![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Central Arizona Project, Arizona; Water Allocations
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: June 4, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 107)]
[Notices]
[Page 38514-38516]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr04jn02-79]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of the Secretary
Central Arizona Project, Arizona; Water Allocations
AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of proposed modification to the Secretary of the
Interior's record of decision
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department proposes to modify the 1983 Central Arizona
Project (CAP) Water Allocation Decision to delete the mandatory
effluent pooling provision. The Department now views that provision as
an impediment to effluent exchanges and effective water management in
central Arizona.
If the proposed decision is implemented, the Department would amend
water service subcontracts for the cities of Chandler and Mesa to
remove the mandatory effluent pooling provision. The mandatory effluent
pooling provision would be deleted from other M&I water service
subcontracts upon request.
DATES: All comments and material relevant to this proposed decision
that are received by July 5, 2002 will be considered.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments concerning the proposed decision to
Paul Nelson, Bureau of Reclamation, PO Box 81169, Phoenix, Arizona,
85069-1169.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Nelson at (602) 216-3878.
Proposed Decision: The following sentence is proposed for deletion
from the 1983 CAP Water Allocation Decision (see page 12447 of the 1983
CAP Water Allocation Decision): "This allocation is subject to
the adoption of a pooling concept whereby all M&I allottees share
in the benefits of effluent exchanges."
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Previous Notices Related to CAP Water
II. Background
III. Rational for Proposed Decision
IV. Compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA)
I. Previous Notices Related to CAP Water
Previous notices related to CAP water were published in the Federal
Register (FR) at 37 FR 28082, December 20, 1972; 40 FR 17297, April 18,
1975; 41 FR 45883, October 18, 1976; 45 FR 52938, August 8, 1980; 45 FR
81265, December 10, 1980; 48 FR 12446, March 24, 1983; 56 FR 29704,
June 28, 1991; 57 FR 4470, February 5, 1992; and 57 FR 48388, October
23, 1992. These notices and decisions were made pursuant to the
authority vested in the Secretary by the Reclamation Act of 1902 as
amended and supplemented (32 Stat. 388, 43 U.S.C. 391), the Boulder
Canyon Project Act of December 21, 1928 (45 Stat. 1057), the Colorado
River Basin Project Act of September 30, 1968 (82 Stat. 885, 43 U.S.C.
1501) and in recognition of the Secretary's trust responsibility to
Indian tribes.
II. Background
Following the 1983 CAP Water Allocation Decision, the Bureau of
Reclamation, the Central Arizona Water Conservation District (CAWCD),
and each of the non-Indian CAP water allottees desiring CAP water
entered into three-party water service subcontracts providing for the
delivery of CAP water. In order to ensure implementation of the
mandatory effluent pooling provision, M&I water service
subcontractors who choose to circumvent the effluent pooling provision
and directly exchange their effluent with Indian tribes are subject to
a reduction in their entitlement to CAP water under their subcontracts
by the amount of CAP water received from the effluent exchange.
The Department indicated in the 1983 CAP Water Allocation Decision
that CAP M&I water allocations could be made more firm by execution
of feasible non-potable effluent exchanges with Indian tribes. The 1983
CAP Water Allocation Decision also implemented a pooling provision
whereby all M&I water service subcontractors share in the benefits
of effluent exchanges. In a time of shortage of CAP water under the
effluent pooling provision, the additional CAP water made available as
a result of any effluent exchanges with Indian tribes would be shared
by all M&I subcontractors, thereby reducing the amount of shortage
for each subcontractor. The pooling provision was included in the CAP
M&I water service subcontracts.
The 1983 CAP Water Allocation Decision also provided that the
Department could require Indian tribes located in close proximity to
metropolitan areas to take delivery of effluent in lieu of CAP water.
This requirement was eliminated by a Secretarial decision published in
the Federal Register on October 23, 1992, so that any effluent
exchanges involving Indian tribes would occur on a voluntary basis.
The major cities in Maricopa County, which are the sources of most
of the exchangeable effluent, prefer to exchange effluent on their own,
incur all related treatment and transportation expenses, and receive
any benefits from the exchange.
III. Rationale for Proposed Decision
The Department favors elimination of the mandatory effluent pooling
provision from the 1983 CAP Water Allocation Decision for the following
reasons:
(1) In response to public comments submitted by the City of Phoenix
in 1992 concerning the mandatory effluent pooling provision, the
Department committed to re-evaluate this provision at a later date
after consultation with the Arizona Department of Water Resources
(ADWR) (see 57 FR 48389). In pertinent part, the City of Phoenix stated
"* * * The City of Phoenix agrees with the reasons for
deleting the mandatory substitute water provision from the Indian CAP
Contracts and believes that it is equally important to remove the
provision from CAP M&I subcontracts that would penalize a
subcontractor for entering into a direct effluent exchange with an
Indian Community for CAP water." The Department acknowledged the
City of Phoenix's concerns that the provisions of the effluent exchange
article in the CAP M&I water service subcontracts may no longer be
critical to the management of water supplies in central Arizona.
(2) The mandatory effluent pooling provision removes any incentive
for a municipality to exchange effluent with an Indian tribe. The
Department believes that effluent producing entities, Indian Tribes,
the State of Arizona, and other local organizations should be free to
pursue local water management decisions that are in the best interest
of the local economies, and that they should not be constrained in such
water management decisions by the mandatory effluent pooling provision.
(3) ADWR now supports removing the mandatory effluent pooling
provision from the 1983 CAP Water Allocation Decision and the CAP
M&I water service subcontracts.
(4) CAWCD, as a party to the CAP M&I water service
subcontracts, does not object to deletion of the mandatory effluent
pooling provision from the subcontracts.
(5) The Department is aware of two pending effluent exchange
agreements that require Departmental approval. The cities of Chandler
and Mesa each have a proposed effluent exchange agreement with the
GRIC. The benefits resulting from the proposed exchanges to the cities
and GRIC will not occur unless and until the mandatory effluent
provision is removed from the Cities' CAP water service subcontracts.
IV. Compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA)
The Department has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) on the
impact of modifying the 1983 CAP Water Allocation Decision to delete
the
[[Page 38516]]
mandatory effluent pooling provision. The draft EA and notice of
availability are being published and disseminated to CAP water
contractors and subcontractors and other interested parties concurrent
with publication of this notice.
Our practice is to make comments, including names and home
addresses of respondents, available for public review. Individual
respondents may request that we withhold their home address from public
disclosure, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. There
also may be circumstances in which we would withhold a respondent's
identity from public disclosure, as allowable by law. If you wish us to
withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at
the beginning of your comment. We will make all submissions from
organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying
themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or
businesses, available for public disclosure in their entirety.
Dated: May 24, 2002.
Gale A. Norton,
Secretary of the Interior.
[FR Doc. 02-13888 Filed 6-3-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-MN-P