2009 CAP Supply Excess Supply 832,000 af CAP Supply Ag Indian - - PDF document
Status Report Access to Excess Policy and Procedures CAWCD Board Meeting May 7, 2009 2009 CAP Supply Excess Supply 832,000 af CAP Supply Ag Indian Long- 2.8 MAF 1,575,000 af 9,000 af 206,000 af Term 693,000 af M&I 478,000 af
CAWCD Board Meeting May 7, 2009
Board Status Report, May 7, 2009
CAP
2.8 MAF On-River
1,225,000 af
CAP Supply
1,575,000 af
M&I
478,000 af
Indian
206,000 af
Ag
9,000 af
Long- Term
693,000 af
Colorado River
Excess Supply
832,000 af
Board Status Report, May 7, 2009
2.8 MAF On-River CAP Supply
M&I Indian
Ag
Colorado River
Excess Supply
Board Status Report, May 7, 2009
In response,
CAP’s rates were restructured In lieu recharge program (GSFs) created Arizona Water Banking Authority (AWBA) created (1996)
Board Status Report, May 7, 2009
Goal was to ensure that Arizona’s entire Colorado River
Firm M&I subcontracts Firm Colorado River communities Assist water management goals Enter into interstate banking
Original “Access to Excess” allocation scheme:
Fill all Excess CAP orders AWBA stores the rest Use of Excess CAP water to solve problems
Board Status Report, May 7, 2009
In exchange for contract relinquishment:
Defined block of Excess CAP water through 2030 Highest priority of Excess Use of Excess CAP water to solve problems
Pinal AMA Phoenix AMA Tucson AMA 57,527 AF 289,799 AF 32,537 AF 13,582 AF
A critical component of the
Ag Settlement Pool Allocations
Use of Excess CAP water to solve problems
Board Status Report, May 7, 2009
Nevada was saber-rattling on Colorado River issues Banking offered mutual benefits, and was expected to be
Interstate banking program assisted with Lower Basin
Use of Excess CAP water to solve problems
Board Status Report, May 7, 2009
The “firmness” of a block of CAP water arose in Indian
The State agreed that the AWBA would firm a portion of
The statutory obligation was expected to be met by
Use of Excess CAP water to solve problems
Board Status Report, May 7, 2009
Rapid growth of CAGRD heightened concerns about the
Statute was passed requiring a “cushion” of recharge
Excess CAP was part of identified supply
Use of Excess CAP water to solve problems
Board Status Report, May 7, 2009
New and existing customers have increased their use of
To use directly To reduce future reliance on CAGRD To have supply for future projects To resell Use of Excess CAP water to solve problems
There is still a large volume of Excess
There is a need for increased
Board Status Report, May 7, 2009
Policy guidance that can be turned into a program to
Potential Benefits
Greater predictability for customers and staff Less annual conflict and jockeying among customers A more deliberate set of policy outcomes
Consensus among stakeholders is preferred outcome
Board Status Report, May 7, 2009
Two stakeholder workshops since last Board meeting
More comment & discussion
Original Staff proposal was not supported Staff explored elements of the AMWUA proposal that
Separate pools “Self-determination” within pools
A (shaky & grudging) consensus has developed around a
Board Status Report, May 7, 2009
Applies for next 5 years Four separate pools Applies to remaining
Defined allocation
Board Status Report, May 7, 2009
Fixed volume (175,000) for each of the next five years Would allow significant headway on remaining statutory
Interstate is excluded CAGRD stays in compliance with statutory Replenishment
Allocation within pool is set as part of annual AWBA-
Board Status Report, May 7, 2009
For CAGRD annual replenishment obligation (not Reserve) Capped at 35,000 af/yr for the next five years Will require CAGRD to stay on-track for non-excess
Board Status Report, May 7, 2009
The remaining supply* is split evenly between two
Municipal Pool for public & private water providers Industrial & Other Pool for everyone else
Water not used by AWBA or CAGRD in either of their
* (Total Excess – Ag Pool – AWBA/RR Pool – CAGRD Pool)
Board Status Report, May 7, 2009
Access within Muni pool incorporates two different
Equal shares (“unreserved”) Historic Use (“reserved”) Allocation
Historic use factor diminishes through time
Board Status Report, May 7, 2009
30+ Customers
Future mines Credit remarketers Power plants Golf courses Nurseries Small Ag. Etc.
2009 Orders
Ag Industrial SRP Remarketer Other Turf
Board Status Report, May 7, 2009
Pool is dominated by a handful of large customers
(Resolution, Vidler, SRP, Rosemont, Aqua Capital)
A proposal has been developed by largest stakeholders*
Allocation based on historic use Credit remarketers are lowest priority within pool Small users are protected
* Representatives of Resolution, Vidler, SRP & Rosemont
Board Status Report, May 7, 2009
Additional feedback from Board and Stakeholders Refinements
General implementation issues Industrial & Other proposal
Return for June Board meeting
Send comments & questions to Ken Seasholes (kseasholes@cap-az.com)