G I L A
C O U N T Y
M A R I C O P A
C O U N T Y
Y u m a
P a r k e r
F l o r e n c e
G l o b e
B i s b e e
C l i f t o n
S t
J o h n s
N o g a l e s
ARIZONA
MEXICO
L A P A Z
C O U N T Y
P I N A L
C O U N T Y
C O C O N I N O
C O U N T Y
P r e s c o t t
G R A H A M
C O U N T Y
P h o e n i x
T u c s o n
S a f f o r d
H o l b r o o k
F l a g s t a f f
K i n g m a n
S A N T A
C R U Z
C O U N T Y
G R E E N L E E
C O U N T Y
C O C H I S E
C O U N T Y
Y A V A P A I
C O U N T Y
Y U M A
C O U N T Y
N A V A J O
C O U N T Y
A P A C H E
C O U N T Y
M O H A V E
C O U N T Y
P I M A
C O U N T Y
PHOENIX
AMA
PINAL
AMA
TUCSON
AMA
SANTA
CRUZ
AMA
PRESCOTT
AMA
Ocober 13, 2004 C:/ lstitzerrural/ fig1planningareas. mxd
FIGURE 1
ARIZONA PLANNING
AREAS AND COUNTIES
0 12.5 25 50 75 100
Miles
State Capitol
County Seat
Selected Major Road
Interstate
Arizona Boundary
County
Active Management Area
Central Highlands
Eastern Plateau
Lower Colorado
Southeastern Arizona
Upper Colorado
Western Plateau
L a k e H a v a s u C i t y
S p r i n g e r v i l l e
P e a c h
S p r i n g s
B u l l h e a d
C i t y
S i e r r a V i s t a
K a y e n t a
D o u g l a s
S e d o n a
P a y s o n
B e n s o n
P a g e
P i n e / S t r a w b e r r y
S a f f o r d
T u c s o n
Northern Gila County
Upper
San Pedro
Upper
Gila
North Central
Arizona
Upper Little
Colorado
Upper
Agua Fria
Upper and
Middle Verde
ARIZONA
MEXICO
N o g a l e s
S t
J o h n s
C l i f t o n
B i s b e e
G l o b e
F l o r e n c e
P a r k e r
Y u m a
P h o e n i x
Arizona Strip
Upper
Bill
Williams
Little Colorado River
Silver Creek
Show Low
Creek
Middle
San Pedro
Eagle
Creek
Northwest Arizona
Watershed Council
Upper
Hassa-yampa
Prescott
AMA
T O H O N O
O ' O D H A M
( G I L A
B E N D )
F O R T
M C D O W E L L
S A N C A R L O S
A P A C H E
F O R T A P A C H E
S A L T R I V E R
P I M A - M A R I C O P A
Y A V A P A I - A P A C H E Z U N I
H O P I
( P R O P O S E D )
S A N J U A N
S O U T H E R N
P A I U T E
K A I B A B - P A I U T E
C O L O R A D O
R I V E R
I N D I A N
T R I B E S
F O R T
M O H A V E
F O R T Y U M A
C O C O P A H
N A V A J O
P r e s c o t t
H o l b r o o k
F l a g s t a f f
K i n g m a n
H A V A S U P A I
Y A V A P A I - P R E S C O T T
T O N T O A P A C H E
A K - C H I N
G I L A
R I V E R
T O H O N O O ' O D H A M
S A N
X A V I E R
Lower
San Pedro
L O W E R C O L O R A D O
A C T I V E M A N A G E M E N T A R E A S
S O U T H E A S T E R N
A R I Z O N A
W E S T E R N P L A T E A U
E A S T E R N P L A T E A U
C E N T R A L H I G H L A N D S
H U A L A P A I
U P P E R C O L O R A D O
FIGURE 2
ARIZONA RURAL WATERSHED
INITIATIVE PARTICIPANTS
October 13, 2004 C:/ lstitzerrural/ fig2planning. mxd
0 12.5 25 50 75 100
Miles
State Capitol
City and Town
Arizona Boundary
Indian Reservation
Planning Area
Arizona Strip
Eagle Creek
Little Colorado River
Lower San Pedro
Middle San Pedro
North Central Arizona
North Gila County
Northwest Arizona
Show Low Creek
Silver Creek
Upper Agua Fria
Upper Bill Williams
Upper Gila
Upper Hassayampa
Upper Little Colorado River
Upper Middle Verde
Upper San Pedro
PHOENIX AMA
PINAL AMA
TUCSON
AMA
SANTA
CRUZ
AMA
PRESCOTT
AMA
LITTLE COLORADO
COCONINO PLATEAU RIVER PLATEAU
KANAB PLATEAU
SHIVWITS
PLATEAU
GRAND
WASH
PARIA
VIRGIN
RIVER
BILL WILLIAMS
BIG SANDY
PEACH
SPRINGS
SACRA-MENTO
VALLEY
LAKE
MOHAVE
HUALA-PAI
VALLEY
DETRITAL
VALLEY
LAKE
HAVASU
MEAD-VIEW
SAFFORD
WILLCOX
MORENCI
UPPER
SAN
PEDRO
LOWER
SAN
PEDRO
DOUGLAS
CIENEGA
CREEK
BONITA
CREEK
ARAVAIPA
CANYON
SAN
RAFAEL
DONNELLY
WASH
DRIPPING
SPRINGS
WASH DUNCAN
VALLEY
SAN
BERNAR-DINO
VALLEY
SALT RIVER
VERDE RIVER
AGUA
FRIA
TONTO
CREEK
UPPER
HASSA-YAMPA
LOWER GILA
PARKER
SAN SIMON
WASH
GILA
BEND
RANEGRAS
PLAIN
MCMULLEN
VALLEY
WESTERN MEXICAN DRAINAGE
BUTLER
VALLEY
TIGER WASH
Black Canyon City
Big Park
Lake Montezuma
Globe
Sedona
Payson
Clarkdale
Whiteriver
Cottonwood
Cottonwood
Camp Verde
Taylor
Pinetop - Lakeside
Show Low
Pinon
Heber
Kaibito
Overgaard
Lukachukai
Teec Nos Pos
Ajo
Yuma
Somerton Wellton
San Luis
Quartzsite
Fortuna Foothills
Colorado City
Duncan
Benson
Safford
Peridot
Tombstone
San Carlos
Sierra Vista
Whetstone
Swift
Trail
Junction
Bullhead
City Kingman
Mohave Valley
Dolan Springs
Lake Havasu City
Kachina Village
New Kingman / Butler
Cottonwood- Verde Village
HARQUA-HALA
FIGURE 3
RURAL PLANNING AREAS AND
GROUNDWATER BASINS WITH HIGH
GROWTH RATE COMMUNITIES
October 13, 2004 C:\ lstitzerrural\ fig3planningcolorcomms. mxd
0 12.5 25 50 75 100
Miles
Community With 2 - 5% Growth Between 1990 and 2000
Community With > 5% Growth Between 1990 and 2000
Arizona Boundary
Groundwater Basin
Active Management Areas
Central Highlands
Eastern Plateau
Lower Colorado
Southeastern
Upper Colorado
Western Plateau
FIGURE 4
SOURCE WATER REPORTED BY WATER PROVIDERS
4
2
1
2
9
30
88
NR
GW
SW
SW/ GW
GW/ EFF
SW/ EFF
GW/ SW/ EFF
Note: NR = no response, GW = groundwater, SW = surface water, EFF = effluent.
Unfortunately, the amount of water use by respondents is difficult to determine
because the questionnaire did not ask respondents to identify the water use unit. In
addition, a number of respondents did not provide this information. This problem will be
addressed in the 2004 questionnaire, which will allow reconciliation of the information
gathered in the 2003 questionnaire. Only three systems reported that zoning
requirements or homeowner’s association restrictions in their service area resulted in
increased water use.
SYSTEM EXPANSION
Responses indicate that growth is a significant feature in rural Arizona.
Fifty- seven of the 136 respondents ( 42%) reported that they were expecting to expand
their water distribution systems. Those expecting to serve more than 1,000 new homes
within three years are located in the Bullhead City, Flagstaff, Kingman, Safford, Sierra
Vista, and Yuma areas. Thirty- five water providers reported that other water companies
in their communities were also expanding or that new water companies were proposed.
However, only ten providers ( including 3 “ other”) indicated that in the next ten years
they would be serving large new customers who would use an annual amount of water
greater than 5% of their current total deliveries.
19
FIGURE 5
PERCENT METERING BY WATER PROVIDER TYPE
0
20
40
60
80
100
Public
Systems
Private
Systems
Other
Systems
Percent
Meter Pumpage
Meter Deliveries
PRIVATE DOMESTIC WELLS
In some rural areas, particularly where lots are large, private domestic wells serve
a significant percentage of the area population. Private domestic well use is typically not
measured and is unregulated except that the well, when drilled, must be registered with
ADWR and drilled by a licensed well driller. Domestic well use is an unknown quantity
when evaluating area water use and developing a water budget. Estimates in the
literature vary, with one acre- foot per year per well often cited.
Water providers were asked if private domestic wells were a significant source of
water for households in the area in which they served. About 43 ( 31%) of the
respondents mentioned that they were a significant source of water, but only 16 reported
that private domestic wells affected their systems. The most commonly mentioned
impact of domestic wells was their affect on groundwater levels in the area.
WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAM
While about 30% of the 136 water providers that responded reported that they had
a conservation program, some that did not claim to have a program still provided some
type of conservation information to customers such as conservation literature in their
offices. The most often reported measures were:
• Conservation literature available in offices ( 24%)
• Conservation literature distributed to customers ( 20%)
22
