ç Voiwne 1, No. 4

Farmers to UseMore CAP Water

The Central Arizona Water Conser-vation District's plans to promoteindirect recharge (March AWl?, p.1)have induced Central Arizona Projectfarmers to contract for the use of upto 237,500 acre-feet (af) of ColoradoRiver water this year in addition totheir normal orders. This boosts thetotal amount of CAP water that maybe used this year by fanners in Arizo-na to 412,500 af. Actual usage willdepend on other economic factors ofputting land into production.

Under the CAWCD's in-lieurecharge program, the farmers willirrigate their fields with additionalCAP water in place of groundwater.Leaving this water in the ground islegally equivalent to storing CAPwater underground for later use. Statelaw allows CAWCD to recover 95percent of the water "recharged" inthis way (see March AWR, p. 4).

The farmers, represented by fiveirrigation districts in Maricopa, threein Pi.nal, and one in both counties,have contracts to receive 185,000 af of

continued on page 2

CONTENTS

ARIZONAWATER RESOURCE

May 1992

NazionaiDrinking Water Week begins Mry 3. Arizona is reviewing its drinkingwater rules this year, with one ofthe major issues being maximum contaminantleveisfor lead and copper. The rules were last revised in August 1991.

Yuma Desalting Plant May CreateNew Environmental Woes

The fate of one of the largest remaining wetland wildlife habitats in the South-west is stirring controversy within the western water establishment and betweenthe U.S. and Mexico. Scientists at the Umveritv of Añzonas EnvironmentalResearch Laboratory (ERL) and Mexico's Centro de Ecologia (TJNAM) havewarned Bureau of Reclamation officials that proposed operation of the new YumaDesalting Plant could have a devastatingeffect on the lower Colorado River'slargest remaining wetland. The International Boundary and Water Commission(IBWC) met with U.S. and Mexican officials in April to discuss a number ofborder water issues including the potential environmental effects of the desaltingplant's operations on Cienega de Santa Clara, located about thirty miles south ofthe international border in the Colorado River delta.

Under a U.S.-Mexico agreement the IBWC, an agency of the U.S. StateDepartment, has jurisdictional authority for resolving border pollution problems ina 100 km corridor along each side of the international border. The IBWC is alsomandated to collect field data and observations to detect and identify sources ofpollution in the waters of the boundary nvers. However, the scope of the

continued on page 2

WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH CENTER THE UNIVERSITY OF ARiZONA

Communications 3

News Briefs 4

Legislation 4

Special Projects 5

Guest Views 6

Transitions 8

Publications 8

Calendar 9-11

Announcements 12

jore CAP usage, coni. from page 1

CAP water, for which they will pay $52per af. The nine districts have contract-ed for the use of interim excess waterfor in-lieu recharge projects. Thesecontracts require the CAWCL) to buyColorado River water from the Bureauof Reclamation at $38 per af. In turn,the districts will pay a share of that costto CAWCD. Some districts are payingthrough power exchange agreements,which benefit the CAWCD because thehydropower the farmers will be ex-changing is cheaper than steam-generat-ed power which the CAP normallyuses. Other districts are paying $13 peraf to the CAWCD. This price, plusirrigation district conveyance chargesand groundwater pump taxes (ADWRconsiders water used under this arrange-ment groundwater) makes the cost tothe farmer about equal to the cost ofpumped groundwater.

In exchange for CAWCD's $25 peraf subsidy, the farmers will refrainfrom pumping an amount of groundwa-ter equivalent to the amount of CAPwater they receive. Through permitsissued by ADWR, the CAWCD willreceive the right to pump groundwaterwhen a shortage of water exists on theColorado River or when the CAP isclosed for repairs. Thus, these in-lieurecharge projects both increase Arizo-na's use of its yearly entitlement of 2.8million af of Colorado River water andenhance the CAWCD's ability to pro-vide water when it is needed.

The CAWCD is taking a one-year-at-a-time approach to this program.The indirect recharge statute will expirein January 1995 unless the legislatureextends it. Through June of this year,the CAWCD has allocated $3 millionfor this program. Next year it plans tospend $6-7 million. These costs areincluded in the blended water rates setannually for CAP contractors.

The benefits of this program to theCAWCD are: 1) insurance. In timesof major Colorado River water shortageor system outages, recharge and re-covery permits will keep the CAPviable; 2) flexibility. Por example,permits inPinal can be used to keepwater in the canal for Tucson; and 3)

security of Arizona's Colorado Riverallocation through fuller use. TheCAWCD considers the program not asubsidy to farmers but rather an op-portunity to exchange cash for assets -water in the ground. The CAWCDplans to continue to build its groundwa-ter credit account until it determinesthat there is enough water banked toassure these benefits.

b

Desalting plant woes, cont from page 1

bi-lateral Agreement does not includeother types of issues, such as naturalresource management, which couldbecome important. In January 1992,SEDIJE, the Mexican counterpart of theEPA, made a request of the MexicanSection of the IBWC for a study of theeffects of operating the Yuma desaltingplant on Cienega de Santa Clara, whichis the largest of the remaining vestigesof wildlife habitat in the Colorado Riverdelta, where the Colorado River emptiesinto the Sea of Cortez.

Prior to completion of Hoover Darnin 1935, most of the delta area wasinundated by the river and richly vege-tated except in drought years. Follow-ing the construction of upriver dams inthe U.S. which trap silt as well aswater, most of the delta is no longerreplenished by floods; now, in mostyears scarcely any river water reachesthe sea. Today, most of the greatwetland habitat, an important part of thePacific flyway for migratory birds, hasturned into barren, saline mudflats.Satellite photos revealed that by the late1960s Cienega de Santa Clara wassuffering the same fate as the rest of thedelta. The area had been significantlydiminished from what early travelersdescribed. The great gallery forests ofwillow and cottonwood disappearedfrom the delta and hundreds of speciesof plants and animals were lost. TheCucapá Indians, who have lived in thedelta for centuries, could barely surviveon the diminished resources.

The once rich estuary was describedin a June 1991 Na.cional Geographicarticle as "filled with weeds, trash andoccasional swamps of unhealthy water."One of the Cucapá Indians, who are the

last in line for the waters of the Colora-do River system, observed in the arti-cle, "We are the river people. We'restill here. But what river? I haven'tseen it. It doesn't get this far."

In 1960, Mexico filed an officialcomplaint with the IBWC that waters inthe Colorado were so salty from irriga-tion return flows in the U.S. that cropsand farmland in Northern Mexico werebeing devastated. A decade of argu-ments produced no changes in the situa-tion. The political winds suddenlyshifted in the early 1970s when the oilcrisis loomed and the U.S. was courtingthe support of oil-producing nations.President Nixon met with incomingMexican President Echeverria andpromised to find a "permanent, defini-tive and just" solution to the salinityproblem on the Colorado River. Thepermanent solution found was a hugedesalting plant, built at U.S. expense.Scheduled for completion in 1978, itwas just completed, at a cost severaltimes the original estimate.

A temporary solution was devisedfor the interim. Beginning in 1977,118,000 acre-feet of brackish drainagewater from the Wellton-Mohawk Irriga-tion District was diverted into a canaland discharged at the Santa ClaraSlough. Over the intervening years,while the lesalting plant was beingconstructed, this "temporary solution"resulted in a dramatic increase in thesize*,f the wetland, located entirely inMexico but supported by water originat-ing in the U.S.

Concerns raised by bi-nationalscientists include reduction in the vol-urne of flow from Wellton-Mohawkdrainage diversions, which now pro-vides the largest water source support-ing the wetland; increasing levels ofsalinity as concentrated brine discharges

Arizona Water Resource May 1992

rom the desalting plant replace thebrackish drainage waters; and potentiallong-term adverse effects on plant andanimal life in the 50,000-acre ecosys-tem. Conservationists hope that a bi-national study team can suggest mitiga-tion measures that will preserve thehabitat for remnining species even whenthe desalting plant is fully operational.Bureau of Reclamation officials expectto bring the plant up to one-third (24mgd) of operational capacity this year,and gradually increase to full capacityof about 80,000 acre feet per yearduring the 1990s.

According to Ed Glenn, a seniorresearch scientist at ERL, who has beenresearching in the area for more than adecade, preserving the vegetation iscritical to maintaining the waterfowlhabitat in the wetland. In the 15 yearssince bypass drainage flows from theWellton-Mohawk Irrigation Districthave been diverted into the wetland,extremely diverse bird populations andat least two endangered species (Yuxnaclapper rail and Desert pup-fish) havefound sanctuary in the cienega. Thebiological diversity of the wetland isdirectly related to the emergent vegeta-tion, dominated by cattails.

Glenn notes that if the brackishdiversions are replaced with brine dis-charges from the desalting plant to anysignificant degree, the cattails eventuallywould die out or be succeeded by amore salt-tolerant emergent. Unfortu-nately, there is no obvious candidate toreplace the existing cattails, and a die-out would lead to a major loss of vege-tative cover and wildlife habitat. In-creased salinity also could disrupt thereproduction of crayfish, a plentifulfood source in the marsh. There havebeen no recorded studies of this wetlandby either Mexican or U.S. governmentofficials or by private organizationsinvolved in wetland protection.

The UA's ERL and Mexico'sUNAM are seeking cosponsors andsupport for a baseline study of theColorado River's delta resources. Inthe watershed as a whole, it may betime to reexamine management choicesand our decision-making models forwater allocation and salinity control inthe Southwest.

Communicationsin April we printed rwo unsolicited

lerters to the editor and asked for feed-back on issues discussed in AWR. Webraced ourselves for a flood of responseto our riparian pieces. W7zat we got in-stead was the following. Go figure.

Love Your Newsletter!

Iwould like to congratulate you andyour staff on the first edition of AWR.I believe you will find, as we have herein Colorado, that there is definitely aneed for this type of publication. I amsure that your newsletter will, as youhope, "become a valuable resourcewithin the Arizona water community."Robert Ward, DirectorColo. Water Resources Research Inst.

Ienjoy reading your publication verymuch and I've just called to be put onyour mailing list...Don L. WeesnerGUa Water Commissioner

We 're not adverse to kudos, but we'reno: aspiring to be another ArizonaHighways, either. If something in thisnews letter provokes a response, wewant you to share it with us, and ourreaders. Write or fax us today!

Arizona Waler Resource is published monthly, except forianuary and August, by the Umversity of Arizona's Water Re-sources Research Center. AWR accepte news, announcementsand other ìnformation from all organitious concerned

with water. All material must be received y the 14th. of the month to bepublished in the following rnonths issue. Subscriptions are free upon request..

Arizona Water ResourceStories "ii: " Us

AWaterResource is now fourmonths old. AWR's purpose is to servethe Arizona water community by pro-viding its members - from governmentagencies, universities, interest groups,other water organizations and privatesector associations - a means to corn-municate and share news and informa-tion. In a sense, AWR is a water bulle-tin board for Arizona.

Response to AW7 has been veryfavorable, with many individuals pro-viding material for the newsletter andothers expressing an interest in doing soin the future. Circulation has grown toover 2,500. Some organizations aresupporting AWR through sponsorships(see p. 11). This response demonstratesthat the newsletter does indeed providea valued service and that it represents acooperative effort within the watercommunity.

In an attempt to provide more var-ied information, we have expanded ourformat to 12 pages. We again inviteyou to contribute material and informa-tion of interest to the Arizona watercommunity. FAX ensures timelinessand accuracy (major considerations fora monthly publication) but phone mes-sages and mail also are welcome.Black and white photos for the frontcover or news stories are especiallyappreciated. FAX 602-792-8518;Phone 602-792-9591.

Arizona Water ResourceWater Resources Research CenterCollege of AgricultureThe University of Arizona350k North Campbell AvenueTucson, Arizona 85719602-792-9591; FAX 602-792-8518

/ 1992 Arizona Water Resource

Arizona Water Resource StaffEditor: The GeltReporter: Todd SargentCalendar: Jim SuriauoPublisher: Gary Woodard

WRRC Director: Hanna J. Cortner

News Briefs

Pilot Management Plansfor Glen Canyon Dam

Until recently the Grand Canyonexperienced daily floods greater thanmany basins experience once a year oreven once a century. Fluctuations indam releases resulting from daily andseasonal hydropower demands damagedbeaches, archaeological sites, vegetationand recreational areas in the canyon,and affected the types of fish able tosurvive or breed in the river.

The Bureau of Reclamation hasinitiated a pilot program to moderatedaily fluctuations. Studies by DuncanPatten of ASU and others suggest thatsome fluctuation is normal arid benefi-cial. The new release regime, incor-porating water level ranges indicated bythese studies, will be evaluated on sucheffects as growth of native and exoticfish, sediment loading, rafting uses, andvegetation. Ultimately, the Bureau ofReclamation will modify its long-termrelease schedules.

Verde River WatershedConference Convenes

The Cocopai Resource Conservationand Development Area, Inc., sponsoreda conference on April 20-22 in Prescott,Arizona, bringing people in the basintogether to discuss water use in theVerde River. Important local issuesinclude the impact of the Gila Riveradjudication and Indian water rightsclim on the basin, CAP allocations,and the protection of riparian habitat.

The first day of the conferencefeatured panel discussions of federal,state and local speakers. On the secondday, participants broke into eleven workgroups to develop recommendations forwater management in the Verde Riverbasin. These groups reconvened on thethird day to formulate consensus recom-mendations and assess unresolved dif-ferences. The groups agreed to recom-mend development of a permanent,

locally organized and maintained watermanagement entity, where the views ofvarious interested parties can be heardand considered. Consensus was notreached on the appropriate geographicscope of the new group, or on issues ofrepresentation, such as whether mem-bers should be appointed or elected.

A abridging committee was ap-pointed to implement the recommen-dations from the conference and tocarry forward discussions. This com-mittee will propose a structure andorganization for the permanent watermanagement entity, identify all affectedparties, and establish a time frame forwork. The first meeting of the groupwillbeheldthissummer Formoreinformation, contact Smith Covey,Cocopai Resource Conservation andDevelopment Area Inc., 602-556-7504.

UA to Conserve Water,Utilize Effluent

The University of Arizona has con-verted to a computerized sprinklersystem for turf irrigation on its maincampus. The new system is expected toreduce water usage by some 65 percentover historical flood irrigation, and wasdesigned to use reclaimed water when itbecomes available from Tucson Waternext year. Reclaimed water also will beused in the University's cooling towers.

Riparian Systems and theChallenges of Urban Needs

ThiS topic was the focus of the Arizo-

na Riparian Council's Annual Meetingin Cottonwood. Communities through-out Arizona face hard decisions aboutthe value of their riparian areas as wellas methods for protecting them.

Discussions ranged from SierraVista to Glen Canyon; from preservingurban greenways to pressures on theGrand Canyon from electricity usehundreds of miles distant. Communitiesmust face issues such as these:

Will continued population growth andits associated water demand threatenriparian areas that make some commu-nities unique and appealing?

Is adequate scientific informationavailable to determine at what pointadditional groundwater pumping willdeplete surface flows? If not, howshould a community plan?

Is community decision-m2king, as inthe Verde River Corridor study, aneffective way to protect rivers whichinclude towns as well as rural areas?

In addition to policy discussions,technical papers were presented onriparian topics. For information on theArizona Riparian Council, contact ASU,Center for Environmental Studies.

TITTLegislation

Of the many water-related bills intro-duced this session, ADWR's omnibusbill is only one to date signed into law.The bill contained 19 technical items,including clarification of the accountingof co-mingled surface and groundwatersand an emergency clause allowingADWR to continue spending finds onconservation assistance projects.

HB2452, which provides älterna-tives to municipal gpcd-based conserva-tion targets and agricultural water du-ties, bas been radically changed as theresult of an agreement between ADWRand municipal and agricultural interests.Prospects for passage appear good.

No major water bill has died as ofyet. The closest to being dead wasHB2531, drafted by the Water UtilitiesAssociation of Arizona to change theway the Arizona Corporation Commis-sion performs its private utility rate-setting funclons (see March AVR, p.4). After passing out of the Govern-merit Operations Committee, the billwas sent to the Rules Committee, whereconstitutional concerns led to it beingsent back to Government OperationsCommittee, but too late to be heard.

Portions of HB2531 re-emerged asa strike-all amendment to SB 1324 thatwould allow rate-making under bondarid pass-through to utility customers ofcertain expenses. It also strengthens theACC's rule on ex parte comxnunica-tions.

Arizona Water Resource May 1992

Special ProjectsCurrent water-related studies, pilot

projects and applied research are sum-marized below.

Black Mesa Coal SlurryAlternatives Studied

For years, Navajos and Hopis haveexpressed concern about possible long-term impacts of groundwater pumpingfrom the Navajo aquifer underlyingBlack Mesa on spring flow and ground-water levels. Some 4,000 acre-feet ofgroundwater is pumped annually totransport 5 million tons of coal via a275-mile long slurry pipeline that ex-tends from Black Mesa to the MohaveGenerating Station at Laughlin, Nevada.

The Secretary of the Interior, inresponse to the expressed concerns, hascontracted for a study to evaluate alter-natives for transporting the coal. Thesealternatives include other water suppliesavailable in the region to replace all orpart of the groundwater pumped fromthe Navajo aquifer. Montgomery &Associates of Tucson are the consultantsfor the hydrogeologic aspects of thestudy; economic and environmental con-straints are being studied by SpectrumEconomics of San Diego; and legalissues related to water availability arebeing investigated by Ryley, Carlock &Applewhite of Phoenix.

The three-phase study is scheduledfor completion by June 1994. Phase Iinvolves compiling available data todefine the geologic and hydrologic envi-ronment and conducting a comprehen-sive literature review; Phase U willinclude data analysis and developmentof a short list of alternatives; and Phaseifi will entail evaluating and comparingseveral alternatives selected by theSecretary of Interior as most feasible.

The area being considered in thestudy includes all of northern Arizonaas well as small parts of northwesternNew Mexico, southwestern Colorado,and southeastern Utah. Among the

alternative water supplies being re-searched are surface water sourcesthroughout the region and groundwatersources from regional and local aquifersystems. Regional aquifers are exten-sive and include the Redwall-Muav,Coconmo-DeChelly, Navajo-Kayenta-Wingate, and Dakota-Cow Springsaquifers; local aquifers are of limitedareal extent and include the Bidahochiand Toreva-Wepo. Hydrogeologicinformation vital to the study includesdata on the extent of the aquifers, site-specific hydraulic properties of thegeologic units that make up the aqui-fers, potential well production rates,pumping lifts, and water quality charac-teristics. A final report for Phase I ofthe study will be completed by July1992. For more information, or to dis-cuss availability of hydrogeologic datafor the study area, contact Tom Ander-son, Project Coordinator for Montgom-ery & Associates, 602-881-4912.

Oak Creek NPS Pollutionto be Studied

The EPA has funded a Best Manage-ment Practices implementation projectto protect Oak Creek watershed'sunique waters and designated uses byreducing impacts of nonpoint sourcepollution. BMPs will be implementedfor several activities, including urbanrunoff, on-site wastewater management,silviculture, grazing and recreation.

Agencies involved in the project arealso developing a proposal for long-term funding under the EPA's NationalMonitoring Program. The proposedprogram would evaluate impacts ofBMPs on the watershed and on thequality of the perennial waters of OakCreek Canyon, as well as provide infor-mation to land managers. Becausewater quality in Oak Creek is generallygood, efforts will focus more on pollu-tion prevention than remediation. OakCreek is one of Arizona's prime peren-nial streams, but most of its tributariesare ephemeral or flow intermittentlyduring spring runoff or storm events.The proposed monitoring programincludes watershed conditions as well asquality of perennial waters.

All agencies, groups and privateproperty owners in the watershed areinvited to participate in a steering corn-mittee. For more information, contactChristine Nelson, Environmental Plan-ner, Northern Arizona Council of Goy-ernments, 119 E. Aspen Ave., Flag-staff, AZ 86001; 602-774-1 895.

Project WET PromotesWater Education

Project Water Education for Teachers-Arizona offers expertise and resourcesto people teaching youth, includingpublic and private school teachers, 4-Hleaders, Boy and Girl Scout leaders,and other group leaders. WET resourc-es are for learners of all ages, althoughprimary emphasis is given to providingteaching aids for K-12 teachers.

Project WET's goal is to encouragestudents' awareness and appreciation ofArizona's valuable water resources.Knowledge of these resources will begained through the use of classroom-ready teaching aids. Students will alsobe encouraged to understand the needsof all state water users, (e.g., farmersand ranchers, recreatioriists; towns, fishand wildlife, and power industry).'Students will be introduced to the con-cepts of wise water management to pro-mote an appreciation of their necessityto ensure Arizona's future prosperity.

Project WET Arizona teaching aidsare designed specifically for Arizonaeducators and address a wide variety ofwater-related concepts. Students willlearn about Arizona's surface water andgroundwater and become aware of con-temporary water issues involving suchmatters as water conservation, waterpollution and water rights. The hands-on, self-contained, and user friendlyWET teaching aids and activities arevasied to accommodate the educationalneeds of many different learning styles.

Project staff will provide technicalassistance and guidance to groups inter-ested in planning and developing locallysponsored water education programsand projects. Interested people shouldcontact: Larry Sullivan, Project WETArizona, Water Resources ResearchCenter, UA, 350 N. Campbell Ave.,Tucson, AZ 85721; 602-792-9591.

y 1992 Arizona Water Resource

Guest ViewsThree views on CAP wulerutilizadon are

presented. First, Dave Jwanski of the Agri-Bushzess Council of Arizona gti'es o hirten-cal perspective:

Rejecting the view that the frontier waspushed back, historian Patricia Limericksuggests that the history of the west hasbeen a series of rendezvous. Here people ofdifferent cultures and values blended thesynergism of their cultures to form commonbenefits.

To understand the future of the CentralArizona Project, the rendezvous analogy ishelpful. In the iSSOs, Gila River IndianCommunity farms fed both the U.S. Cavalryand California-bound pioneers. In the lateiSOOs and early 1900s, the U.S. Govern-ment required homesteaders to developgroundwater as a condition of receivingpatented land, which was to provide suste-nance for families and growing communi-ties. In the middle of this century, farmerschampioned the arduous Supreme Court andCongressional battles enabling Arizona tofully develop its Colorado River entitlement.In 1968, the Central Arizona Project finallywas authorized. Only near the end of thesebattles did municipal and industrial interestsrendezvous with agricultural entities tosecure enabling legislation and subsequentappropriations for construction.

Agriculture was to be the biggest end-user of Colorado River water allocationduring the early water delivery years. Overtime, as Municipal and Industrial and Indianwater demands increased, agriculture woulduse less. Decreased levels of ColoradoRiver water availability due to upper basindevelopment also were forecast. But today,the CAP is nearly 50 percent under-utilized.Allow me to examine the reasons why.

Increased M&I and Indian demand forCAP water has not materialized as expected.Some M&I subcontractors have not complet-ed requisite treatment plants and distributionsystems. Full usage of tribal allocationsawaits final settlement of Indian WaterRights claims.

Let us focus more on agriculture, how-ever, because of the presumption that now isthe time when the largest use would be forirrigation. Agricultural sub-contractors,especially those in Piral County, simplycannot afford CAP at the present time.What has made this water unaffordable?

continued on page 7

Anoer view ¿s offered by Mike Brophy,a native Arizonan and water attorney withRyley, Carlock & Applewhüe:

Most Arizonans think the Central ArizonaProject is a "done deal. " They take it forgranted. They look at the completed canal,see water in it, and assume that ail is well.

AJl is not weil. Events are unfoldingwhich may - in the near future - result Inthe State transferring a portion of its CAPwater to other states, risking the possibilitywe may never get it back.

The problem starts with agriculturaleconomics. In order to take CAP water,central Arizona farmers contracted approxi-mately $320 million in debt. This debt,coupled with high water prices from theCAP, likely will drive most CAP agricultur-al subcontractors into bankruptcy. Theresult would be the non-use of as much as900,000 acre-feet of Arizona's annual enti-tlement over perhaps the next two decades.

If agriculture goes broke, municipalusers will be impacted. Fixed operatingcosts that agriculture would have paid willhave to be picked up by municipalities.Fixed costs will reach about $24 million peryear by 1993, and will escalate. If munici-pal subcontractors must shoulder these oper-ating costs, they are likely to curtail theiruse of CAP, at least in the early years of theProject. Thus, the U.S. will have construct-ed a huge project for Arizona, which willexperience very little initial use.

The Central Arizona Water Conserva-tion District (CAWCD), which is in chargeof repaying the costs of the CAP, can meetits financial obligation to the U.S. under twoscenarios. First, it can meet its obligationsby selling significant amounts of water.Second, if it doesn't sell water, it can sellon a long-term basis the power needed topump project water. But selling powerdeprives the CAWCD of the means to pumpwater for CAP. The result: significantamounts of Arizona's entitlement left in theColorado River, and the CAWCD stillburdened with repaying the costs of CAP.

Keeping CAP for A rizo-na will take money, andlots of it.

On the Colorado River itself, Californiais looking for additional supplies through theyear 2010. Nevada is looking for 200,000acre-feet in additional permanent supplies.Under current circumstances, these amountsof water can come only from Arizona.

continued on page 8

Aproposa! by Mark Myers, a small buse.nessman and third generadon Atizonanactive in water and environmental issues:

Panic inevitably leads to poor publicpolicy, and the present frenzied state ofaffairs surrounding the declining use ofArizona's CAP water carries with it theunmistakable scent of panic. We are toldwe must travel through the looking-glassinto fiscal Wonderland to save ourselves.Three unpalatable alternatives are offereddirectly pay some farmers and irrigationdistricts, indirectly pay those same farmers(through arcana mechanisms involving indi-rect recharge credits or purchase/leasebackarrangements), or risk losing a large shareof Arizona's Colorado River water to Cali-fornia and Nevada.

With the loss of Mo Udail as head ofthe House Interior Committee and the im-pending bankruptcy of several large irriga-tion districts, the CAP situation clearly isfar from ideal. We will have to commitmore scarce public resources to solve theproblem; however, I part company with thepatrons of panic in the analysis of what canand should be done to solve the problem.

Several subjects essentially have beenbanished from public discourse regardingutilization of Colorado River water in Arizo-na. In this current CAP 'crisi", the qualityof the debate has suffered because of thb un-willingness to broach these politically taboosubjects. Let's drag the skeletons out of thecloset and encourage policy makers to givethem the serious consideration they deserve.

First, agriculture - which alreadyreceives subsidies through price supports,cheap power, very limited CAP capitalrepayment obligations, favorable paybackterms on CAP distribution systems, andproperty taxes that ignore the market valueof agricultural land - should receive noÑrthe subsidy from Arizona taxpayers.Second, thesettlement of Indian water rightsclaims should be at the top of everyone'sagenda, both for reasons of simple justiceand, for those to whom fairness has insuffi-cienç appeal, eminently practical consider-atices relating to the economic future of ourstate. Third (and listen to the howls thatarise at this suggestion), we should seriouslyconsider transferring some portion of Arizo-na's Colorado River allocation to Californiaand/or Nevada, via sale or long-term lease.

Let's begin contemplating these heresiesby examining some fundamental waterresource facts in Arizona. Between the SaitRiver Project, natural recharge and theCentral Arizona Project, approximately 2.5

continued on page 7

Arizona Water Resource May 1992

1992

fr/ave Iwanski, conL from page 6

Back in the late 1970s and early 1980s,when the Bureau of Reclamation was con-ducting its economic feasibility studies forCAP Irrigation Districts, commodity priceswere much higher than today. The Bureauused a modest inflation rate for the com-modity price estimates and assumed thatover the early repayment period, revenueswould keep pace with costs. The Bureaualso assumed more acres would be plantedin higher-valued citrus and vegetables thanhas been the case.

The reality today is that commodityprices have fallen drastically, and revenueprojections upon which debt service wasincurred are out of balance. This is largelydue to flawed foreign policy. During the1960s and 1970s, the U.S. helped develop-ing countries acquire the ability to "feed andcloth themselves". These nations, particu-larly in the third world, now are our mostworthy competitors. Mainland China, Egyptand the Sudan export cotton to Europe andthe Pacific Rim, markets historically domi-nated by the U.S. Russia is "dumping"some of its cotton for less than the cost ofproduction to earn badly needed hard cur-rency. Fruits and vegetables from Mexicoand Central and South America are exportedthroughout the world in direct competitionto our own growers.

The solution rests withgenerating debt relief andlowering water costs.

A number of other key factors besidesfalling commodities prices impact CAPaffordability. In 1986, changes to the taxcode eliminated accelerated depreciationrates for land, equipment and other tangi-bles. Economic indicators took a downturnbeginning in 1987, which gravely impactedthe real estate markets. Agricultural landwhich rapidly appreciated in years prior,appreciation which would be borrowedagainst as "equity", began depreciating invalue. Savings and Loan and related bank-ing industry corruption resulted in morestringent lending requirements. This re-duced financing available to agriculture.During the last two years, lousy weather andinsect infestation, mainly the pink boil wormand the white fly, have led to below-averagecrop yields in some areas. All these factorshave an incredible cumulative effect on CAPirrigation districts and their farmers to stayfinancially viable.

Arizona Water Resource

These same farmers who championedthe creation of the CAP now are burdenedwith paying for s system they can ill afford,through no fault of their own. The painalready is being felt with personal bankrupt-cies destroying families financially andemotionally. If irrigation districts begin todefault on debt service obligations, adverseimpacts on county budgets and school andfire districts will result.

We need to thoroughly examine thekinds of partnerships that can benefit a widerange of water users. The solution restswith generating debt relief and loweringwater costs so that agriculture can afford tomaximize its CAP usage. In exchange forfinancial relief in the interim years, CAPirrigation districts are wifling to make por-tions of their agricultural supplies availablefor future M&I use. In addition, agriculturecan make land and infrastructure availablefor direct and in-lieu recharge activities.Agriculture can be a large-scale end-user ofeffluent that M&I providers may not be ableto use or store in a cost-effective manner.

There axe those who will claim that thistype of relief is another in a series of "bail-outs" for agriculture. Nothing could befurther from the truth. This is an attempt toget our CAP water out of the river, bring itinto Central Arizona, stay off groundwater,and make a significant amount of wateravailable to the cities in the future. Addedbenefits could be realized by setting asidewater earmarked for settlement of Indianwater rights claims.

Why should CAP agriculture be helped?The question only needs to be looked atthrough the historical window of Pirna andMaricopa Counties, who themselves evolvedfrom irrigation beginnings. Pinal County isthe transportation link between the twometropolitan areas. With T-10 and the pro-posed regional jet port, the cities of Eloy,Casa Grande, Coolidge and Florence couldbecome the future core of Central Arizona.Projections of future CAP water supply anddistribution systems will be critical.

If we allow CAP water to remain in theColorado River, external pressure fromCalifornia and Nevada will mount to redi-rect our allocation to those two states. Thegrowing political clout of California shouldcause concern about momentum being gen-erated in congress to reexamine the appor-tionment of water. Ad valorem taxes al-ready are being paid by citizens of the tri-county CAP Service Area for water that isbeing used by southern California house-holds and businesses. lt just may be worth-while for Arizonans to participate in findingways to keep our water closer to home.

Mark Myers, coni. from page 6

million acre-feet of renewable water peryear will be available to central and south-ern Arizona. If used exclusively for munici-pal and industrial purposes, this water willsupport roughly five million households ortwelve million people, and will generate aneffluent flow of about 1.5 million acre-feetper year that can irrigate hundreds of thou-sands of acres of farmland, turf, andíorriparian habitat areas.

Other businesses muststand or fall on their abili-¿y to compete. -

In western Arizona, where the vastmajority of the balance of the Coloradoallocation is used for agriculture, the exist-ing population could be quadrupled throughthe transfer of only two to three hundredthousand acre-feet of water from agriculturaltoM&Iuses. If you startaddingalithenumbers together, then factor in the corn-pounding effect of effluent generation, itbecomes clear that Arizona can support apopulation of more than 15 million andretain a substantial agricultural sector with-out having to make full use of the CçloradoRiver allocation. A population that sizescares the hell out of me but ought to warmthe heart of even the most ardent growthchampion.

The economic future of central andwestern Arizona clearly does not depend onretaining the entire 2.8 million acre-footColorado River allocation. Conversely, thepotential benefits of selling perhaps 400,000acre-feet of Colorado River allocations toCalifornia and Nevada are impressive:

By transferring only its lowest priorityallôcation, Arizona (which otherwise is lastin priority in the lower basin) can ensurethat California and Nevada will bring theirpolitical clout to bear to protect their newjunior position and, by extension, Arizona.' By helping California and Nevada withtheir water problems, Arizona can bothdefuse some of the volatility of the alloca-tion issue and set a precedent that mightlater be followed by some upper basinstates. Further, the water will be movedfrom low value-added, subsidized agricultur-al uses to much higher value-added econom-ic activities that improve the economies ofour neighbors. In the long run, Arizonabenefits from a strong regional economy.

continued on page 11

TransitionsThomas Whitmer was hired as Assistant Director, TucsonActive Management Area Water Augmentation Authority,effective May 4. Mr. Whitmer has been employed as amarket analyst for American Electric Power in Ohio; pre-viously, he was a water resources planning analyst with SRP.326-8999.

Donald Weesner was appointed Gua Water Commissioner inMarch, replacing George Grinner, who retired in January atage 83 after serving as Commissioner for 35 years. Mr.Weesner had retired from a 25-year career with SRP in 1986,where he was Assistant General Manager of Water. TheCommissioner is appointed by the U.S. Federal District Courtto oversee the Globe equity decree of 1935. 602-867-1074(Phoenix) or 602-428-3220 (Safford)

PublicationsNational Water Summary 1988-89: Hydrological Events andDroughts

Published as USGS Water Supply paper #2375, this studyincludes summaries of major U.S. floods and droughts up to1989. Also included are articles on scientific and societalaspects of floods and droughts. A chronological listing of 175U.S. water-related events that occurred during 1988 and 1989also is included. Available for $39 through USGS, Books andOpen-File Reports, Federal Center, P.O. Box 25425, Denver,CO 80225.

Flood Hazards of Distributaiy-Flow Areas in SouthwesternArizona

H.W. Hjalmarson and S.P. Kemna. Published as USGSWater-Resources Investigations Report 91-4171, this study,done in cooperation with the Arizona Department of WaterResources, defines flood hazards for five types of distributary-flow areas using hydraulic and physiographic characteristics.Microfiche, $4, paper, $10.25. Available through USGS,Books and Open-File Reports, Federal Center, P.O. Box25425, Denver, CO 80225.

Arizona 's Other LakesMaps of 75 lesser known lakes and descriptions of recre-

ation facilities, depths, surface areas, seasons, etc., $9.10from Arizona State Parks Publications, 800 W. Washington,Suite 415, Phoenix, AZ 85007; 602-542-4174.

Arizona Water Resource May 1992

Arizona Rivers and Strewn GuideMaps and narratives of 74 river and stream segments and

describes canoe, rafting and fishing opportunities, recreationfacilities, access, seasons, etc., $6.90 from Arizona StateParks Publications, 800 W. Washington, Suite 415, Phoenix,AZ 85007; 602-542-4174.

A Preli.minay Assessment of Corps of Engineers' Reservoirs,Their Purposes and Susceptibility to Drought and NationalStudy of Water Management: A Research Assessment

The above are the second and third of a continuing seriesof reports from the National Study of Water ManagementDuring Drought. The primary goal of the study, which willcontinue through 1993, is to improve the way water is man-aged during drought in this country. The study is fundedthrough the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Information about the study can be obtained from BillWerick, the Study Manager, at (703) 355-3055; copies of thereports are available from Arlene Nurthen at (703) 355-3042.

1991 State Governmental Affairs SummaryThis publication is available for $10 (12.50 for non-mem-

bers), plus $3 for handling and shipping from the NationalGroundwater Association Bookstore, P.O. Box 182039, Dept.017, Columbus, Ohio 443218-2039; 614-761-1711.

This is a review of 1991 state laws enacted and stateregulations adopted that impact the groundwater industry.

Mike Brophy, coat. from page 6

Should the State sell its water to California and Nevada?If it does so, is it likely to get the water back? Will Nevadaand California simply take Arizona's water without paying forit? If Arizona does not sell its water to California and Neva-da, how will it raise the money toy use CAP? Who willpay for it? Who will benefit?

These are questions of great importance to the State.How they are answered will profoundly affect the future ofArizona. The answers involve not just agricultural interestsand municipal interests, where the debate currently is con-fined, but all of Arizona's citizens However, most citizensare unaware there is even a debate about CAP, much less thatthe State could lose a portion of its entitlement. They deserveto know that the State is facing two fundamental questionsabout CAP - shall we keep the water and pay what it takes todo so? Or shall we attempt to sell it, and risk never getting itback?

Keeping CAP for Arizona will take money, and lots of it.It may entail increasing the ad valorem taxing authority of theCAWCD. It may require other financial measures as well. Itwill involve a genuine debate about who should share theburden to keep from losing the water, who should get thewater, how the benefits and burdens of CAP should be distrib-uted, and over what period of time. This author thinks Arizo-na should have the debate and pay whatever is necessary tokeep the water. The State should not give it up.

'o

May

199

2at

er-R

elat

ed E

vent

s in

Ari

zona

Sund

ayM

onda

yT

uesd

ayW

edne

sday

Thu

rsda

yFr

iday

Satu

rday

1O

pen

Hou

se, T

ucso

nA

MA

new

off

ices

2

3N

atio

nal D

rink

ing

Wat

er W

eek

Cas

a de

i Agu

a

4Y

av. F

lood

Con

trol

Sem

inar

, UA

Dep

t. of

Hyd

rolo

gy

5T

ucso

n C

WA

CA

Z H

ydro

logi

cal

Soci

ety

6Ph

oeni

x G

UA

CU

S -

Mex

ico

Rel

atio

nshi

p

AZ

Wat

er &

Poi

lu-

7C

AW

CD

AZ

Rai

nfor

est

tion

Con

trol

Ass

oc.

8T

ucso

n W

ater

Aug

-m

enta

tion

Aut

hori

ty

Ope

rato

rs' F

orum

9

6th

Nat

'l O

utdo

or

10C

asa

dei A

gua

Act

ion

Con

fer,

on

11U

nste

ady

Flow

Mod

elin

gU

n-A

quif

erR

esto

ratio

n,

12

stea

dyFl

ow M

odel

-6W

Mon

itori

ng, &

13

ing

Usi

ngD

AM

-G

eoph

ysic

al M

etho

ds

14

BR

Kan

dD

OW

-C

omm

issi

on o

n th

e

15T

ucso

n G

UA

C

PER

AZ

Env

iron

men

t

16

17C

asa

del A

gua

1819

AZ

Out

door

Rec

.

20Sa

n Pe

dro

Rip

aria

n

Coo

rdin

atin

gC

orn-

21A

Z R

ainf

ores

tPA

G W

ater

Qua

lity

mis

sion

Wor

ksho

p

2223

24C

asa

dei A

gua

25Y

av. F

lood

Con

trol

2627

Pina

l GU

AC

2829

30

Soci

ety

of31

Wet

land

sC

asa

dei A

gua

Arizona Hydrological Society. 2nd Tuesday of the month.Times vary. Water Resources Research Center, 350 N.Campbell, Tucson. Contact: Mike Block. 602-792-1093.

Arizona Rainforest Alliance, ist & 3rd Thursdays of themonth. UA Student Union Rin. 280, Tucson. Contact:Jeff/Julia 602-621-6401; 738 N. 5th Ave., Tucson 85705.

Arizona Water Commission. No meeting scheduled forMay. Meetings held at ADWR, 15 South 15th Ave, Phoenix.Contact: MaryGrace Hoard, 602-542-1540.

Casa Del Agua water conservation tours hourly Sundays noonto 4 p.m., 4366 North Stanley, Tucson. Contact: 602-881-3939.

Central Arizona Water Conservation District. First Thurs-day of the month, 12:30 p.m.. Central Arizona Project boardroom, 23636 N. 7th Street. Contact: 602-870-2333.

City of Tucson Citizens Water Advisory Committee. istTuesday of the month, 7:00 a.m. 310 W. Alameda, Tucson.Contact: Trish Williamson 602-791-4331.

EPA, Successful Tools in Environmental Negotiations.Various times & locations. Contact: The nearest EPA office.

Puma Association Of Governments / Water Quality Sub-committee. 3rd Thursday of the month, 9:30 a.m. 177 NChurch Avenue, Tucson. Contact: Gail Cushner 602-792-1093.

Phoenix AMA, GUAC. May 6, 9:30 a.m., Phoenix AMAOffices, 15 South 15th Ave. Phoenix. Contact: Mark Frank602-542-1512.

Pinal AMA, GUAC. May 27,7:00 p.m., Pinal AMAOffice, 901 E. Cottonwood Lane, Suite B, Casa Grande.Contact Tom Carr 602-836-4857.

Prescott AMA, GUAC. May meeting not scheduled.Prescott AMA offices, 1316 Iron Springs Road, Prescott.

Tucson AMA, GUAC. May 15,9:00 a.m.. Tucson AMAoffices, 400 West Congress, Suite 518, Tucson.

Tucson Augmentation Authority. 2nd Friday of the month,7:30 a.m. Water Resources Research Center, 350 N Camp-bell, Tucson. Contact: Shelley Stefauski 602-326-8999.

MAY

Yavapai County Flood Control District, ist Monday of themonth in Prescott; 4th Monday of month in Camp Verde.Contact: Y.C.F.C.D., 255 E. Gurley, Prescott 86301.

i (Pri) Tucson AMA Office Open House. 2:00-4:00 p.m.,400 W. Congress, Suite 518, Tucson. Refreshments. Con-tact: TAMA, 628-6758.

4 (Mon) Seminar by Shimin Li, topic TBA. 4:00 p.m. VAGeology Building, Room 206, Tucson. Contact: Departmentof Hydrology and Water Resources, 602-621-5082.

6 (Wed) Politics, Trade, and Water Pòlicy: The U.S. -Mexico Relationship. 7:30-9:00 p.m., VA EducationBuilding, Kiva Auditorium, Tucson. Contact: The UdallCenter, 602-621-7198.

6-8 (Wed-Fri) Arizona Water & Pollution Control Associa-tion Operators' Forum. Mesa Community & ConferenceCenter. Contact: AWPCA, Brian Peck, 602-263-9500.

9-13 (Sat-Wed) 6th Nat'l Outdoor Action Conf. on AquiferRestoration. Las Yegas, NV. Fee. Contact: National Ground-water Association, 6375 Riverside Drive, Dublin, OH 43107.

11-15 (Mon-Fri) Unsteady Flow Modeling Using DAMBRKand DWOPER. ASU Engineering Center, Tempe. Fee.Contact: Center For Professional Development, College ofEngineering and Applied Sciences, ASU, Tempe 857287-7506; 602-965-1740.

14-15 (Thu-Fri) Commission on the Arizona EnvironmentConference I Workshop. Discussion of 1993 environmentallegislation, including poperty rights and water. RamadaHotel, Phoenix. Contact: Commission on the Arizona Envi-ronment, 602-542-2102.

19-2 1 (Tue-Thu) Arizona Outdoor Recreation CoordinatingCommission Workshop. Contact: Peggy Tabor, ArizonaState Parks, 880 W. Washington, Suite 415, Phoenix 85007;602-542-1996.

May 31-June 6 (Sun-Sat) Annual Meeting of the Society ofWetlands Scientists., New Orleans,LA. Contact: Dr. MaryLandin, i-800-LAB-ÓWES ext. 2942 for information.

Calendar of Events

RECURRING JArizona Water Resource May 1992

1992 Arizona Water Resource ii

The Arizona Water Resource is financed in part bysponsoring agencies, including:

Arizona Department of Water Resources

Central Arizona Water Conservation District

Salt River Project

Tucson Water

USGS Water Resources Division

Water Utilities Association of Arizona

Their contributions help make continued publicationof this newsletter possible.

Mark Myers, cont. from page 7

s Perhaps most importantly, the economic benefits from a saiecould be enormous. 400,000 acre-feet at $2,500 per acre-fouwould generate $1 billion. If invested in a "water resources en-dowment yielding S percent per annum, $80 million per yearwould be available with no draw-down of principal. We couldspend $25 million per year paying off CAP distribution systems inreturn for farmers yielding their CAP allocations to Indian settic-ments, $25 million per year retiring 10,000 or so acres of Welltopj-Mohawk each year for 10 years to reduce Colorado River demadby 400,000 acre-feet (and, incidentally, turning a lot of farmersinto millionaires), $10 million per year to provide effluent distribu-tian lines to Indian land as part of an agreement to lease CAP waterto municipalities, $10 million per year on major recharge projectsthroughout central Arizona, and $10 million per year for paymentsin lieu of taxes and economic development efforts for westernArizona to offset the reduction in the farm economy. After theCAP distribution systems are paid off and the farm retirementcompleted, the funds available for other water projects wouldincrease by $50 million per year.

Is $2,500 per acre-foot for Colorado River allocations too higha price? Hard to say, but we sure won't know what is achievableunless negotiations begin. The cost (capital plus present value ofexcess O & M) per acre-foot of desalination capacity would be aninteresting beginning point for negotiating price.

While such negotiations were ongoing, the Colorado Riverallocation should be protected by a large-scale transfer of APallocations from agriculture to Indian settlements, especially for theGua River Indian Community. Our present "crisis" is in fact anamazing opportunity to solve a problem that, for both moral andlegal reasons, must be addressed. And, in this case, doing the rightthing has some immediate ancillary benefits. Tliè Federal govern-ment will then have the obligation to pay a proportionate share ofCAP capital and O & M costs, as well as to protect the Indianwater from outside 'raids" until it can be put to beneficial use.Underutilization of Colorado River water magically disappears, andthe direct cost of CAP to Arizonans drops dramatically.

The only additional benefit that should be offered to irrigationdistricts, and that only in return for permanently relinquishing theirCAP rights, is to assume the burden of paying off the CAP distri-bution system costs. The useless canals will serve as a monumentto the folly of multiply subsidizing an uneconomic industry.

The future of much of the agricultural sector actually may bepretty bright under this scenario. SPY farmers likely will continuebecoming enormously wealthy selling their land for urban develop-ment. Farms within reasonaMe distances of sewage treatmentfacilities will be able to substitute reclaimed effluent for much oftheir surface water and groundwater use. Other farmers will be-come wéalthy selling their land in programs designed to retiregroundwater pumping 'in order to reach safe yield, particularly inthe Tucson and Phoenix Active Management Areas.

Another group of farms currently exists, however, only becausetheir owners hope to receive some additional public subsidy on topof existing layers of subsidy. Absent such compounding subsidies,they will go out of business. To these people, I say, not anotherpenny! Other businesses must stand or fail on their ability tocompete effectively, and many fall each year. If existing subsidiescannot keep some farms viable, they must also be allowed to fall.As a state, we must use our scarce public resources more wisely,avoiding Mad Hatter 'solutions" to the CAP utilization problem.

UPCOMING J15-17 June (Mon..Wed) uncovering the Hidden Resource:Groundwater Law, Hydrology and Policy for the 1990s.Boulder, CO. FEE. Contact: Natural Resources Law Center,University of Colorado School of Law, Campus Box 401,Boulder, CO 80309-0401.

1-3 September (Tue-Thu) 2nd Symposium on the Settlementof Indian Reserved Water Rights Claims. Albuquerque,NM. Contact: Western States Water Council or NativeAmerican Rights Fund.

10-11 September (Thu-Fri) Arizona Water 2000. Conference/ Workshop sponsored by The Commission on the ArizonaEnvironment. Phoenix. Contact: The Commission on theArizona Environment. 602-542-2102.

10-11 September (Thu-Fri) 1992 Arizona Hydrological Soci-ety Symposium. Current Water Quality and Quantity Issuesand Players. Sedona, AZ. Contact: Bruce Mack. 602-236-2579.

13-17 September (Sun-Thu) INTECOL International Wet-lands Conference. Columbus, OH. Contact: WilliamMitsch, School of Natural Resources, 2021 Coffey Road,Ohio State University; Columbus, OH 43210.

30 September -2 October (Wed- Fr1) Aquifer Restoration:Pump-and-Treat and the Alternatives. Las Vegas, NV.

2-3 October (Fri-Sat) Western Regional Instream FlowConference II. Jackson Hole, Wy. Contact: Suzanne VanGytenbeek, Trout Unlimited, 307-733-0484.

AnnouncementsCalls for Papers

announcement and call for papers has been issued by theAmerican Water Resources Association (AWRA) for a con-ference and sympOSiUm to be held in Tucson, Arizona, August29 to September 2, 1993. The conference, "Innovations inGround Water Management, and symposium, "Effluent UseManagement, will highlight innovative approaches, newtechnologies, and improved strategies for ground water andeffluent management. Papers are invited on a wide range oftopics. Abstract must be submitted no later than October 23,1992. For more information contact: Water Resources Re-search Center, 350 N. Campbell Ave., Tucson, AZ; 602-792-9591.

Papers are requested for the September 20-24, 1993 Interna-tional Association for Water Pollution Research and ControlConference, "Diffuse (Nonpoint) Pollution: Sources, Preven-tion, Impact and Abatement," in Chicago. 500-word abstractsmust be submitted by June 15, 1992 with authors specifyingwhether the abstract describes a platform or poster presenta-tion. For information contact: IAWPRC Conference, Dr.Vladimir Novotny, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engi-neering, Marquette University, 1515 W. Wisconsin Ave.,Milwaukee, WI 53233.

The University of ArizonaWater Resources Research Center

Tucson. Arizona 85721

Address Correction RequestedARIZONA WATER

RESOURCE

THE UNIVERSITY OF

ARIZONATUCSON ARIZONA

Reyckd r Recy.k er

Position Available, UC-Davis

Assistant/Associate Cooperative Extension Specialist in Hy-drology/Hydrogeology at the Kearney Agricultural Center ofthe University of California in Panier (near Fresno), CA.This is a 12-month, academic career-track position in theDepartment of Land, Air, and Water Resources - HydrologicSciences Section, at UC - Davis. Responsibilities includedevelopment and implementation of an applied multidisciplin-ary research program emphasizing mitigation and preventionof groundwater contamination, as well as educational andtechnical support to regulatory agencies and others. Good oraland written conunurncation skills are necessary. Applicantshould have a Ph.D. in geology, engineering, hydrology, hy-drogeology, or a closely related field. Salary commensuratewith experience. Application deadline is May 31, 1992.Direct applications and inquiries to Larry Schwankl, SearchCommittee Chair 916-752-1130.

Scholarships Offered for Water Studies

The Arizona Hydrological Society will award three $500scholarships in 1992 to full-time junior, senior or graduatestudents studying hydrology, hydrogeology, or any waterresource-related field at an Arizona university. Interestedstudents must submit an application letter describing interestsand career goals, official transcripts, and at least one letter ofrecommendation by June 30, 1992 to Aregai Trecle, NorthernArizona University, School of Forestry, P.O. Box 4098, Flag-staff, AZ 86001.

NON-PROFIT ORG.US POSTAGE

PAIDTUCSON, ARIZONAPERMIT NO. 190

Arizona Water Resource May 1992