[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 10 (Friday, January 15, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4119-4123]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-01089]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Reclamation
[RR03240000, XXXR4079G1, RX.03441994.0209100]
Central Arizona Project, Arizona; Water Allocations
AGENCY: Bureau of Reclamation and the Office of the Secretary,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of final decision to reallocate non-Indian agricultural
(NIA) priority Central Arizona Project (CAP) water.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of the Interior (Department) hereby issues
notice of its final decision to reallocate NIA priority CAP water in
accordance with the Arizona Department of Water Resources' (ADWR)
recommendation for reallocation. The Department will implement this
decision by offering to enter into a subcontract with the entities and
for the quantities of NIA priority CAP water listed in this notice, as
recommended by ADWR. Any NIA priority CAP water subject to this
decision which remains uncontracted after completion of the contracting
process shall be available for future round(s) of ADWR recommendation
and subsequent contracting.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Leslie Meyers, Bureau of
Reclamation, Phoenix Area Office, 6150 West Thunderbird Road, Glendale,
AZ 85306-4001; telephone 623-773-6211; facsimile 623-773-6480; email
[email protected]. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the
deaf may call the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 TTY/ASCII to
contact the Ms. Meyers during normal business hours or to leave a
message or question after hours. You will receive a reply during normal
business hours.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Previous Notices Related to CAP Water
Previous notices related to CAP water were published in the Federal
Register 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 28404,
June 20, 1991; 56 FR 29704, June 28, 1991; 57 FR 4470, February 5,
1992; 57 FR 48388, October 23, 1992; 65 FR 39177, June 23, 2000; 65 FR
43037, July 12, 2000; 67 FR 38514, June 4, 2002; 68 FR 36578, June 18,
2003; 69 FR 9378, February 27, 2004; and, 71 FR 50449, August 25, 2006.
These notices and decisions were made pursuant to the authority vested
in the Secretary of the Interior (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, 43
U.S.C. 617), the Colorado River Basin Project Act of September 30, 1968
(82 Stat. 885, 43 U.S.C. 1501), the Arizona Water Settlements Act
(Settlements Act) (Pub. L. 108-451, 118 Stat. 3478), and in recognition
of the Secretary's trust responsibility to Indian tribes.
Background of CAP Water Allocations
In a Record of Decision (ROD) published on March 24, 1983 (48 FR
12446), the Secretary, among other actions, superseded and replaced the
1980 ROD (45 FR 81265, December 10, 1980), reiterated the allocations
to Indian tribes reflected in that 1980 ROD, allocated CAP water for
non-Indian municipal and industrial (M&I) uses, and allocated the
remaining amount for NIA uses. Subject to certain conditions, the CAP
water for Indian uses was allocated to 12 Indian tribes for irrigation
use or for maintaining tribal homelands. Also subject to certain
conditions, the CAP water for M&I uses was allocated based on the State
of Arizona's 1982 allocation recommendations for non-Indian entities
that provided an amount of CAP water for M&I use to certain non-Indian
entities, with the remaining amount of CAP water allocated for NIA use.
The CAP NIA water was allocated to 23 non-Indian irrigation districts
or other agricultural entities as a percentage of the NIA water supply
that was available in any given year.
Two-party CAP water service contracts were executed between the
United States and individual Indian tribes in 1980 pursuant to the 1980
ROD. CAP non-Indian M&I water service subcontracts and CAP NIA water
service subcontracts were executed with those entities allocated CAP
water and desiring to enter into subcontracts for CAP water. The CAP
water service subcontracts for the non-Indian M&I water and the NIA
water are three-party subcontracts among the entity, the Central
Arizona Water Conservation District (CAWCD), and the Bureau of
Reclamation (Reclamation). Some of the entities that were allocated NIA
water and M&I priority water elected not to contract for the offered
allocations. After completing the initial subcontracting process, 29.3
percent of the NIA water supply and 65,647 acre-feet per year of M&I
water was not under contract.
Congress enacted the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community
Water Rights Settlement Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 2558) (SRPMIC Act).
Pursuant to section 11(h) of the SRPMIC Act, the Secretary was required
to request a reallocation recommendation from ADWR for the remaining
NIA water that was not under contract. The Secretary was also required
to reallocate the uncontracted CAP water for NIA use and to offer new
or amendatory subcontracts for such water.
By letter dated January 7, 1991, ADWR recommended an allocation to
the Secretary. The Secretary published a notice on June 20, 1991 (56 FR
28404), inviting public comments on the proposed reallocation of CAP
water. After considering the public comments, the Secretary published a
final decision on February 5, 1992 (57 FR 4470). That decision
contemplated that new or amendatory CAP water service subcontracts
would be offered soon thereafter.
CAP water service subcontracts for the reallocated water were not
executed for several reasons, including but not limited to the
following: (1) Some entities could not meet the financial feasibility
requirements for receipt of CAP water; (2) lack of agreement on the
form of the CAP water service subcontract, and (3) financial
difficulties in the CAP NIA sector.
Beginning in the early 1990s, long-term utilization of the CAP
water available for reallocation under the 1992 decision and of the
uncontracted CAP M&I priority water was a central issue in negotiations
to resolve various operational and financial disputes between
Reclamation and CAWCD. After attempts at negotiations failed, water
contracting issues were included in litigation and the resulting
stipulated settlement between the United States and CAWCD. To implement
some of the conditions contained in the stipulated settlement, new
Federal legislation was required.
After the 1992 decision but before Federal legislation was enacted,
the Secretary published on June 4, 2002 (67 FR 38514), a notice of
proposed modification to the 1983 decision. The 1983 decision provided
that the M&I allocation can be made more firm by execution of feasible
non-potable effluent exchanges with Indian tribes and the M&I
allocation was subject to
[[Page 4120]]
adoption of a pooling concept, whereby all M&I entities share in the
benefits of effluent exchanges. The pooling concept provision was
included in the CAP M&I water service subcontracts. The 2002 proposed
modification to the 1983 decision was to delete the mandatory effluent
pooling provision in M&I subcontracts with the cities of Chandler and
Mesa, and from other M&I water service subcontracts upon request. That
provision in the CAP M&I water service subcontracts was an impediment
to effluent exchanges and effective water management in central
Arizona. After review and consideration of the public comments, the
final decision was published on June 18, 2003 (68 FR 36578), deleting
the mandatory effluent pooling provision.
The Settlements Act was enacted on December 10, 2004, and provides,
among other things, for: (1) A final allocation of CAP water, with a
CAP supply permanently designated for Indian uses and a CAP supply
designated for non-Indian M&I or NIA uses; (2) a reallocation by the
Secretary of 65,647 acre-feet per year of currently uncontracted CAP
M&I water to 20 specific M&I entities; (3) ratification of the Arizona
Water Settlement Agreement (the ``Master Agreement'') among the United
States, ADWR, and CAWCD, which provides a statutory-based framework to
enable the CAP NIA districts to relinquish existing rights to the
delivery of CAP NIA priority water under their CAP water service
subcontracts, including their rights, if any, to the reallocated water;
and, (4) a reallocation of the relinquished and uncontracted NIA water
supply to various Arizona Indian tribes and ADWR for future M&I use.
On August 25, 2006, the Secretary published a final reallocation
decision (71 FR 50449) that, among other things, reallocated the CAP
NIA water and the uncontracted CAP M&I water. The August 2006
reallocation decision is summarized below:
The Secretary's decision reallocated up to 96,295 acre-feet of
agricultural priority water per year to ADWR, pursuant to section
104(a)(2)(A) of the Settlements Act and subject to subparagraph 9.3 of
the Master Agreement, to be held under contract in trust for further
allocation pursuant to section 104(a)(2)(C) of the Settlements Act.
Direct use of the agricultural priority water by ADWR is prohibited
under the Master Agreement.
In accordance with section 104(a)(2)(C) of the Settlements Act,
before water could be further allocated, the Director of ADWR had to
submit to the Secretary a recommendation for reallocation. After
receiving the recommendation, the Secretary carried out all of the
necessary reviews for the proposed reallocation in accordance with
applicable Federal law. If the Director's recommendation was rejected,
the Secretary was mandated to request a revised recommendation from the
Director of ADWR and proceed with any reviews required.
The reallocation of agricultural priority water to ADWR pursuant to
section 104(a)(2)(A) and section 104(a)(2)(C) of the Settlements Act
was subject to the Master Agreement, including certain rights provided
by the Master Agreement to water users in Pinal County, Arizona. The
agricultural priority water reallocated to the ADWR was subject to the
condition that the water retain its non-Indian agricultural delivery
priority.
As required in Section 104(a)(2)(C)(i)(I) of the Settlements Act
and the August 25, 2006 final reallocation decision, ADWR submitted to
the Secretary a recommendation for reallocation of agricultural
priority water. This recommendation was transmitted by letter dated
January 16, 2014, and ADWR requested the Secretary carry out all of the
necessary reviews of the proposed reallocation in accordance with
applicable Federal law.
Reclamation prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in accordance
with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended,
and pursuant to Section 104 of the Settlements Act. Public scoping was
initiated on November 30, 2015 with a newsletter that was sent to
interested parties and published on Reclamation's website. Scoping
comments were accepted via facsimile, email, U.S. mail, and in-person
at the scoping meetings, which were held on December 8-10, 2015 in
Phoenix, Casa Grande, and Tucson, Arizona, respectively. Reclamation
received two public responses during this initial scoping period, one
of which resulted in Reclamation honoring a request for a comment
period extension to January 18, 2016.
In June 2016, Reclamation mailed Notices of Availability of the
Draft EA to Federal, state, and local agencies, Indian tribes,
organizations, proposed recipients, and other interested stakeholders.
A public meeting was held on June 22, 2016 in Casa Grande, Arizona, and
the commenting period closed on July 22, 2016. Reclamation conducted
in-person consultation with the Tohono O'odham Nation on February 17,
2017, and with the San Carlos Apache Tribe on June 16, 2017. The draft
EA was revised in response to the comments received. A Notice of
Availability for the Final Environmental Assessment--Arizona Department
of Water Resources Recommendation for the Reallocation of Non-Indian
Agricultural Priority Central Arizona Project Water in Accordance with
the Arizona Water Settlements Act of 2004 was issued on November 15,
2019 and the Final Finding of No Significant Impact--Arizona Department
of Water Resources Recommendation for the Reallocation of Non-Indian
Agricultural Priority Central Arizona Project Water in Accordance with
the Arizona Water Settlements Act of 2004 was signed on November 8,
2019.
Rationale for Decision
The Department's decision is to allocate CAP NIA water in
accordance with ADWR's recommendation. The ADWR recommendation covered
the initial phase, reallocating 46,629 acre-feet per year of NIA
priority CAP water of the 96,295 acre-feet per year to be reallocated,
as shown in the table in this notice. The total of 46,629 acre-feet per
year of CAP NIA priority water in this phase is in two pools: (1) A
municipal pool of 34,629 acre-feet for M&I water providers within the
CAP service area and the Central Arizona Groundwater Replenishment
District, and (2) an industrial pool of 12,000 acre-feet for industrial
water users within the CAP service area. The rationale for the decision
is based on the following:
(1) ADWR's extensive public outreach, in consultation with
Reclamation, to interested parties regarding its recommendation.
(2) An EA evaluating impacts of the proposed reallocation, in
accordance with NEPA, and the resulting Finding of No Significant
Impact (FONSI).
The Final EA and FONSI can be found on Reclamation's website at:
https://www.usbr.gov/lc/phoenix/reports/reports.html.
Comments on the Proposed Reallocation and Responses
The proposed allocation was published in the Federal Register on
June 3, 2020 (85 FR 34232). Comments were accepted through July 6,
2020. The comments received, and responses to those comments, are
summarized below.
Three comment letters were received during the Federal Register
notice public comment period. Two letters, one from the City of Buckeye
and one from Rosemont Copper Company, dated June 30, 2020 and June 24,
2020, respectively, were submitted in support of the proposed action.
One letter from the San Carlos Apache Tribe dated July 6, 2020, was
submitted opposing the
[[Page 4121]]
proposed action. The issues raised in this comment letter and
Reclamation's response to those comments are summarized here:
Comment 1: The San Carlos Apache Tribe opposes the proposed
reallocation of NIA Priority CAP water and respectfully requests that
the Secretary decline to approve the proposed reallocation as described
in Table 1 of the Final EA (p. 9 of Final EA).
Response 1: The comment is noted.
Comment 2: Reclamation has failed to fulfill its obligation to
satisfy all applicable Federal Law in the Final EA. `The Arizona Water
Settlements Act (AWSA) states that, prior to making a decision to
accept or reject ADWR's recommendation, the Secretary shall carry out
all necessary reviews in accordance with applicable law' (p. 1 of Final
EA). The Final EA does not satisfy that requirement.
The Final EA contains no legitimate material analysis of the
impacts of any of the proposed reallocations. ``. . . prior to
recipients taking and using the NIA Priority CAP Water reallocation,
all environmental compliance, including NEPA, would have to be
completed'' (p. 9 of Final EA). This quotation reflects the fact that
there has been no specific environmental analysis of any of the
individual recommended reallocations and that there has been no
evaluation of the cumulative impact of the combined recommended
reallocations. This approach ensures that there will never be an
analysis of the cumulative impact of the recommended reallocations.
'The AWSA obligates the Secretary to approve or reject ADWR's
recommendation for reallocation' (p. 5 of Final EA). Therefore, this is
a singular decision by the Secretary, the potential impacts of which
must be reviewed in a comprehensive cumulative Environmental Impact
Statement.''
Response 2: The Final EA was developed in compliance with NEPA, the
AWSA, and other applicable authorities.
The scope of the Final EA was to evaluate the proposed decision of
the Secretary to approve or reject ADWR's recommendation for NIA
Priority CAP water reallocation. The EA has identified the baseline
conditions and evaluated impacts on the human environment associated
with the Proposed Action to the degree they are known or reasonably
foreseeable. Where potential future impacts might occur from a Proposed
Recipient's future construction of infrastructure to take and use its
NIA Priority CAP water allocation, but no other details are known about
the associated location of, or amount of ground disturbance anticipated
by, this infrastructure, environmental compliance for such activities
cannot be evaluated until those details are known. Further, CAP water
service subcontracts that would entitle recipients of the reallocations
to actually receive delivery of water in a particular year have not yet
been issued. Each CAP water service subcontract typically includes a
clause that states, in part, ``notwithstanding any other provision of
this subcontract, Project Water shall not be delivered to the
Subcontractor unless or until the Subcontractor has obtained final
environmental compliance from the United States . . .'' This is to
ensure that any site-specific environmental compliance processes that
may be appropriate will be completed prior to actual delivery of any of
the reallocated water.
Comment 3: A decision to adopt the recommended reallocation would
imprison what little unallocated CAP water remains available to the
Central Arizona Project and would establish avenues of unjust
enrichment for the proposed recipients of the recommended
reallocations. Upon execution of the contracts, each proposed recipient
would be in the position to `bank' such water that is available to them
under their reallocation, even though they may have no immediate need
and/or delivery systems to accept and use the water within the proposed
recipients' service or project area.
Response 3: The AWSA provides that the Director of ADWR shall
submit to the Secretary a recommendation for reallocation of certain
NIA Priority CAP water. The Secretary must either approve or reject the
recommendation for reallocation. The AWSA does not authorize the
Secretary to change certain recipients or direct alternate uses of the
water. ADWR conducted a public process to evaluate and select the
proposed recipients that were identified in its recommendation for
reallocation. The proposed recipients identified by ADWR have indicated
they will use the reallocated water in accordance with applicable laws,
for direct use and/or recharge purposes. The Final EA evaluated,
pursuant to NEPA, the effects on the human environment of the
Secretary's decision whether to approve or reject ADWR's
recommendation.
Comment 4: The Final EA fails to disclose the length of time during
which the reallocations would exist. Without the time component for
each and all recommended reallocations, no credible impact analysis can
be developed.
Response 4: No particular length of time was specified because the
reallocations would exist indefinitely. The analysis of impacts within
the Final EA was framed as such. The Final EA further explains that
actual delivery of the reallocated water will occur only after
appropriate subcontracts have been executed.
Comment 5: The Final EA fails to address that the growing demand is
unsustainable as both a physical and economic fact. The analysis fails
to show how the recommended reallocation would meet or lead to the
achievement of a sustainable balance between water supply and water
consumption under current conditions. `In 2014, municipal water demand
was 1.4 million acre-feet annually (MAFA), which was 21 percent of
Arizona's water demand' (p. 5 of Final EA). It also fails to analyze
how the recommended reallocation would fuel the increased consumption
of water and the exacerbation of demand. `The projected statewide water
demand will increase to between 8.1 and 8.6 MAFA by 2035, and between
8.6 and 9.1 MAFA by 2060 (Water Resources Development Commission (WRDC)
(2011)' (p. 5 of Final EA). The recommended reallocation based upon
such growth is unsustainable and therefore irresponsible.
Response 5: The Final EA addresses the issue of growing water
demand in the State of Arizona. Additionally, the AWSA empowers the
Director of ADWR to make a recommendation for reallocation of NIA
Priority CAP water to the Secretary, and thus gives ADWR discretion to
weigh, in the first instance, questions of sustainability and competing
needs for the water. The recommendation for reallocation was based on
ADWR's evaluation criteria. The Secretary must either approve or reject
the recommendation.
Comment 6: The Final EA further fails to illustrate how the
reduction of groundwater overdraft will occur in the face of increased
water use by proposed recipients such as Resolution Copper.
Response 6: As stated on pages 9-10 of the Final EA, the Proposed
Action includes reallocation of up to 2,238 acre-feet (AF) annually to
Resolution Copper. On pages 12-14, the Final EA further describes why
Resolution Copper is not dependent on the reallocation of NIA water for
mine operations and as such the mine would still be developed in the
absence of this reallocation. The Final EA evaluated the impacts of the
proposed reallocation of 2,238 AF annually of NIA water to Resolution
Copper to be used for groundwater recharge. An Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) addressing impacts resulting from the
[[Page 4122]]
proposed mining operations and associated water use is being prepared
by the Tonto National Forest (TNF) for the proposed Resolution Copper
Mine.
Comment 7: The Final EA fails to show how some of the recommended
reallocations are hydrologically connected and therefore fails to
analyze the impacts of the interconnections.
Response 7: The Final EA analyzes both the affected environment and
the anticipated impacts of the proposed reallocation on water
resources. For Apache Junction and Town of Queen Creek, page 50 of the
Final EA explains that ``. . . based on their proposed direct use of
their allocation, no adverse impacts are anticipated because there
would be no change from the current uses.'' Groundwater modeling using
ADWR models for the Active Management Areas (AMAs) potentially affected
by Proposed Recipients intending to directly use their CAP allocation
has not been performed due to the direct use of the Proposed
Recipients' CAP allocation.
Page 50 of the Final EA identifies that Johnson Utilities and
Resolution Copper Mining would use its CAP allocation for recharge to
offset their groundwater use. Central Arizona Groundwater Replenishment
District's (CAGRD) CAP allocation would be used to meet replenishment
obligations incurred as a result of excess groundwater use by CAGRD
members. No adverse impacts are anticipated from the use of CAP water
to offset groundwater use and the use of existing infrastructure to
convey the water. Groundwater modeling using ADWR models for the AMAs
potentially affected by Proposed Recipients recharging their allocation
has not been performed because of the small NIA allocation volumes for
each subbasin affected and the net positive benefit to the AMAs from
the Proposed Action.
Pages 51-52 of the Final EA state that Resolution Copper would not
be ``. . . required to offset their permitted groundwater usage, [its]
allocation would help in achieving or maintaining safe yield conditions
in [Resolution's] respective AMA.'' Direct use of the CAP allocation by
the mine, if developed, would help to alleviate groundwater decreases
around the proposed wellfields.
Additionally, as Page 53 of the Final EA states, Resolution Copper
Mine is not dependent on the reallocation of NIA water for mine
operations. Therefore, the Proposed Action under this EA is not a
connected action with the development of the mine (see Section 3.1 of
the Final EA). The effect mining operations would have on the East Salt
River Valley Subbasin is not currently known but would be determined as
part of the TNF NEPA process for the mine. Accrual of Long-Term Storage
Credits under the Proposed Action until the mine is operational or for
potential future direct use of the CAP allocation once the mine is
operational will only benefit the East Salt River Valley Subbasin.
Comment 8: The Final EA fails to analyze the impacts of recommended
reallocation to proposed recipients on the San Carlos Apache Tribe and
other Arizona tribal governments and entities that would be impacted by
the development of the Resolution Copper Mine. It fails to recognize
the vital and essential role that the recommended reallocation directly
to Resolution Copper Mine would have on these Tribes.''
Response 8: Please see Response #6.
Pages 12-14 of the Final EA explain why the proposed Resolution
Copper mine is not dependent on the reallocation of NIA water for mine
operations; the two actions are separate and ``not interdependent parts
of a larger action, nor do they depend on a larger action for their
justification.'' An EIS is being prepared by the TNF for the Resolution
Copper Mine project. The EIS will address any impacts on the human
environment resulting from the proposed mining project. The Secretary's
decision regarding whether to approve or reject ADWR's recommendation
for reallocation of NIA Priority CAP water has no bearing on the
viability of the proposed mine, and TNF's decision regarding Resolution
Copper's proposed operations will be made after completion and review
of its Final EIS.
Comment 9: Clearly, Reclamation has failed to comply with all the
applicable laws when it has not evaluated the cumulative impact of the
entire proposed reallocation, including the environmental impact of the
use of CAP water at the various locations and for the various
activities anticipated by the reallocation.
Response 9: Please see response #2.
The EA has evaluated indirect and cumulative impacts associated
with the Proposed Action to the degree those impacts are reasonably
foreseeable, and not speculative or totally unknown. Most of the
locations at which reallocated water may be used in the future are
geographically distant, and it is therefore speculative whether, or
how, cumulative impacts may arise from the use of CAP water in these
locations. Pages 12-14 of the Final EA state ``. . . water service
subcontract for the Proposed Recipients contains language that requires
completion of site-specific environmental clearances prior to any
ground-disturbing activities related to constructing infrastructure
necessary to take and use the reallocated water.''
Comment 10: The Final EA does not analyze certain impacts, relies
on incomplete or misleading calculations or information, or makes
improper assumptions.
Response 10: The comments appear to relate primarily to the
sufficiency of the Final EA and not the proposed allocation decision
itself. Reclamation considered all comments received relating to the
Draft EA and made appropriate revisions before releasing the Final EA
and issuing a FONSI. The Final EA and FONSI contained a thorough
assessment of the potential effects of the proposed reallocation of NIA
priority water on the quality of the human environment. The Final EA
and FONSI fully comply with NEPA and appropriately inform the
Secretary's decision whether to approve or reject ADWR's recommendation
for reallocation.
Secretarial Decision
I hereby give notice of the Department's decision to allocate CAP
NIA priority water in the amounts and to the entities as set forth in
the table in this notice, and direct the Commissioner of Reclamation,
through the Regional Director, Lower Colorado Basin Region, Boulder
City, Nevada, to proceed to enter into contracts in accordance with
this decision. This decision is made after consideration of the
comments received after a proposed allocation was published in the
Federal Register on June 3, 2020 (85 FR 34232). A summary of those
comments, and responses to those comments are contained below.
CAP NIA priority water allocations are hereby modified in
accordance with the information contained in the table below. This
decision is effective as of the date of this notice. Insofar as
previous allocation decisions are inconsistent with this allocation
notice, the affected provisions of such decisions are hereby rescinded.
The Department is publishing this decision of the reallocation of
NIA priority CAP water in accordance with the Settlements Act, 118
Stat. 3478, and the Secretary's Final Decision of CAP Water
Reallocation, 71 FR 50449 (August 25, 2006). The following table lists
the entities to receive NIA priority CAP water and the quantities
reallocated to each.
[[Page 4123]]
Secretary's Decision for Reallocation of NIA Priority CAP Water
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Municipal pool Industrial pool
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount in acre- Amount in acre-
State of Arizona entity feet per year State of Arizona entity feet per year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carefree Water Company....................... 112 Viewpoint RV and Golf Resort.... 400
Metropolitan Domestic Water Improvement 299 New Harquahala Generating 400
District. Company.
Town of Cave Creek........................... 386 Rosemont Copper Company......... 1,124
EPCOR--Sun City West......................... 1,000 Salt River Project.............. 2,160
Town of Queen Creek (Acquired H2O Water 4,162 Resolution Copper Mining........ 2,238
Company).
Town of Marana............................... 515 Freeport-McMoRan-Sierrita Inc... 5,678
Apache Junction Water Utilities Community 817
Facilities District.
City of El Mirage............................ 1,318
Town of Gilbert.............................. 1,832
City of Buckeye (Formerly was Town of 2,786
Buckeye).
Johnson Utilities............................ 3,217
Central Arizona Groundwater Replenishment 18,185
District.
Total NIA Priority CAP Water Reallocated 34,629 Total NIA Priority CAP Water 12,000
to Municipal: Reallocated to Industrial:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total NIA Priority CAP Water Reallocated: 46,629 Acre-Feet Per Year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy R. Petty,
Assistant Secretary for Water and Science.
[FR Doc. 2021-01089 Filed 1-14-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4332-90-P