen Creek Irrigation District (ID), Chandler Heights Citrus ID, San

Tan ID and Tonopah ID. In addition, as in Alternative #1, an estimated

112,578 AF of water would be made available for use by non-Indian

agricultural and/or M&I entities under a process to be developed. No

change in status would occur to the remaining estimated 199,855 AF in

this category.

3. The amount of CAP water available for Federal purposes would be

increased by an estimated 94,312 AF as a result of the reallocations

described in C.1 and C.2 above. The 65,647 AF from the M&I category

would be contracted as follows: 20,000 AF to GRIC; 28,200 AF to Tohono

O'odham Nation; 3,947 AF to San Carlos; and 13,500 AF to the Navajo and

Hopi tribes. The estimated 28,665 AF from the NIA category would be

contracted as follows: 9,000 AF to GRIC; and an additional 19,665 AF to

San Carlos. In addition, as in Alternative #1, an estimated amount of

1,518 AF already held for Federal purposes would be allocated and

contracted to the Tonto Apache and Camp Verde Apache tribes.

D. Alternative #3

1. Changes to amounts of water in the M&I category would be as

described in Alternative #2.

2. Water allocated for NIA use would be reduced by an estimated

297,444 AF. An estimated 43,654 AF associated with HIDD would remain in

this category (see ``d'' above).

3. The amount of water available for Federal uses would be

increased by an estimated 272,091 AF as a result of the reallocations

described in D.1 and D.2 above. The 65,647 AF from the M&I category

would be contracted as under Alternative #2 (20,000 AF to GRIC; 28,200

AF to Tohono O'odham Nation; 3,947 AF to San Carlos; and 13,500 AF to

the Navajo and Hopi tribes). An estimated 206,444 AF reallocated from

the NIA category would be distributed as follows: 82,000 AF would be

contracted to GRIC, and 124,444 AF would be reserved by the Secretary

for future Federal purposes. As in Alternatives #1 and #2, an estimated

1,518 AF would be allocated and contracted to the Tonto Apache and Camp

Verde Apache tribes.

4. The remaining 91,000 AF of water reallocated from the NIA

category described in D.2 above would be reserved by the Secretary for

as yet to be determined non-Federal users.

Following is a table that summarizes the estimated total number of

AF that would comprise each pool of CAP water, by alternative:

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

Current Proposed

Cap water category condition action Alternative #1 Alternative #2 Alternative #3

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

M&I category.................... 620,678 603,678 603,678 538,031 538,031

NIA category.................... 341,098 141,098 341,098 312,433 43,654

Held for ``Federal purposes''... 453,224 670,224 470,224 564,536 742,315

Held for ``non-Federal .............. .............. .............. .............. 91,000

purposes''.....................

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

Total (in AF):............ 1,415,000 1,415,000 AF 1,415,000 1,415,000 1,415,000

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

In addition to the proposed action and the three action

alternatives, Reclamation will also evaluate environmental consequences

that are anticipated to occur in the absence of the proposed action

(the no Federal action). By definition, the no Federal action

alternative means that no water would be reallocated and no new

contracts would be signed. Currently, uncontracted water from the

previous CAP allocations, including 65,647 AF of M&I category water,

and that portion of the NIA pool which has either been declined (about

112,578 AF) or considered to be relinquished (subject to Secretarial

consent) from four non-Indian irrigation districts (about 28,665 AF),

is delivered by the Central Arizona Water Conservation District to

entities through two-party excess water agreements. The United States

is challenging these agreements in ongoing litigation regarding

operation of the CAP. For purposes of this analysis it is assumed that

under the no Federal action scenario, this practice would continue

pending resolution of the ongoing litigation.

Reclamation is circulating this notice in anticipation of

considerable public interest and the need to ensure that all relevant

issues are evaluated in the EIS. Reclamation will consult other

Federal, State, and local agencies with specific expertise regarding

environmental impacts related to the project.

Dated: August 20, 1999.

Robert Johnson,

Regional Director.

[FR Doc. 99-22195 Filed 8-25-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-94-P