A draft of proposed amendments to water quality standards for streams in Arizona April 1968

              A

DRAFT

OF

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO

WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

FOR STREAMS IN ARIZONA

APRIL 1968

FDR

I

2

2

3

t, ,'" / 1/ 1/.,

26

30

I

I I i

iv

• •

.. .

· ..

.. . .

o C l) 0

• e " •

.. ..

" .. ..

.. .. .

CO.

o e _ • It 41

• • • 0 • •

. " . . . .

. • • <> • • 27

• .. .. • .. .. 28

.. .. • • • • 28

to Use. • • 28

.. • • • • .. 29

• •

• •

• •

o •

• •

• • . "

.. .

• • •

• •

• •

.. .

. . . '- 1 ( Oon HUMBER -.. J. _ ) Ot. J

• • 0

• " e

. ..

• •

\'<! ATERS CONTROLLED.

DESCRIPTION OF AREA AND FINDINGS ...

\, JATER USES

RATIONALE.

Colorado River , e • .. •• 3

Gila River. • • • • • .. • • • • • • • .. • •• 17

General ••••••••••• <> ..... " .... 30

Consideration of Present Conditions and

Contributing Factors .. " .. • • • • • • • •• 30

Problems Associated with Methods of Reducing

Pollutants ••• " 0 34

Additional Measures to Enhance Water QualIty. 34

QualIty RequIrements for SpecIfIed Uses•••• 35

General •• ~ 0 0 •••• 26

Agricultural ~ " 26

Domestic Hater Sources 26

Industrial ~ • • .. • • • •• 27

Propagation of Aquatic and Wildlife

Resources. " .. .. • • • • • • • •

Recreational 0 ~ 0 .

Future Uses of Surface Water • • •

Classification of Waters According

Enhancement of Water Quality ....

General •• ~ 0 ~ ..

. DescrJption of Interstate Waters ~

MInor Basins ~ ..

~ ~ OOCUMENT IS THE Pf\ OP& RTY

~ n 01' THE

~ DEPARTMENT OF

.~ UBRARYANOARCHIVES RECEIVED

~;! - A R I ZONA - APR 2 1970

H ~ J! 8Ii_ l!-=~~~ GiiIIi~~

6- 2- 1

6- 2- 10 1

6- 2-. 1. 2

6- 2- J03 .

6- 2- 2 .

6- 2- 2 0 I

6- 2- 2,2

6- 2- 3

6- 2- 3.1

6- 2- 3.2

6- 2- 303

6- 2- 3,, 4

6- 2- 3.5

6- 2- 3 6 6

6- 2- 3.7

6- 2- 3.8

6- 2- 3.9

6- 2- 4

6- 2- 4.1

6- 2- 4.2

6- 2- 4.3

6- 2. · 4.4

6- 2- 4.5

. WATER POLLUTION CONTROL

RULES AND REGULATIONS

Article 6

Part 2

WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR STREAMS IN ARIZONA

REG.

REG.

REG.

REG.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTI ON

Foreword • • • 0 0 • • • • • • • • ~ • • • • • • • • • •

Notice of. Adoption ~ 0 ~ .

Definitions J 6 .

SECTI ON

SECTION

SECTION

- sm"

I. Tributaries to Colorado River Below Lees Ferry

2. Summary of Diversions from the Colorado River - 1964

3. Arizona Agricultural Statistics

4. Cities Along the Arizona Reach of the Colorado River

5. Industrial Statistics

6. MIneraI Production StatistIcs

7. Recreational Features Along the Arizona Reach of the Colorado RIver

8. Graphs of Total Dissolved Soilds In the Colorado River at Selected

Points

9. Total Dissolved Solids Variation in Lake Powell

10. Graph of Yearly Weighted Average TDS at Selected PoInts In the

Colorado River

11. Farming Practices - \ vater Conservation and Quality Enhancements

12. Water D~ livery System Improvements

13. Arizona Watershed Program

14. Evaporation Control

15~ Phreatophyte Control

16. Water ReclamatIon and Exchanges

17. Water Demineralization at Buckeye, Arizona

18. Activities of the Arizona Water and Pollute~ n Control Association

19. The Role of Arizona sorl Conservation Districts in Conservation

of \ Jater Quality and Quantity

REFERENCES.

Agrfculture. • • • , • • • • • • • • • • , • 35

Raw Domestic Water • • • • • • • • • • • " • 37

Recreation. • • • • • • • 0 • • • • • • • • 40

Propagation of Aquatic and WI Idl ife

Resources. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 41

Industrial " • • • • • a • • • • • • • • • • 41

43

44

49

49

50

52

53

54

• •

• • •

• • 4 •

• 0 , •

• • 0 •

• • • •

• • • •

• • • • ., Q

• • • • • • •

. . . . .

• • • • • • •

• • •

Basic standards Applicable to All Waters •• 44

Additional Water Quality Standards for

Waters that have any of the FoJlowtng

Uses • • ~ • • • • • Q • • • 0 • 0 • • • 0 44

A. Domestic & Industrial Supply •• '. '. • 44

B. Recreation ••••••••• ~ • • • • 45

C. Fish and Wild- I ife · . • • • • • • • • •• 46

D. Agriculture•• , ~ •••••• , • •• 48

WATER QUALITY STANDARDS.

STATEMENT OF POLICY.

IMPLEMENTATION AND SURVEILLANCE.

Implementation. 0 •••••••••

Surveillance ••••••••••••

Waste Discharge Requirements ••••

General Enforcement••••• ~ •••

• • 0 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

6- 2- 4.6

6- 2- 4.7

6- 2- 4.8

6- 2- 4.9

6- 2- 4.10

6- 2- 5

6- 2- 6

6- 2, · 6. I

6- 2- 6.2

6- 2- 7

6- 2- 7.1'

6- 2- 7,2

6- 2- 7~ 3

6- 2- 7.4

REG.

REG.

SECTION

SECTION

SECTION

EXHIBITS:

20. Guidelines for Formulating Water Quality Standards for the

Interstate Waters of the Colorado River System

21. Minute 218 - Recommendations on the Colorado River Salinity

Problem and Memorandum of Understanding

22 0 Gila River System Streamflow Data

23. Major Coldwater and Warmwater Fishing Areas on Interstate Waters

In Arizona

DEFINITIONS

The following definitions appear in Chapter 16 of Arizona Revised Stat­utes

36- 1851 and apply thoughout this document:

1. IIBoard" means the state board of heal tho

2. " Commissionerll means the commissIoner of publ ic heal tho

3. IICouncil ll means the water qual ity control council establ ished by

this chapter.

4. I'Department ll means the state department of heal th, which for the

purposes of this article includes the council.

5. " Disposal system'l means a system for disposing of wastes, either

by S~( f2Ce or underground methods, and includ~ s seweraga systems,

tr€ at: i1ent works, disposal w~ 11s, and other systems.

6. " tiearlng officer ' l means any individual appointed by the councilor

board to perform the duties of a hearing cfficer at any hearing.

7. IIPermit" means a certificate or letter issued by the department

stating the co~ ditions ~~ d restrictions governing the discharge

of a pcl; u~ ant into any waters of the state•.

8. " Person" means the state or any agency or inst i tut; on thereof, any

mun: c1pul ity, pol itical subdivision, publ ic or private corporation,

individual, partnership, association, or other entity, and includes

any officer or g~ verning or managing body of any municipal ity,

pol itical subdivision, or publ ic or private corporation.

9. '~ ollution~ means such contamination, or other alteration of the

physical, chemical, or biologicui pr0~ erties of any waters of the

state, including change in temperature, taste, color, turbidity,

or odor of the waters, or such discharge of any liquid, gaseous,

sol id, radioactive, or other substance into any waters of the state

as will or is 1ikely to create a publ ic nuisance or render such

waters harmful, detrimental, or injurious to publ ic health, safety,

or welfare, or to domestic, agricultural, commercial, industrial,

recreatio~ al, or other beneficial uses, or to livestock, wild ani­mals,

birds, fish or other aquatic 1ife.

10. " Sewerage system" means pipel ines or conduits, pumping stations,

and force mains, and all other structures, devices, appurtenances,

and f~ cilities used for collecting or conducting wastes to an

ultimate point for treatment or disposal. .

11. " Treatment works" means any pI ant or other works used for the pur­pose

of treating, stabil izing, or holding wastes.

iv

12. l\ lastes" means sewage, Industrial wastes, and all other liquid

gaseous, sol id, radioactive, or other substance which may

pollute or tend to pollute any waters of the state. The term

" wastes · ' does n, ot include agricultural irrtg.; Jtion and drainage

waters for which water quality standards shall have been es-tablished

pursuant to this article. ' ,

13. " Waters of the state" means all waters within the jurisdiction

of this state including all streams, perennial or intermittent,

lakes, ponds, impounding reservoirs, marshes, watercourses,

waterways, wei Is, springs, Irrigation systems, drainage systems,

and all other bodies or accumulations of water, surface and under­ground,

natural or artificial, pubi Ic or private, situated wholly

or partly.• ithln or bordering upon the st~ te.

The following terms and symbols which appear in this document are de­fined

as follows:

' 14. " Biocidell means a material appl ied to plants or soil as a growth

regulator or pest control agent. These include, but are not

1imited to, insecticides and weedicides.

. 0

15. " BOD II means the 5 day arithmetic average of the 20 C biochemical

oxygen demand in mg/ l as determined by the method described in

the current edition of Standard Methods of Examination of Water,

SewaQe and Industrial Wastes. . ,

16. " Eutrophication" means the enrichment of a body of water by the

addition of nutrients that stimulate aquatic growth which may

cause taste, odor and esthetic problems.

17. l'mg/ I" means mi 11 i grams per liter of water 0

18. lIMilJequivalents per I iter" means the concentration of an ion in

mg/ l divided by the equivalent weightc

190 " ppmll means parts per mill ion parts of water by weight. This

term is being replaced by the more popular term mg/ I iter although

the two terms are nearly equivalent.

20, " Fecal Col iform" means those bacteda of the col iform group com­monly

found in the intestinal tract of warm blooded animals.

21, IIPrimary contact recreation waters" means waters in which body

contact with the water is made such as swimming and water ski~ ng.

22. IISecondary contact recreation water" means water in which only

minor body contact with the water is made such as fishing and

boatin9~

23. " Cold water fishery" means waters having an environment suitable

for salmonlds.

v

24. l'Warm water fisheryll means waters having an environment suitable

for species of fish other than salmonids.

25. IlColorado River ll

, IIColorado River Systemll , and IIColorado River

Bas in II; these terms a re used interchangeab Iy throughout the

document. They are meant to include all waters within the

Colorado River Basin with the exception of the Gila River

Drainage. Comments specific to a given portion of the basin are

so identified by using the name of the tributary, reference to

the main stem or other appropriate designation.

26. I'Gila River ll , " Gila River Systemll , and Gila River Basin ll; these

terms are used interchangeably throughout the document. They

are meant to include all waters within the Gila River Basin.

Comments specific to a given portion of the basin are so identi­fied

by using the name of the tributary, reference to the main

stem or other appropriate designation.

vi

This Water Qual ity Control Policy appl ies to all waters of the State. This in­cludes

both interstate and intrastate waters. Interstate waters are identified

for the convenience of the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration.

These standards are Federal standards as well as State standards for interstate

streams upon approval by the Secretary of the Interior.

! NEW

: MEX.

I

Dam Site

Dam Site

Waters Controlled

Gene. ra 1 ~,

RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR WATER POLLUTION CONTROL

WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR STREAMS IN ARIZONA

Article 6

Part 2

Imperial Dam

Laguna Dam _,

Gi'~. Y ,,' l.' pa- i'; ted

Yuma - Rock Dam

~ orelos Dam

°£ ltH.....

~ r]~

y J. h' ... I) t~ ...

rl)~~

tlo

I) q ...

MEX ICO 8OiJl)~.... I

Existing Dams .......... \ Charleston Dam Site

Proposed Dams ......... ........ sl.'. N_ oj: l~ . L-

- 1-

6- 2- 1.1

­n

REG.

SEC.

B. Little Colorado River from the New Mexico- Arizona border to its con­fluence

with the Colorado River.

A. Colorado River from the Utah- Arizona border to the southerly interna­tional

boundary with the Republic of Mexico.

C. Virgin River for the entire reach within the State.

D. Chinle Wash from Its source to the Utah- Arizona horder.

E. East main canal from its source to the Arizcna- Mexico border.

F. GTla River from the New Mexico- Arizona border to Ashurst- Hayden Dam.

G. San Francisco River for the entire reaches within the State 2

REG. 6- 2- 1.2 DESIGNATION OF INTERSTATE WATERS

H. San Pedro River from the Mexico- Arizona border to its confluence with

the GIla River.

I. Santa Cruz River from the Mexico- Arizona border to its confluence with

the GiI a Rive r.

RE:'-; 6- 2.- 103 MINOR BASINS.

There are several minor basins within the State that are not with 1 the

Colorado River BaS!: l2 Thzsa include the Willcox Playa and several m . i · . I;

drainages along th~ Arlz~~ a- Mexico border. They fall within the clef nition

of the waters of the State and are controlled by this document.

- 2-

Palo Verde Diversion Dam, which also has essentially no storage, is used

to divert water just north of Blythe, California, for irrlgatio!' kin;.- the Palo

Verde Valley of California. While there are some minor drainage returns to

Water released from Hoover Dam flows into Lake Mohave behind Davis Dam which

is located just north of the Nevada- Cal ifornia boundary. Lake Mohave is used

for re- regulation of releases from Hoover Dam. Hydroelectric power is gener­ated

at Davis Dam.

Proceeding downstream, Headgate Rock Dam, located near Parker, Arizona, is

used to divert water for irrigating the lands of the Colorado River Indian

Reservation in Arizona. There is essentially no storage behind this dam,

and no hydroelectric power is generated. Some returns from drainage of the

reservation lands reach the Colorado River north of Palo Verde Diversion Dam,

but the principal drain empties into the river south of this dam.

DESCRIPTION OF AREA AND FINDINGS

COLORADO RIVER

6- 2- 2

REG. 6- 2- 2. 1

SEC.

Enroute to Lake Powell, river waters in the Upper Basin ( that portion up­stream

of Lee Ferry) are diverted, used, and returned to the system. The

major such diversions and returns are regu! ated by control structures which

are operated under the United States Department of the Interior, Bureau or

Reclamation. Many of the Bureau1s authorized projects in the Upper BasJnre­main

to be constructed, and many existing projects are not yet fully developed.

Waters released from Glen Canyon Dam flow in the main stem to Lake Me~ a

which is located behind Hoover Dam. Lake Mead provides most of the storage

and regulation in the Lower Colorado River Basin. Hydroelectric power is

generated at both Glen Canyon and Hoover Dams. Lake'Mead will serve as the

supply reservoir for the Southern Nevada Project. Return flow from the

Southern Nevada Project will reach Lake Mead through Las Vegas Wash.

A. The Main Stem of the Colorado River: The gross watershed of the

Colorado River encompasses portions of the states of Wyoming, Colorado, Utah,

New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, and California, as shown on Plate I. The upper

portions of the watershed are drained by the Green, Colorado, and San Juan

Rivers. These main tributaries in turn flow into Lake POlell, which is lo­cated

behind Glen Canyon Dam near the Utah- Arizona boundary. Flows of these

major tributaries into Lake Powell provide approximately 90 percent of the

total waters available to the lower main stem of the Colorado River. The

average annual undepleted flow of the Colorado River is approximately 15 mil­l

ion acre- feet.

Water released from Davis Dam crosses the Nevada- Arizona- Cal ifornla bound­ary

and flows through the broad Mohave Val ley for 33' mi les before reaching

the upper end of Lake Havasu. Lake Havasu, which is a widened portIon of

the Colorado River behind Parker Dam, is about 45 mIles In length. The

Metropolitan Water District of Southern California diverts water from Lake

Havasu for transport to the coastal regions of Southern California. The

Central Arizona Project plans to divert water from Lake Havasu for transport

to Central Arizona. Hydroelectric power is generated at Parker Dam,

I

the Colorado River from Palo Verde Valley along the adjacent reach, the pre­dominate

farm drainage ret:. Jrns from Palo Verde Val ley are via Palo Verde

Lagoon- Outfall Drain at the most southerly end of the Valley.

Cibola Valley, on the Arizona side, is located near the southern tip of

P210 Verde Valley. River water is pumped into Cibo! a Valley for irrigation.

Imperial Reservoir is located behind Imperial Dam, approximately 15 miles

north of Yuma, Arizona. Imperial Dam is the major diversion structure for

irrigation projects in the Imperial and Coachell Valleys and Yuma areas.

Releases made to the mainstream below Imperial Dam are essentially for the

purpose of satisfying treaty obligations with the Republic of Mexico. There

is only minor river w~ ter st~ rage behind Imperial Dam. No hydroelectric

power is generated.

Senator Wash Dam and Reservoir are located on the California side of the

Colorado River immediately upstream from Imperial Dam. The reservoir pro­vides

offstream regulatory storage a~ d has a maximum available capacity of

12,250 acre- feet. To provide regu1ation; water is either pumped from the

Colorado River int(, the reservoir or released back to the river. t · ! ater re­leased

from the reservoir generates hydroelectric power. The Bureau of

Reclamation estimates that d~ proximately 170,000 acre- feet of water can be

saved an~ uaiiy by short- term storage of releases from upstream dams in ex­cess

of downstrem requests for water deliveries.

Laguna Dam, which is locat~ d about six stieam miles below Imperial Dam,

serves as somewhat of a foundation support for Imperial Dam. There is a

storage capacity of 1,500 aCie- feet behind Laguna Dam. Ability to util ize

this storage and to fluctuate the water leve1 at Laguna Dam is essential to

mov~ ment of sediment downstream from~ e sluiceway channel at Imperial Dam and

for operational contioI of the river. The area between Imperial and Laguna

Dams serves as a depository for silt removed by the desilting works at Imperial

Dam. The importance of this desilting operation is covered in Reg. 6- 2- 3.5.

The routing of water diverted from Imperial Dam and measured surface re­turn

flows to the Colorado River between Imperial Dam and the Republ ic of

MexIco Boundary is difficult to describe verbally, and is better explained

schematically in Plate 2.

Waters reaching Morelos Dam, just south of the Northerly International

Boundc, y with the Republ ic of Mexico, are diverted into the Mexicali Valley

for domestic, irrigation and other beneficial uses.

AT PRESENT ESSENTIALLY NONE OF THE COLORADO RIVER WATER IS HASTED DIRECTLY

INTO THE OCEAN. The management afforded by the present system of storage

reservoirs permits delivery of the highest quality water now economically

possible considering that the supply is fully utilized. Water will be wasted

to the ocean only after all of the upstream reservoirs are filled to storage

capacity and all beneficial uses have been satisfied~ This condition is not

anticipated in the foreseeable future.

B. Tributaries to the Colorado River frem Arizona: There are numerous

tributaries to the Colorado River frem Arizona in the 700 river miles between

- 4-

-------------------------_./"".----------'----,

PLATE I

~ Trlbutaries discussed in REG. 6- 2- 2.18

UPPER BASI~

AREA: 110,000 Sc:. MI.

COLORADO RIVER WATERSHED

GROSS BASI~ AREA: 242,000 Sq, Mi

~

6 APPROXIMATE SCALE

I INCH = 100MILES

LOWER BASIN

AREA' 132,000 Sq. Mi.

GILA & YUMA

AUXILIARY

PROJECTS

PLATE 2

867,600 AF

Gravi ty Main Canal

ARIZONA

1

I

~ 3:)~ 0 AF . J

I

I

I

1

I

I

I

I

I

1

I

1

1

I

~ I

< I

'-° D1

° 1...

U'\

....::: t l

r- l l _____ _' l _

Southerly International Boundary

I--~ ll'--,-..--~ YUMA PROJECT

VAIJLEY DIVISION

~

~ I I

(""\ I I I

- - I LAClJNA DAM I I

I~-~~ II--: N~ ort~ G~ la_ V~ l. l~ y__ ~ I I

I 7,910 AF I I

I ..,~~ t~ Gil':.., Vall~ y J 1

I 4./ , 871 AF I I

I 79, 0 j[ a1I. te:! iBy' Retu. rns_ _ _ _. J I

I AF , v 39,480 AF I

I '_ W~ l.! O~ M~ h~ W!:. D. E. a~ n..?° 2,] C2.° fl

I Gila River ~ I \.....-:::.::::.::.....:.:.::...:..=.~----

I ° 81 I () .~

I (\ J ~ I

wi

....---- 1..__-, I .~

I

I

L.-_-..-.... J l

I

t. 2l2.5~ 0_ AF

4,970,000

MEXICO

CALIFORNIA

All American Canal

YUMA PROJECT

RESERVATION

DIVISION

MEXICO

~~---..-.,

8o

...

U'\

U'\

U'\

WATER YEAR

1962

IMPERIAL AND

COACHELLA

PROJECTS

SCH » 1ATIC DIAGRAM OF DIVERSIONS AND RETURN FLCM IN THE LOWER COLORADO RIVER

AREA. BELOW IMPERIAL DAM. THE INFLOW- OUTFLOW FIGURES DO NOT BALANCE BECAUSE

OF SIZEABLE UNMEASURED SURFACE AND SUB- SURFACE REI'URN FLOWS TO THE RIVER.

-- -.> Measured surface return flows

-~>~ Diversi. ons

Northerl~ Interna~~ onal Bou_ nEa~ ry~_

Alamo Canal

Page ( Glen Canyon Dam) and Yuma. A brief description of the significant

5tre~ ms follows, and available specific data on quantity and quality of

water co~ tributed appears in Exhibit I where appl icable. The Total Dis­solved

Sol ids ( TDS) change given for each tributary is for present condi­tions.

As the flow from the Upper Basin decreases, the effect is expected

to increase by up to one- third from each tributsry.

J. Paria River - The paria River joins the Colorado River just

downstream of the Lees Ferry USGS gaging station. The river flows through

remote country from southern Utah. The water has a high mineral content, but

is relatively free of other contamination. The TDS load at the Colorado River

is increased less than 2 mg/ l by flow from this tributary. ( See ExhibH. 1)

2. Little Colorado River - The Little Colorado River joins t~ e

Color<: ldo River about 55 miles below Lees Ferry. The river essentially starts

in eastern Arizona near Greer, although there are some minor intermittent

flows in creeks from New Mexico. The water has a medium to high sali~ ity,

depending on the flow rate. A major problem is the contribution of salts

from Blue Springs, about 13 miles upstream from its mouth on the Navajo

Indian Reservation. These springs contribute about 547,400 tons of salt per

ye& r to the Colorado River. The TDS load of the Colorado River is increased

by about 28 mg/ l by this tributary, with about 20 mg/ l attributable to the

Blue Springs. "( hiS p,') ble" l'j ~! j being investigated at the present time by the

Arizona Interstate Stream Commission. ( See Exhiblt 1)

3. Bright Angel Creek - The Bright Angel Creek enters the Colorado

River from the north in Grand Canyon National Park. The flow is most~ y from

springs near the North Rim of the Grand Canyon, and. the qual ity of the water

is good. The TDS ioed of the Colorado River 1s decreased abo~ t one ( 1) mg/ l

by the dilution effect of t~ is tributary. ( See Exhibit 1)

4. Tapeats Creek - Tepeats Creek is fed by springs on the north side

of the Colorado River in the northwest portion of Grand Canyon National Park,

a very remote and primitive are<: l. The meager data indicate the discharge is

of io~ mineralization, and the dilution would reduce the TDS load of the main

stem ~ tow of the Colorado River by about 2 mg/ l. ( See Exhibit 1)

5. Kanab Creek - Kanab Creek has a drainage area of about 1,600

square miles, of which about 1,000 square miles is in southern Utah. The

river crosses the border between Kanab, Utah, and Fredonia~ Arizona. The

water 1s fairly high in mineralization; but the total flow is relatively

small. The TDS Toad of the Colorado River is increased less than one ( I)

mg/ 1 by this tributary. ( See Exhibit 1)

6. Havasu Creek - Havasu Creek drains the Coconino Plateau south of

the Colorado River and enters the river about 13 miles downstream from Kanab

Creek. This is a remote area, and is inhabited by the Havasupai Indians.

The very meager water flow and qual ity data indicate good quality water of

low mineral ization. · The TDS load of the Colorado River Is decreased by about

0.5 mg/ l by dilution from this tributary. ( See Exhibit J)

7. Virgin River - The Virgin River begins in Utah, and flows into

Arizona near LlttJefield, then into Nevada near Mesquite p and then into Lake

- 5-

Mead. The Virgin RIver contributes about 350,000 tons of salts per: year to

the Colorado River System, and the quality of the water Is extremely poor.

The TDS load of the Colorado River is increased 14 mg/ l as a result , of this

tributary. See Plate I and Exhibit I for 10catiAn and details. It appears

that one major source ( abo~ t one. fourth) of these ~ alts is LaVerkin Springs

( Dixie Hot Springs) in southern Utah upstream from St. George. Other specif­ic

sources are not known at this time.

8. Bill Will iams River - The Bill Villiams River discharges into Lake

Havasu just above Parker Dam. The river is erratic In flow since it drains a

desert area ~/ ith sparse rainfall. Flash floods Dre commonplace, and these

are controlled by Parker Dam, and will be further controlled by the. Alamo Dam

now under construction about 35 miles upstream from the mouth of the river.

There is some irrigated < Jcreage in this project. Ha~: er Poilution Surveil1ance

System ( WPSS) data on water quality near the Alamo Dam site between October

1963 and October 1964 indicates that the TDS of the Bill Villiams water is

wit~ in the range of 535 to 698 mg/ l, or less than that of the Colorado River

arriving at Parker Dam.

9. Gila River - The Gila River joins the Colorado River just up­stream

of Yuma, and below Laguna Dam. rne Gila River is now almost complete­ly

controlled by upstream dams, and the water is complete~ y utilized, often

many times, Floodwaters have never exceeded the present capacity of the

Gila Rives storage system upstream of its confluence vJith the Salt River and

floodwaters have exceeded the capacity of the Salt- Verde System only twice in

the last 25 years. Painted Rock Dam, northwest of Gila Bend, is. the final

flood control structure on the Gila River, and has onlY been usea once since

completion in 1959. During calendar year 1964, only 103 acre- feet of water

fiowed past Dome, 12 miles up5tream from the mouth of the Gila River near

Yuma, and all of this flow originated downstream of Painted Rock Dam~

10. Other trib~ taries - There are many small streams that flow for a

short period of time after rainstorms, but the flow is so intermittent that

very 1ittle data is available on total flow and water quality~

Many small springs and sprlng · fed tributaries, mostly in the reach

between Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Mead, contribute small quantities of water

and dissolved salts. Since most of these tributaries are in very remote

uninhabited areas, very little data on them is available. The data that

is available is shown in Exhibit 1.

There are seme intermittent creeks flowing from Arizona into Utah,.

above Glen Canyon Dam, and ultimately these may reach the San Juan or Colorado

Rivers. Most of these streams are in remote areas of the Navajo Indian Reser­vation.

C. Tributaries to the Colorado River from Utah: In addition to tributar ·

ies to the Main Stem of the Colorado River upstream of the Utah- Arizona border,

there are several streams that cross the Utah- Arizona border and flow through

Arizona before reaching the Colorado River. The significant ones are as

follows:

1. Paria River - This river is covered in Reg. 6- 2- 2.1 B under

Arizona tributaries.

- 6-

The construction of dams on the Colorado River and its tributaries,

3. Virgin River This river is covered in Reg. 6- 2- 2.1 B under

Arizona tributaries.

1. Virgin River - This river is covered in Reg. 6- 2- 2.1 B under

Arizona' tributaries since it flows through the northwest tip of Arizona.

DEPARTMENT OF

- 7- liB RMrA;~~~ dlIVES

The area is essentially semidesert, and stream flows are intermittent. Al­though

rainfall is sparse in this area, the intensity of rainfall may be great

when it occurs, and flash floods have occurred. Flow. and quality data is al­most

non- existent.

F. History of the Colorado River Basin Development: The history of the

development of the Colorado River Basin is important to the consideration of

water qual ity.

2. Kanab Creek This creek is covered in Reg. 6- 2- 2.1 B under

Arizona tributaries.

2. Las Vegas ~/ a5h - Las Vegas Uash drains the Las Vegas Valley and

flows into Lake Mead just above Hoover Dam. Although the present flow is

not great ( about 15,000 to 20,000 acre- feet per year), the salt burden is

high, and the flow is expected to increase severalfold upon completion of

the Southern Nevada Project. The TDS load of the Colorado River is increased

about 4 mg/ l by this tributary at the present time.

D. Tributaries to the Colorado River from Nevada: There are a few tribu­taries

to the Colorado River along the common Nevada- Arizona border. The

significant ones are as follows:

E. Tributaries to the Colorado River from California: The area within

Cal ifornia which drains naturally to the Colorado River is a narrow strip of

land varying in width from about 10 to 40 miles. This strip extends from the

Nevada- Cal ifornia border to the Cal ifornia- Mexico boundtiry.

1. General History - Irrigation development of the Colorado River

Basin started with the beginning of settlement about 1860. The Upper Basin

( above Lee Ferry) irrigated about 800,000 acres by 1905, and about 1,400,000

acres by 1920. Development slowed down after 1920 because of both physicai

and economic 1imitations in the availabil ity of water. In the Lower Basin

Irrigation began in the Palo Verde Valley in 1879, and development of the

Yuma area and Imperial and Coachella Valleys followed. Irrigation on the

Colorado River Indian Reservation was attempted In 1870, but Inadequata f! c~ d

control almost stopped this development until 1942.

Early development of river control centered around the agricultural

economy of the area. The river flow was very erratic and undependable.

Tremendous floods occurred in the Lower Basin around the Yuma area when both

the Colorado and Gila River Systems reached high flow stages. The Colorado

River carried huge silt loads, and led to the statement that the Colorado

River was IItoo thick to drink and too thin to plow". The salt burden was

low at high flow, but very high when the fl~ 1 was low.

especially the Gila, Salt, and Verde Rivers, brought the river under control,

reduced the silt load, evened out the salt burden, and made agricultural oper­ations

in the Lower Basin stable.

This development of the Colorado River has had considerable political

prob~ ems, and further development, including quality control, will have some

more political and legal problems.

2. Water Compacts and Treaties - The development of the Colorado

River has necessitated a number of compacts and treaties to protect the rights

of individuals and states to the use of water. The following are certainly

important when considering water quality criteria that could affect water use

under existing rights.

a. Colorado River Compact - The water of the Colorado River was

divided between the Upper and lower Basins by the Colorado River Compact of

1922, with the division point at Lee Ferry. The compact recognized the poten­tial

obligation of the United States to the Republic of Mexico.

b. Mexican Treaty - The treaty with Mexico, signed in 1944, pro­vides

for annual delivery by the United States to Mexico of 1,500,000 acre­feet

of Colorado River water, with certain exceptions due to river flow con­ditions.

c. Upper Colorado River Basin Compact - This compact of 1948

apportioned the waters of the Upper Basin states ( including 50,000 acre­feet

to Arizona annually) to all~~ for orderly and proper development of the

I1rper Basin.

d. Boulder Canyon Project Act - This Act of Congress apportioned

the waters of the Lower Basin among the Lower Basin states and was subsequently

interpreted by the United Sta~ ei Supreme Court in Arizona v. Caiifornia, 373

U. S. 546.

e. Water Quality - None of the agreements or compacts have specifi­cally

mentioned water quality. The treaty with Mexico provides that Mexico

will take from any and all sources •••• whatever their origin, the waters to

which she is entitled. Water quality is recognized as a factor to be con­sidered

in recent legislation authoriZing the construction of projects in the

Basin.

G. Diversions of Water Along the Arizona Reach: Major United States proj­ects

divert and use water frcm the Colorado River along the Arizona reach. A

description of these diversions, by states, follows, and data is summarized i~ l

Exhibit 2.

1. Arizona Projects:

a~ City of Page - Page receives its municipal water supply from

Lake Powell. Sewage is treated in sewage lagoons with minor effluent return

to the Colorado River.

b. Colorado River Indian Reservation - This project has 99,375

- 8-

acres in Arizona with assigned water rights as set forth in Arizona vs.

California Supreme Court Decree, and about one- third is presently being

irrigated by diversions at Headgate Rock Dam. About 60% of the water di­verted

is returned to the river as measured surface return flows. In addi­tion,

there are unmeasured surface and sub- surface returns to the river.

c. Yuma Project. Valley Division - About 52,000 acres in this

project are served by diversion at Imperial Dam via the All American Canal

to the Yuma Main Canal by a siphon under the Colorado River. A portion of

the water diverted passes through measured surface drains and wasteways

back to the Colorado River south of the Northerly International Boundary

or to Mexico over the Southerly International Boundary near San Luis,

Sonora. Additional drainage facilities are needed in portions of the

valley, particularly in the area adjacent to the mesa.

d. Gila Project - ~ ater is diverted at Imperial Dam via the

Gila Gravity Main Canal to service an authorized project area of 115.000

acres. This project consists of the following units:

1. North Gila Valley Irrigation District

2. Yuma Mesa Irrigation and Drainage District

3. Yuma Irrigation District ( South Gila Valley)

4. Wellton- Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District

Surface drainage from the Gila Projects is returned to the Colorado

River above the Northerly International Boundary except that the Wellton­Mohawk

drainage facil ities include a bypass channel which extends past Morelos

Dam. This bypass channel was put into operation on November 16, 1965, and

the Mexican Government has the option of deciding whether the drainage waters

shall be discharged above or below Morelos Dam. About 30% of the water di­verted

is returned to the river as measured surface drainage or control water.

e. Yuma Auxiliary Project - Water is diverted at Imperial Dam via

the Gila Gravity Main Canal to irrigate 3,406 acres in this project, which

includes certain \ Jarren Act Lands. There is no measured return flow.

f. City of Yuma - The City of Yuma presently receives most of

its water through the Yuma Main Canal. The cityls contract with the Secre­tary

of the Interior provides for del ivery of the water from the river.

Sewage from Yuma is now discharged untreated to the river north of the

Northerly International Bou~ dary, but plans are progressing for a sewage

treatment plant.

g. Cibola Valley - v! ater is pumped from the Colorado River for

irrigation of the Cibola Valley.

h. Central Arizona Project - V'hen authorized and built, this

project will divert water frcm Lake Havasu to provide much needed supple­mental

water for domestic, industrial and agricultural purposes in Central

Arizona. There will be no return flows from this project. The economic

impact and importance of this project is discussed in Reg. 6- 2- 2.1 H.

I. Fort Mohave Indian Reservation - This project has 14,916 acres

- 9-

in Arizona with assigned water rights as set forth In the Arizona vs.

California Supreme Court Decree.

J. Miscellaneous Diversions - These include domestic, agricul­tural

and industrial waters, and consist of direct diversions or by ground­\

llater pumping in the vicinity of the Colorado River. 1, Iater is used by

cities, recreational centers, small farms, power plants, etc.

divert

area.

poses.

50,000

2. Nevada Projects: The Southern Nevada Project is authorized to

from Lake Mead, 300,000 acre- feet of water for use in the Las Vegas

The water will be used for domestic, agricultural and industrial pur-

The Bureau of Reclamation anticipates a return flow of approximately

acre- feet of water to Lake Mead annually.

3. California Projects:

a. Metropol itan Water District of Southern California - The

Metropolitan Water District aqueduct provides capacity for th~ annu~ l di­version

of 1,212,000 acre- feet of water for domestic, industrial and agri­cultural

use on the coastal plain of southern California. Th~ re is essen­tially

no return flow.

b. Palo Verde Irrigation District - About 900,000 acre- feet of

water is diverted annually at Palo Verde Diversion Dam near Blythe for agri­cultural

purposes. Approximately 60% is returned to the Colorado River

either as measured surface drainage or excess diverted water, mostly in a

main drain at the lower end of the project.

c. Imperial Irrigation District and Coachella Valley County

Water District - Approximately 3,500,000 acre- feet of water is diverted

annually at Imperial Dam via the All American Canal for various uses within

the Districts. There is no return flow ( other than seepage from the All

American Canal and flow r. egulation water) to the Colorado River. Agricultural

drainage water, canal seepage, and any excess water diverted flows to the

Salton Sea in Cal ifornia.

d. Yuma Project, Reservation Division - About 96,000 acre- feet

of water is diverted annually at Imperial Dam via the All American Canal for

agricultural use in the Bard Valley. · A portion is returned as drainage and

flow regulation water to the Colorado River between Yuma and the Northerly

International Boundary.

H. Economy and Natural Resources of Arizona: The economy of the entire

State of Arizona is intimately associated with the development of the

Colorado River, Arizona is semiarid in character with a low average annual

rainfall and limited natural water supplies. Since 1947, the population of

the State has more than doubled, with more than 7~ 1o of the population resid­ing

in Maricopa and Pima Counties. These two counties, along with Pinal

County, comprise the core area of the Central Arizona Project. This area

is now supplied with water by surface water systems on the Salt, Verde and

Gila Rivers and by pumping fram the groundwater basins. The agricultural,

domestic and industrial users of this area are consuming all of the surface

water available and are pumping approximately 3,000,000 acre- feet, of water

- 10-

per year more than the natural groundwater replenishment. This annual over­draft

is clearly evidenced by the accelerated decline of groundwater levels

and by land subsidence in some areas.

The central Arizona area desperately needs the additional water to be

delivered by the Central Arizona Project Aqueduct from Lake Havasu, but the

supply available is still far short of the present overdraft, and the needs

of the area are still growing. The quality of the presently available water

is not always good with respect to its salt content. This qual ity is fur­ther

degraded by multiple reuse since almost all beneficial uses of water

add salts of some variety to the water.

The remaining areas of the State face simi1ar problems of short supply

and/ or quality of water, and it is impossible to separate these factors

completely in any proposed program of supply or regulations on quality.

The total problem can only be solved by a major water augmentation program

for the Lower Colorado River Basin.

The people of Arizona have been strivinq to improve the quality of their

water and extend the supply for many years. long before a Federal program

for pollution control was initiated. The quantity of water available has

been extended and the quality of the water has been enhanced by the follow­ing

practices and programs.

1. Farming practices have been steadily improved so that less water

is app1 ied to the land per unit of crop yield. A report on this phase of

water conservation and qual ity enhancement is appended as Exhibit 11.

2. Del ivery systems for both surface and groundwater have been im­proved

through redesign, lining and conversion to pipe1 ines to reduce seep­age,

evaporation, salt pick- up, consumptive use by non- crop plants, and

delivery waste. Statistics on past and future programs are presented in

Exhibit 12.

3. Extensive watershed planning and control programs have been

initiated to increase the yield and improve the qual ity of water del ivered

by the surface water systems. The Arizona Water Resources Committee, repre­senting

wildlands, banking, ranching, water authorities, timber, irrigation,

power, mining, game and recreation and municipal ities, has an annual sympo­sium

( 10th in 1966) to present and discuss experimental results and plan

larger scale experiments. A summary of watershed improvement accomplish­ments

and future programs is appended as Exhibit 13.

4. Means of evaporation control or reduction of evaporation on reser­voirs

and streams have been investigated since evaporation of water from the

surface of reservoirs and streams not only reduces the supply but also in­creases

the salt content of the water remaining. A summary of activities

in this field is presented as Exhibit 14.

5. Extensive phreatophyte investigation and control programs have

been carried on to eliminate or reduce waste by certain types of vegeta­tion

growing in or near streams. Evapotranspiration by these pJar. t5 con­centrates

salts in the soils and contributes to the salinity problems of

- 11-

the bas In; so reduct ion of such growth wou Jd enhance water qua 1ity. A sum­mary

of the phreatophyte control program is presented in Exhibit 15.

o. Programs to supply water of the best available quality for domes­tic

needs in exchange for treated sewage effluents for needs with lesser

quality requirements are being studied. Other water exchanges have been

implemented between areas of need and surplus, and more are needed. Ex­amples

are presented in Exhibit 16.

7. Buckeye has been a pioneer in providing desalinized water for

domestic use. An expensive electrodialysis process was put in operation in

1962 to remove excessive salts from the only water available to the communi­ty,

making Buckeye the first town in the U. S. A. to have its entire water

supply treated by a demineral ization plant. This was a local community

program, and no Federal or State funds were involved in this project. A

report on this project is presented in Exhibit 17.

It should be pointed out that all of the currently available methods

of desalinization separate the influent water into two streams, one rela­tively

pure, and one very salty. Disposal of the salty brine is a problem

for ~ n area isolated from the oceans where most of the desalinization pro­grams

are promoted and tested.

8. The Arizona ! later and Pollution Control Asso: iation meets annually

( the 40th annual meeting was held in 1967) to he~ r and discuss papers pre­sented

by both local and out- of- state people involved in water supply and

disposal problems. Educational programs are sponsored by the Association

along with other progra, TIs designed to upgrade the quality of Arizona water.

The Association is affiliuted with the I{ ater Poliution Control Federation

and the American Water Works Associationa A report of the Association is

included in Exhibit 18.

9. The Soil Conservation Districts of Arizona, both individually and

through their Association, have been actively engaged in projects aimed at

soil and water conservation and water quality improvement. A summary report

of the Association is presented as Exhibit 19.

10. River channelization projects in the lowe~ Colorado River below

Hoover Dam have been in progress for several years by the Bureau of Reclam­ation

to reduce consumptive losses, ercsion and quality degradation. This

work is generally opposed by fish and wildl ife interests alleging it destroys

natural habitat areas. Stabilized river flow and storage impoundments m3ce

possible by dam construction have, however, enhanced some fish and wildlife

areas.

I. Natural R~ source Values to be Protected: The following natural

resources of Arizona, although presently utilized effectIvely through good

management practices, shall be protected by Arizona1s water quality control

pol icy, and the tabulation is not inter. ded to designate the order of impor­tallce:

1. Agriculture - Arizona1s principal crops ( alfalfa, citrus, cotton,

gr~; ns, and vegetables) are grown on 1,160,000 acres scattered around the

- 12-

State, with some additional acreage for minor crops. Almost all of this

acreage is dependent on irrigation, and over 300,000 acres in addition to

that stated above are out of production due to water shortage. Growing con­ditions,

and particularly climatic conditions, are well adapted to crop pro­duction

under irrigation on a year- round basis, and ma~ y high value crops

such as cotton, winter vegetables and citiuS fruits are produced in addi­tion

to staple crops and feeds. The gross value of Arizona crops was

$ 344,400,000 in 1965. The continued production of these crops is depend­ent

upon our total water resources in Arizona, considering both quantity

and quality. The quantity of flow must not be unnecessarily reduced by

unrealistic qual ity considerations. Statistics on various phases of agri­culture

are shown in Exhibit 3c

2. Urban Development - Urban development of Arizona has been grow­ing

rapidly, and this growth has demanded increased recognition of the

need for a dependable supply of good quality water. Although the growth

has been highest in the Phoenix and Tucson areas, there has also been con­siderable

growth in cities adjacent to the Colorado Rivero An inventory

of cities along the Colorado River with pertinent water supply and dis­posal

data is shown in Exhibit 4. The growth of urban arens has accom­panied

increased activity in tourism ( due to climate, recreational facili­ties

and natural attractions), manufacturing and service industries Tor

all State activities, including but not limited to agriculture, construc­tion

and miningo Manufacturing statistics are shown in Exhibit 5.

3. Grazing and Livestock Feeding - T~ is indust; y is extensive in

Arizona, including the area along the Colorado River. The gross value of

1ivestock and products was $ 237,900,000 in 1965. Livestock production re­quires

water and also produces waste which must be controlled. Statistics

are included in the Agricultural Exhibit 3.

4. Mining Industry - There are only limited mining operations along

the Colorado River, but mining is a major factor in the economy of Arizona

and this industry requires huge quantities of water. Reuse of water in all

phases of mining has been practiced Tor many years, and pollution oT streams

has not been a major problem. The minor problems are being corrected.

The gross value of mineral production was $ 580,170: 000 in 1965. The

principal metals were copper, gold~ silver~ lead and zinc, but subs~ ntial

quantities of sand, gravel, molybdenum, stone, uranium, lime, pumice and

other miscellaneous minerals were produced. Copper produced ahout 86% of

the total value. Statistics 8ie shown in Exhibit 6,

5. Fish and Wild; ife - Although much of Arizona is arid or semiarid,

the State is blessed with fish and wildl ife resources. Protection of this

important natural resource is vital in the development of the Basin's water

resources. Over 3,400,000 man- days of fishing and hunting were enjoyed by

Arizona sportsmen during 1965. Additional man- days of hunting and fishing

were enjoyed on the Colorado River by 1icense holders of adjacent states.

The Colorado River provides excellent feeding and resting areas for migra­tory

waterfowl, particularly in those portions of the river where oxbows

and sandbars exist. Additional value is created by shoreline vegetation

which provides habitat for numerous species of mammals and birds.

- 13-

Both the State and Federal Government have responsibilities under

existing Jaw to preserve and develop the fish and wildlife resources of the

Colorado River, and cooperation among the states is vital and necessary.

The Federal Government by virtue of existing treaties with Great Britain

and Mexico, is responsible for management of the nation's migratory bird

resource. This responsibility is implemented along the Colorado River by

the Bureau of Sports Fisheries and Wlldl ife of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife

Service. Both National and State Wildlife Refuges have been established to

preserve waterfowl wintering habitats.

The natural habitat has been constantly changing since the area was

settled by man. A significant portion of the habitat no longer exists due

to river control and land development, and the wildlife has decreased ·

accordingly in species and numbers. Channelization and controlled flows

have eliminated many of the productive backwaters, bypasses, and oxbows

that served as spawning and nursery areas for warm water fishes, and have

reduced angling potential for these species.

In contrast, the vast reservoir storage system created by the con­struction

work of the Bureau of Reclamation has virtually el iminated flood

fiowz, reduced turbidity, and lowered summer water temperatures so that

extensive reaches of the Colorado River are now more suitable for trout.

Fish are supplied by a National Trout Hatchery at Willow Beach and by the

three State Game and Fish Departments involved in the Arizona reach of the

Colorado River.

6. Recreational Use - In addition to the natural recreational re­sources

in Arizona, the controlled river flows resulting from the operation

of dams and related water projects have created stable recreational resources

in the Colorado River. For the most part, this recreational potential still

remains to be developed. Stable water impoundments behind the dams attract

fishermen, boaters, water skiers, campers and persons interested in being

near the attractive water during the pleasant fall, winter, and spring sea­sons.

Recreation is a year- round activity, however.

Pub) ic recreation is permitted on substantial portions of the accessi­ble

land along the Colorado River from the Utah- Arizona border to the Mexican

border. There are numerous public forests. parks, marinas and other points

of int~ rest not only to residents of the adjacent areas, but also to nation­al

and international visitors. The major facilities are listed in Exhibit 7.

It is difficult to determine the overall recreational use of the

Colorado River because of the variety of developments spread out over the

745 mile reach of the river in Arizona. The recreationists who come on

peak weekends for special events in seme sections jam commercial and publ ic

facilities and overflow onto every available piece of land along the river.

Somewhat uncontrolled use has occurred on other reaches of the river and

adjacent lands. Individuals and commercial interests have moved onto the (

Federal lands, and have built structures varying from shacks to well- estab-

1ished motels, trailer parks, fishing camps, and resort developments.

Recreational use of the river has created seme serious pollution prob-

- 14-

lems because of the lack of adequate sanitation facilities. Adequate facili­ties

will have to be provided, and the recreationists themselves are going

to have to cooperate in making the river areas safe and esthetically enjoy­able

u

Recreational use of the Colorado River area will expand along with

the population growth in the contributing metropol itan areas and as the

physical features are developed. The major recreation objective will be

reached if the quantity and qual ity of water are maintained, and the

esthetic vaiues of the area are preserved.

7. Forest Products Industry - The four mill ion acres of commercial

forest land, out of the total of 21 miilion forested acres in the State, are

largely situated in the northern, higher altitude areas. Managed for

multiple use the commercial forest area provides not only timber, but has

important values for water production, recreation, 1ivestock, forage, and

wildl ife. Arizona's forest lands playa big role in providing water to the

consumer. Much of the surface water consumed annually originates within

the State as runoff from the relatively high water- yielding forest.

The forest industry in Arizona annually harvests about 66 million

cubic feet of sawtimber and produces in excess of 300 million board feet

of lumber. The pulp and paper segment annually uses 100,000 cords of

pulpwood and chips from sawmill residual equivalent to an additional

150,000 cords. It produces about 150,000 tons of newsprint and kraft

1inerboard annually. The paper industry requires a significant quantity

of good qual ity water.

J o Water Qual ity Considerations: THE QUALITY AND QUANTITY FACTORS OF

COLO~ ADO RIVER WATER ARE SO INTERRELATED THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO SEPARATE

THESE PARAMETERS. Typical main stem flows, major diversions and return

flows are shown along with pertinent salinity data on Plate 3 for reference.

The Colorado Basin States Conferees, in drafting the Guidel ines for Formu­lating

Water Quality Standards for the Interstate Waters of the Colorado

River System*, recognized that water quality standards could drastically

restrict present and future uses of the Colorado River water under existing

compacts. The following data on the qual ity of water in the Arizona reach

of the Colorado River is presented to provide the basis for stream standards

1isted in Sec. 6- 2- 6 of this Water Quality Control Policy for the Colorado

River in Arizona:

1. Qual ity of ~ ater Reaching Arizona - Historically, the water

reaching Arizona in the Colorado River at Lees Ferry has been high in both

salt and silt burden. Other pollutants have been negligible. The sal inity

has been steadily increasing due to both increased use in the Upper Basin

and to depletions by trans- mountain diversion of the best quality water

near the headwaters of the Colorado River. The quality of the water at

Lees Ferry has been monitored diligently by the USGS, and excellent pub­lished

records for the 1941- 1964 period are available for comparison with

other stations on the Colorado River. The Total Dissolved Sol ids ( rDS) in

milligrams per liter ( mg/ l) is probably the best single parameter defining

the quality of the water.

* See Exhibit 20

- 15-

Examinatio~ of the record indicates a wide variation in daily, week­ly,

monthly and yearly figures for TDS. and any water quality standards

proposed will have to recognize this feature. In gener. al, the TDS is low

at high water flows and high at low water flows. This variation is dis­cussed

under sources of salinity. Variations in TDS at Lees Ferry are

shown in Exhibit 8.

Further development of the Upper Basin and increased use of the water

upstream is expected to further degrade the water as far as TDS is con­cerned

e In addition, further contiol of the flow of the river upstream

wi II cause variation of the quality of the water. As an example) the

effect of the closing of the gates at Glen Canyon Dam is seen in the TDS

record for Lees Ferry in Exhibit 8 e A partial explanation is shown in TDS

variations in Lake Powell, Exhibit 9.

Future storage in upstream reservoirs wi 11 ultimately decrease the

flow- in the Colorado River without appreciably changing the total salt

burden, 50 this will increase the TDS. The present predictions are that

the present TOS content wi II increase by 22 to 43% by 1990 ( 7) ( 15) 0 Other

authorities prognosticate a somewhat lesser increase in TDS accompanied by

a deterioration in sodium and chloride content ( 16). These estimates are

not keyed to the year 1990 and hence a direct comparison is difficult.

2. Quality of Water Released from Lake Mead - The water record for

water released at Hoover Dam shows higher average TDS for water than that

at Lees Ferry, but wi th much less f Iuctuat iani n qual i ty because of the

storage in Lake Mead. The TOS content appears to be gradually increasing.

The higher TDS can be attributed mainly to the increased TDS at Lees

Ferry and natural sources of salinity between LeGS Ferry and Lake Mead

since there is negligible use of the Colorado River water in this reach.

Some of these natural sources of salinity were discussed in Reg, 6- 6- 2.1 8] C,

with further data in Exhibit 1. Control of these natural sources of salin­ity

should be investigated as a means of enhancing water quality, not only

in this reach, but in the Upper Basin.

Evaporation from the surface in the main stream a~ d reservoirs is

a co~ tributin9 factor to the increased TOS. For example, the record shows

that 907,200 acre- feet evaporated from Lake Mead in Water Year 1963, leav­ing

behind approximately 800,000 tons of salt. Some of this salt is be­lieved

to have been precipitated out ( 7), but much of it undoubtedly con­tributes

to downstream res. TDS comparisons at various points in the river

are shown in Exhibit 10.

Future river saJinity like future streamflow can be predicted only

from statistical records of past salinity and from knowledge of the changes

in the river caused by impo~ ndment and diminution of flow due to consump­tive

use. The most recent predictions on future salinity vary somewhat,

but all indicate that progressive deterioration wi II occur. The Department

of Interior study ( 7) a: 1d the Hill study ( 15) represer~ t the most probable

conditions. Hi II predicts that the TDS load by the ysar 1990 wi Jl increase

to 735 mg/ I at Lees Ferry and to 92~ mg/ l at Lake Havasu, compared to the

- 16-

8 00 AF

161 000 AF TDS 2 00

-------

Stem 8 304 000 AF TDS 72

Change, Storage Zero

Mexico

Arizona

Bill Williams River, 18,380 AF

PLATE : 3

Grand Canyon, TDS 531 Av.

Little Colo. River 17 800 AF

TDS 700

Main Stem 15 250 000 AF

Gila River 0 AF

Main Stem 6 220

Ariz. Projects, 1,218,800 AF

~ TDS 535- 698

Future Central Arizona Project

' Colo. R. Indian Res., 455,400 AF>

)- ChR..:. I.:.. R~. 177 JOSJ AF _

~ TDS 800 - 1500

( Imperial, Coachella, Reservation)

So. Nevada

Bright Angel Creek, 20,460 AF, TDS 19

___ U, ta_ h _

Ari zona

Mexico Projects

TDS 1173 Av

Paria River, 15,090 AF

1962

WATER YEAR

230,400

~ Palo Verde Irr. Dist., 948,100 AF

J~ lcz_ 3~ rde. I. r~ Dist. w .. 57. Q., 600.., AF__

TDS 1500- 2000

_ Calif.:.. g, etur. E, s. J.. 2l, 28LAL _

TDS- No change t~ 0,9 ~ alif.

Mexico

-< Calif. Projects, 3,651,610 AF

-< Metropolitan Water Dist., 1,039,377

AF

Schematic diagram of the Colorado River main stem flow with major tributari. es,

diversions and return flows. The inflow- outflow figures do not balance because

of sizeable unmeasured surface and sub- surface return flows to the river.

- 17-

There is apparently 1ittle bacteriological deterioration in this sec­tion

of the river, but new habitation along the river could become a source

of pollution.

The City of Yuma is presently discharging untreated sewage to the

river above Morelos Dam) and measures are being taken by the State Depart­ment

of Health and the City of Yuma to e] iminate this pol lut! on at the

earliest possible date.

6- 2- 2.2 GILA RIVER

Department of Interior figures of 663 mg/ I and 865 mg/ l at these same sta­tions.

These figures represent increases of 22 to 43% by 1990, and assume

that current practices are not changed, a water augmentation program will

not be implemented, future. Upper Basin developments and trans- mountain

diversions will be made, and that natural sources of sal inity will not be

controlled.

3. Quality of Water at Parker Dam - There is little rDS change in

the qual ity of water between Hoover and Parker Da~ s. Increased population

in this area, and increased recreational use could degrade the present qual­ity,

especially bacteriologically. Increased control of sanitary waste

disposal from boats and recreational areas will be necessary.

5. Qual ity of Water at Morelos D2m - The flow of the Colorado River

h< Js been reduced to a rnTnlr,; j;- cit this point~ and except for occasional

storm flows, only enough flow is mai~ tained to supply the Mexican Treaty

requirements. The iDS fluctuates somewhat because of change of demand 2S

compcred with volumes of return flows v This prab'lem is of international

concern, and some relief has been afforded by the construction of the

\' Jellton-~ 10ha\" k drain extensio: 1 shown on Plate 2. The final solution of

this problem Is of total Basin concern, and the entire burden should not

be placed on the local area or on one Stata of the Basin.

4, Qual ity of ' dater at Imperial Dam - The TDS of the water reaching

Imperia: Dam shows a steady incre2se, A substantial part of this increase

is due to agricultural drainage from the Colorado River Indian Reservation,

the Palo Verde Valley, and probably some from the Cibola Valley. Reduced

flow! n the river due to consumptive use and diversions out of the basin

has substantially reduced the assimilative and dilution capacity of the

stream. A part of the increased TDS can be traced to evaporation frol'!!

the water surface and phreatophyte growth along the river. The TDS record

is shovm in Exhibit 10.

REG.

A. The Main Stem of the Gila River: The gross watershed of the Gila

River System upstream of Dome, Arizona ( 12 miles upstream of the confluence

with the Colorado Rtver) Is approximately 57,477 square miles, excludJng

all closed basins upstrc~~ r Tha main stem of the GIla Rtver upstream of

the last U. S. Geologic~) Survey gaging station in New Mexico near Virden

( 16 miles upstream of th~ New MexiCO- ArIzona border) has a druinage area of

3,203 square miles. There are no major control structures on the Gila River

in New Mexico, although Hooker Dam has been proposed. The watershed of the

Gila River System in Arizona is shown in Plate 4.

The Gila River enters Arizona near Duncan, flows throu~ h Duncan V~ lley,

is joined by the San Francisco River near Clifton, and flows westward

through Safford Valley to the San Carlos Reservoir behind Coolidge Dam,

the first major control structure on the river. Fater released from

Coolidge Dam flows westward through remote mountain country until it

reaches the San Pedro Valley where the San Pedro River joins the Gila

River. The combined rivers flow through more remote mountains past the

Buttes Damsite to Ashurst- Hayden Dam near Florence.

All of the water reaching Ashurst.. Hayden Dam, with the exception of rare

flood flows, are diverted for beneficial use in the San Carlos Project.

Sluicing of the heavy sediment load at Ashurst~ Hayden Dam has been replaced

by mechanical sediment removal equipment, so there is essentially no flow

in the Gila Ri'ver belo\" this dam. All of the water in the mainstream Gila

River, from a point ten miles upstream from the eastern boundary of Arizona

to the Gila Crossing ( near the confluence of the Salt and Gila Rivers), is

allocated under the Globe Equity No. 59 Decree of June 29, 1935 ( 17). The

provisions of that Decree are enforced by the Gila Water Commissioner ap­pointed

by the Arizona District Court of the United States.

The Gila River below Ashurst- Hayden Dam is situated in an arid desert

area. Intense desert storms contribute some flow to the Gila River at in­frequent

intervals for short periods of time. There are small diversion

dams near Olberg ( Sacaton D; version Dam) and Gila Crossing before the Salt

River joins the Gila River near Avondale. Annual flow data for vlater Year

1965 at various points on the Gila River are shown on Plate 2.

The Salt River System contributes very 1ittle water to the Gila River be­cause

of upstream use. This facet is discussed in Reg. 6- 2- 2.2 B under

tributaries to the Gila River.

Almost all of the water which accumulates in the Gila River below Ashurst­Hayden

Dam is diverted at the Buckeye Irrigation Company diversion dam, the

Arlington Canal Company diversion works, and at Gillespie Dam for irrigation,

Except for storm flows and gate leakage at the dam, there is no surface flow

between Gillespie Dam and Painted Rock Dam approximately 60 miles downstream.

Painted Rock Dam was completed in 1959 as a flood control darn to protect

the Yuma area from flash floods following intense desert rainstorms.

Below Painted Rock Dam, the Gi1a River channel is dry except for occa­sional

storm flo\ vs. Irrigation drainage water from the vIe I I ton- Mohawk

Valley has contributed some flow at Dome ( 12 miles upstream from the con­fluence

of the Gila River with the Colorado River) in the past> but a new

drainage system completed in 1961 has steadily decreased the contribution.

In addition to the annual flow data for Water Year 1965 presented in

Plate 5, flo\' I data at various points in the Gila River System is given in

Exhibit 22.

B. Tributaries to the Gila River: There are numerous tributaries to

the Gila River in the 508 river miles between the New MexiCO- Arizona

- 18-

I ,,

/:-

- - - GI LA RIVER SYSTEM ORA I NAGE AREA

- t- Existing Dam

+ Proposed Dam

PLATE 4

GILA RIVER SYSTEM

UTAH I

- -- ARIZONA- -- --------- t

II I I I I

• I ~ i

/./' ,_ I,,

J' I

I

1 0

-~~ ­<

Ix z w o,:::: E

N'

~

E

co o

Q) .. g_, I ......,,

~ \

U .... , '

\ l

) ~~, ~ 1\

, ' J'l'\

\ ' I' •

\, ".. , I'

( ... I

t .

~_.- - ARI_ ZO._ NA-- l' -

MEXICO

o~ IoU

N ­-

X

0::: LLJ

< C L

I

II

-+.--~

Dam

4734)[ 16,240J

4420)[ 70,840J

4485)[ 180,700J

GJ

r

:> 1J 5195)[ 804J :: D

< r Painted Rock Dam fTl

( 5198)[ 882J :: D l> ( J)

Dome( 5205)[ 279J -< - f (/ 1

-- f ARIZONA r' 1 MEXICO : s: ITI ( J)

Morelos Dam 0 :: r

fTl : s: :> U1

- l

0

4585)[ 118,900J

Calva( 4665)[ 90,960J

San Carlos Res. ( 4690)[- 34,830J

Coo I i dge Dam

4695)[ 122,000J

Pedro R. ( 4710)[ 16 : 40

San Simon R. ( 4570)[ 7 550J

Virden( 4320)[ 96,290J

[ 18,840J Duncan- Virden - - - - Valley ( 4325)

San Carlos R.

( 4685)[ 24,550_,

I

I

I

P~ oenix

-) 0-

L __ ... s

5155)[ 22,050J

A IZ NA

Hassayampa R.

CAL IFORN IA

Glenwood( 4440)[ 41,010J

NEW MEXICO

ARIZONA

Saffor

Salt River Val ley

( 4490)

[ 104,738J

New

Fria R.

SALT RIVER

VALLEY USE

See Plate

Wadde I I Dam

( 5135)[+ 45,840J

Granite Reef

~ Roosevelt

g Horse Mesa

a a Mormon Flat - co

a ~ Stewart Mountain

~ +..----

....... l- J ( 5020)[ 203,200

( 5113) 625 600

( 5138)

Verde River

4940)[ 192, 100J

-..'--+-- y- l~ U- I"~"'-: L~~"""" LS~ aWJni... l.. F.!.. r~ a~ nc~ i s~ c~ o::.....:..:.:....~~;;..;:':" 7"~ ~'" 4450)[ 6,290J ...

4905)[ 336,000J

WATER YEAR

Legend

1965

~ ~~ rseShoe

~ ..

g = Bartlett

~+

....... l- J

hite

( 4320) USGS Gage Station

( 9- before each no.)

[ 279]- Flow at Station

Acre- feet/ year

~ Existing Dam

~ Proposed Dam

boundary and the confluence with the Colorado River near Yuma. Flow data

for the major tributaries is given for Water Year 1965 on Plate 5, and~ x­panded

flow data is presented in Exhibit 22.. Descriptions of the signifi­cant

tributaries are as follows:

1. San Francisco River - The San Francisco River has its headwaters

in Arizona near Alpine. It flows eastward through Luna Lake into New Mexico

and back into Arizona northeast of Clifton. The gross drainage area of the

San Francisco River above the last gaging station near C} ifton ( 9.9 miles

upstream from mouth) is 2,766 square miles. The salt load of the San

Francisco River varies with the flo\, J rate. Available data shows the TDS

( Total Dissolved Sol ids) load ranges from 200 to 1200, mg/ l. Diversions are

made for mining, municipal and irrigation use upstream of the confluence

with th~ Gila River. The Clifton Hot Springs is a source of salt which

degrades the water quality of the river.

2. Eagle Creek - Eagle Creek drains a 377 square ! flUe area on the

north side of the Gila River. In addition, water is pumped into Eagle

Creek from the Black River in the Salt River watershed. A large portion

of the water flowing in Eagle Creek is diverted by pumping for industrial

and municipal use in and near Morenci and C1 if ten. The water is of excel­lent:

qual ity.

3. San Simon River - The San Simon River drains a 2,192 square mile

area in the San Simon Valleyo There are some minor intermittent flows from

New Mexico into the valley. The San Simon River joins the Gila River be­tween

Solomon and Safford. There, is very little rainfall in this drainage

basin, and the river usually flows only during sto!;' m periods, and available

data shows a TDS load of 500 to 900 mg/ l in the floodwater. The sediment

load is also high. Flood flows are partly regulated by six flood control

detention structures.

4. San Carlos River - The San Carlos River drains a 1,027 square

mil~ area north of San Carlos Reservoir. Although the 36~ year average

discharge of this tributary is 32,070 acre- feet per year, there are pe­riods

of no flow each year. The meager data on quality indicates fajr

quality during high flows to poor quality during low flows.

5. San Pedro River - The San Pedro River drains an area of 4,449

square miles, of which 696 square miles are in Mexico. The first gaging

station in Arizona is near Palominas, approximately 4.5 miles from the

Arizona- Mexico border. The total flow at this point has averaged 21,000

acre- feet per year for the 23- year record: but the flow rate has varied

from ° to 22,000 cubic feet per second ( cfs). Diversions above Charleston,

where a dam is proposed as a part of the Central Arizona Project, are

mostly by groundwater pumping. Downstream of Charleston, surface flow

decreases. Diversions, both by surface flow and groundwater pumping, are

made for irrigation, domestic and industrial use. The San Pc: dro River joins

the Gila River near Vinkelman. Quality records on the San Pedro River are

meager. Records of quality on the Gila River at Kelvin~ 17 miles downstream

of the confluence is the best index available.

6. Mineral Creek - Mineral Creek drains approximately 98 square

- 19-

miles of area north of the Gila River at Kelvin., This creek was named

Mineral Cr~ ek In' 1846 by a military scouting party because of Its saline

qualities and brown color. The flow varies from zero to approximately

30,000 cfs. There is one flood control structure which has silted up and

is no longer effective. Another structure is being considered. A large

open pit copper mine is situated on this creek, and the natural channel is

being replaced to allow for mine expansion.

7. Queen Creek - Queen Creek drains a desert foothills area north

of the Gila River, and flow is restricted to periods of heavy rainfall,

usually during the summer and fall. The flow is controlled by Whitlow

Dam, and it Is doubtful if any surface flow would ever reach the Gila River.

8. Santa Cruz River - The Santa Cruz River drains 8,581 square miles

before it reaches the Gila River near Laveen. There is a 348 square mile,

drainage area in Mexico. The 23- year record shows an average annual flow

at the mouth of 14,550 acre- feet, with no flow at all for the majority of

the time. There was a measured flow during 54 days of the 1965 water year,

and 6~ 1o of the flow occurred during 3 daYs. There are many diversions,

mostly , by groundwater pumping, for irrigation, municipal and industrial use.

9. Salt River System - The Salt River System physically joins the

Gila River System west of laveen. The Salt River System includes the Salt

and Verde Rivers and their tributaries. The Salt and Verde River flow is

controlled by dams except for periods of extreme flooding ( the capacity has

been exceeded only twice since 1941), and essentially all of the flow is

diverted for irrigation, municipal and industrial use at Granite Reef

Diversion Dam east of Phoenix. The Salt River Valley area~ including

parts of the water distribution system, is shown on Plate 6. There are

13,000 square miles of drainage area above Granite Reef Dam. Hater in

the Salt River System is adjudicated under various court decrees ( 18),

( 23), ( 24).

There is very 1ittle contribution of surface water to the Gila River

System by the Salt River System. Irrigation return flow, mostly excess di­version,

is utilized in the immediate area. There is considerable ground­water

pumping in the area. There is a sewage effluent flow to the Salt

River from Phoenix, and complete reclamation of this sewage effluent for

reuse is being studied. This effluent is being delivered by the Buckeye

Irrigation Company for irrigation of non- edible crops. '

10. Aqua Fria River - The Aqua Fria River drains an area of 1,459

square miles upstream of Waddell Dam. Except for flood flows, all of the

water is diverted for irrigation use by the Maricopa County Municipal Water

Conservation District No. 1 before it reaches the Gila River. The average

flow for the 37- year record period is 59,440 acre- feet per year.

II. Hassayampa River - The Hassayampa River drains an area of 1,470

square miles before it reaches the Gila River upstream of Gillespie Dam.

The average flow for the 19- year record at Box Damslte near Wickenburg is

7,820 acre- feet per year, with many periods of no flow. There are diver­sions

for irrigation and mining operations along the river. The river

below Wickenburg is alternately wet and dry, and most diversions are by

- 20-

groundwater pumping. Flow records at the confluence with the Gila River

are very poor, but the total flow in the Gila as measured at Gillespie Dam

indicates negligible contribution from the Hassayampa.

12. Centennial ~/ ash - Centennial \ lash joins the Gila River just up­stream

of Gillespie Dam. Flow consists of storm runoff, and the record is

extremely poor.

13. Miscellaneous Tributaries - There are numerous small tributaries

to the Gila River, most of them intermittent in flow. It is beyond the

scope of this pol icy document to discuss each of them.

C. History of the Gila River Basin: Part of the area of the Gila River

Basin was ceded to the United States in 1848 after the Mexican War and the

southern area was included in the Gadsden Purchase of 1853. In 1870, valu­able

mineral deposits were found in the area of Clifton, and this area is

now one of the most important copper producting areas in the United States.

The first irrigation of the land in the basin above the Coolidge Dam

area was begun about 1872 by Mexican immigrants and Mormon pioneers in the

Safford Valley, and irrigation in the Duncan- Virden Valley followed shortly.

Below the Coolidge Dam area, early development centered around agriculture.

The Hohokam Indians irrigated lands more than a thousand years ago. This

civilization vanished. Irrigation practices were resumed in the lower Gila

and Salt River Valleys by subsequent Indian inhabitants at dates unknown and

by non- Indian settlers in the 1860 1 s. Varying flows made irrigated agri~

culture a very risky affair, and storage systems were planned. Picacho

Reservoir was built for irrigation storage water , in 1890. The Fed~ ral

Reclamation Act of 1902 paved the way for construction of many more storage

dams for irrigation water. The Salt River Valley \~ ter Users l Association,

the first organization of its kind formed to take advantage of the act, was

incorporated in 1903. Roosevelt Dam on the Salt River was begun in 1905

and completed in 1911. More dams on the Salt and Verde Rivers followed.

Cool idge Dam on the Gila River was completed in 1928 by the Bureau of Indian

Affairs. The Buckeye Canal Company was formed and the first 5 miles of the

diversion canal was cohstructed in 1885, and the Arl ington, Enterprise, and

Citrus Valley diversions and canals were f~ nctioning before Gillespie Dam

was constructed. Gillespie Dam on the Gi~ a River was completed as a private

venture in 1921 to irrigate 10,000 acres in the Gila Bend and Theba areas,

but this area has suffered from a shortage of water. The remainder of the

Gila River Valley has sparse irrigation except for the area around \>! ellton

and Yuma served with Colorado River water.

Pumping of groundwater began in the 1920 1 5 and became widespread through­out

the basin by about 1940.

The surface storage system was developed primarily for agriculture, but

domestic and industrial needs are now also supplied. The use of water in

Arizona, especially surface water, is covered by legal water rights. Ex­panding

population and changes from a strictly agricultural and mining econ­omy

have caused many water problems.

D. Major Diversions from the Gila River System: As described in

- 21-

Reg. 6- 2- 2.2 A, all of the water in the mainstream Gila River, from a point

ten mi les upstream from the eastern boundary of Arizona to the Gila Cross­ing

( near the' confluence of the Salt and Gila Rivers), is allocated under

the Globe Equity Decree. Diversions from the San Pedro River upstream of

its confluence with the Gila River have not been adjudicated. There are

numerous withdrawals of water from these rivers upstream of Ashurst- Hayden

Dam both by surface diversion and by pumping of groundwater. The G~ obe

Equity Decree provided for irrigation diversions of 1/ 80 of a" cubic foot

per second per acre of land, with a total of 6 acre- feet for each acre annu­ally.

The areas defined by the Globe Equity Decree are chronically'and

critically short of water and even supplemental pumping does not add enough

water to the surface diversions to provide an adequate supply to the lands.

The major diversions from the Gila River under the Globe Equity Decree are

as follows:

1. Duncan- Virden Valley - The decreed area for irrigation in thiS

valley in both New Mexico and Arizona is 8,061 acres. Between 8,000 and

20,000' acre- feet per year has been diverted during the past five years,

and the additional water required has been pumped from the groundwater.

Almost all of the return flow to the river is subsurface. .

2. Safford Valley - The decreed area for irrigation in the Safford

Valley is 32,512 acres. Water is diverted through thirteen canal systems,

and supplemental ltlater is diverted by pumping, both from the river and from

the groundwater. The diversion from the river during the last five years

has varied from 39,630 to 104,700 acre- feet per year depending on the riyer

yield. Most domestic water is supplied by pumping from the groundwater.

3. San Carlos Project - The decreed area for irrigation in this

project is 100,546 acres. There are two sections to this project-- the

" Tndian Lands" and the 1'~ Jhite Lands" as given in the Globe Equity Decree.

The acreage is approximately equal. Surface flow is supplemented by pump­ing

from the groundwater. The diversion from the river has ranged from

42,450 to 247,820 acre- feet per year during the past five years, There is

some storage on the project in the Picacho Reservoir. Domestic needs in

the area are served by pumping from the groundwater.

4. Miscellaneous Diversions - There are numerous diversions for

irrigation, domestic and industrial uses along the river. These uses are

covered in the Globe Equity Decree.

Other decrees have adjudicated waters of the Gila River System, and there

are other diversions. Under the Haggard Decree ( 1903), 1,080 acres of

Indian lands at the confluence of the Gila and Salt Rivers were decreed

diversion rights ( 24). Under the Benson- Allison Decree ( 1917), 19,865.5

acres of land served by the Buckeye Canal were decreed diversion rights,

6,033 acres served by smaller canal systems were decreed diversion rights,

and rlg, hts of the 1,080 acres of Indian lands were reaffirmed ( 23). The ,

Arlington Canal diversion is between the Buckeye Heading and Gi llespie Dam.

Diversions at Gillespie Dam were adjudicated to lands of Enterprise Ranch

( Enterprise Co: lnal) and to Gila River Ranches and Narramore Ranch ( Gillespie

Canal), under a 1922 Court Decree. .

- 22-

E. Economy and Natural Resources of the Gi la River_ Syste~: The economy

of the entire- area of the Gila River System is limited by the ". later supplYi

The economy and natural resources discussed in Reg. 6- 2- 2. 1 H of the

Colorado River apply equally to the Gila River System, and will not be

repeated except to emphasize that the Central Arizona Project is vitally

needed to- help sustai~ the economy and to help reduce the quantity of the

more mineral ized groundwater being pumped to supply various needs.

F. Water Quality Considerations: THE QUALTTY AND QUANTITY FACTORS OF

THE WATER SUPPLY OF THE GILA RIVER SYSTEM ARE SO INTERRELATED THAT IT IS

IMPCSSIBLE TO SEPARATE THESE PARAMETERS. The flow data on the main stem of

the Gila River and its tributaries for the 1965 Water Year is shown schemat­ically

on Plate 5 and" expanded for other years in Exhibit 22 to illustrate

the variable flow parameters.

The variable flow in the Gila River is due mainly to storm runoff which

carries a considerable silt load. Flow from the Gila River is first con­trolled

at the San Carlos Reservoir which acts as a silt control works.

\ later released from Cool idge Dam is relatively clear, but inflol! from the

San Pedro River and other tributaries is uncontrolled and the silt load

at Ashurst- Hayden Dam is again appreciable, causing silt control problems

in the San Carlos Project. The si It load requires, constant canal cleaning

and prevents a canal 1ining program vital to water conservation. Buttes

Dam, when authorized and b~ ilt, will reduce the silt load in the canals so

that a lining program will be feasible.

The variable flow rates also contribute to the sal inity problem. :! n

general, the sait concentration increases as the f. low decreases, but the

watersheds of different tributaries contribute different quantities and

types of salts. To illustrate, the Total Dissolved Sol ids ( TDS) and sodium

concentrations in the Gi 1a River water at Kelvin are plotted against flow

rate in Plate 7 for the 1962 to 1964 period. The different pattern of the

data for the total salt content and single ion content illustrates the

effect of - different watersheds on the qual ity of ' later.

The TDS content of the water entering Arizona in both the Gila and San

Francisco Rivers historically varies between 200 and 500 mg/ l. The fluo­ride

content has been consistently high, normally above one ( 1) mg/ l even

in periods of high flooding ( 9). The fluoride content of many of the

groundwaters of the entire Gila River Casin is high, probably due to re­deposition

of these salts washed downstream from the upper basin. The

groundwater in the, Duncan-\ lirden Valley varies from very low to over 5000

mg/ l of dissolved, salts, and some salt load is added to the Gila River

water before it is'joined by the S~ n Francisco River.

The Cl ifton- Morenci area contributes considerable salt to the San Fran­cisco

River, some<, from solution pick- up from the saline soils and some from

the highly mineralized hot springs. r Long term continuous data on quality

is not av~ ilable for this arC5.

Downstream of the confluence of the Gila and San Francisco Rivers, the

tributaries contqin varying salt loads. Eagle and Ronita Creek water con­tains

about 300 mg/ l of salts. The San Simon River contributes water with

- 23-

a TO, S , of 500- 900 mg/ l during flood stage. There are some artesian flows

in , t'he' Safford Valley vlhich contribute a variety of salts to the Gila River

flow. The groundwater in the Safford Valley is generally highly mineral­ized.

The San Carlos Reservoir acts somewhat as an equalizing reservoir for

the salt content of the Gila River water, but downstream flow is again in­fluenced

by hot springs and runoff from other watersheds as seen in Plate

7. By the time the water reaches Kelvin, the TOS load varies between 400

and 2000 mg/ l. Generally speaking, the TOS load is below 1000 mg/ l if the

flow remains above 200 cubic feet per second.

Very little quality data exists for flows belovi Kelvin. Except for

occasional flood flows, all of the water reaching Ashurst- Hayden Dam ( 19.5

miles below Kelvin) is diverted for use in the San Carlos Project, and there

is no return flow to the river as a surface stream. The proposed ~ uttes

Dam, in addition to its function as a silt control structure, , would con­tain

the flood flows which enter the Gila below Coolidge Dam, particularly

from the San Pedro River. There is considerable groundwater pumping in the

area, and the Central Arizona Project is needed in this area for supple­mental

water and quality control.

The Salt River System waters vary in quality, but not quite as drastic­ally

as the Gila River and its other tributaries. The extensive reservoir

systems on the Salt and Verde Rivers tend to equalize the extremely high

and low salt waters. The TDS of the Salt River below Stewart Mountain Dam

has varied from 361 to 1300 mg/ 1 during the period of 1950 to, 1964,. The

TDS of the Verde River below Bartlett Dam has varied from 158 to 550 mg/ l

during the same period. The quality of water delivered to the users in

the Salt River Valley depends on how much water is available from each of

the rivers. The ratio varies from year to year as seen in Exhibit 22 for

Stations 5020 and 5100.

The surface flow of the Salt River System is not sufficient to satisfy

the needs of the Salt River Valley, and there is considerable groundwater

pumping. The amount pumped in the valley greatly exceeds the annual re­charge.

In addition, the groundwater is quite sal ine in most areas. The

Central Arizona Project is desperately neeqed in this area to allow, for

water importation. Such importation would help with respect to both the

quality and quantity.

The next surface flow in the Gila River is at Gillespie Dam. TheTDS

load- at this point averages 5,000 to 6,000 mg/ l. T~ is water is diverted

for irrigation purposes. The water usually has a fluoride concentration of

2 to 4 mg/ J.

With the meager amount of quality data available in the Gila River System,

it is difficult to isolate any single source of gross degradation of the ,

water. Tt appears that much of the degradation is the result of natural

sources of salinity.

Some drainage water from agricultural facilities downstream of Painted

Rock Dam and occasional floodwaters reach the Colorado River near Yuma.

- 24-

a a a

o a a

a a a

r< l ~ U\

000

000

000

r< l oq- U\

a

aaN

ooo

N

a

aa

ooo

a a a

a a 0

r< l ~ U\

o 0 0 o 0 0

r< l ~ U\

a

a

N

oo

N

PLATE 7

aa

oo

SALT CONTENT VARIATION WITH FLOW

1962- 1964

GILA RIVER AT KELVIN

MEAN DAILY DISCHARGE IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

MEAN DAILY DISCHARGE IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

a a a

r< l ~ U\

a a 0

r< l ~ U\

I 0 I . . ,

~ · ..

, •

• ..

.. • . 0 I , . .. • 0 ,

• ,

• • ",

.... • I . I · ,

• . '., ,

. • • • ...-. 0 · . • •• .0 ~

'" • . . · • • . · . " - 0 • ". I .. . • - • 0 • . ·

• • 0 . .. • ~

i- .. • ·

• , t I I • • I • • • • • 0 0

L • · . . , .

0-

O~

01- • • . , 0

0 • , , 0 ' .. 0 • • • .,

0 . • . • 0 . . .0 • I 0 0 . . - ' 0 •

0 . , . 0 . • ... • ~ • · 0

0 · • • • ~ . • •• • . , ,', , . 0 . .•

0

0

. • .' 0 ~ 10 , .

I 0

0

• 0 I •• . • I • .

o

o

w

>

- o'

tf)

tf) 500

-' 400

< C

I­o

300

I-

-'

SS I000

..

tf) o

30

200

oN

200

6> 200

E

300

500

400

20 aN

500

400

~ 300

~

L

Q)

+-

..

co z

~ 50

oo 40

tf)

......... 100 en

E

The drainage water is now almost completely contained In the concrete lined

drainage channel of the Vel Iton- Mohawk Irrigation and Drainag~ District.

The effect of this drain is seen in the data for U. S. G. S. Station 5205

( Dome, Arizona) in E~ hibj. t 22. The flow in the Gila River has decreased

to less than an acre; foot per day since Water Year 1963. The subject of

salinity beloW this point of the Gila River is discussed in the Colorado

River Policy Document. It should be pointed out, h~ vever, that rate of

floodwater release from Painted Rock Dam can drastically affect the salin­ity

problem in the lower Gila and Colorado Rivers. Floodwater has been re­leased

only once since completion of the dam in 1959.

B. Gila River - Diversions for agricultural use are made throughout the

basin. Boron content from natural sources limits the use on some crops.

In some cases, the TDS and Sodium percentage also limit crop use.

A. Colorado River - Diversions for agricultural use are made throughout

the bas~- The major diversions are below Parker Dam. Crops grown include

citrus, vegetables, forage, feed, grains and cotton.

A. Colorado River - The volume used for domestic il'lClter is minimal, how­ever,

the use is scattered from Page to Yuma along the Colorado main stem.

There is only one known domestic use of surface flows in the little Colo­rado

Basin at the present time.

~ JATER USES

GENERAL

AGRICULTURAL

DOMESTIC WATER SOURCES

6- 2- 3

6- 2- 3. 1

6- 2- 3.2

6- 2- 3.3

SEC.

REG.

REG.

REG.

All of the surface waters of Arizona are subject to either the appro­priative

rights doctrine or to water use cont'racts with the Secretary of

the Interior. Th~ re are no riparian water r. ights in Arizona. Some of

Arizona's decreed entitlement to main stem waters bf the Colo~ ado River is

not now diverted and is being used by other states until additional Arizona

faci1 ities are authorized and built. The f~ 11owing beneficial water uses

are being made of waters in the Colorado River and Gila River sasins in

Arizona. This tabulation is not intended to designate order of importance

or rights to such use.

Water for domestic purposes is of prime importance throughout the Arizona

Reach of the Colorado River. Although the application of conventional water

treatment including flocculation, coagulation, filtration and disinfection

to Colorado River water will generally not provide a water meeting the rec­ommended

drinking wilter standards of the U. S. Public Health Service, such

treatment does provide a water meeting the mandatory requirements of the

drinking water standards. Since a better alternate source of supply is

usually not readily available, Colorado River water is used as a source of

raw domestic water.

B. ~ iver - High f~ uoride content from natural sources restricts

the use of the Gila River above its confluence with the Salt River as a

domestic water source if alternate sources are available. There is some

use of surface water of the Gila River as a raw domestic source. Use of

the water has resulted in mottled teeth in children, and an alternate

source of water is recommended.

Surface water of the Salt River system is extensively used as a raw

domestic source for the metropolitan Phoenix area.

There is negligible direct use of surface water as a raw domestic source

below the confluence of the Salt and Gila Rivers.

- 26-

- 27-

B. Gi la River - \- Iaters are diverted all along the flO\. ving streams for

industrTar- purposes such as mining, manufacturing and cooling water.

This operation results in a varying but heavy silt deposition in the

area between the dams, and a rapidly varying water depth. The operation

is absolutely essential in maintaining a low si lt content water del ivery

into the canal systems of both Arizona and California.

INDUSTRIAL

PROPOGATI O~ J OF AQUATI C AND HILDU FE RESOURCES

6- 2- 3.4

Colorado River

6- 2- 3.5

A.

REG.

REG.

On most of the other tributary streams, the surface flow is so undepend­able

and variable in qual ity that domestic water is suppl ied from ground­water.

Future demands in certain areas are dependent upon augmentation

from outside sources.

1. The Colorado River System contains aquatic and wildlife resources.

Such resources include production of organisms, both plant and animal, that

contribute to the food chain supporting a fish population, and populations

of other animal 1ife including waterfowl and shore birds.

A. Colorado River - Industrial uses currently are minor. Major use is

for hydroelectric power generation. Several steam generating plants are

being proposed. \ later when diverted through the Central Arizona Project

will be partially used for industrial purposes.

The reach between Imperial and Laguna Dams is used primarily as a

silt depository for the desilting works at Tmperial Dam and for opera­tional

control. Measures for the protection of aquatic and wildlife

resources in this section will be practiced to the fullest extent possi­ble

consistent with the normal operation of the facil ity as a desilting

works. Prior to the construction of the Tmperial Dam and desilting works,

most of the silt load of the Colorado River flowed through the canal sys­tem

onto the irrigated fields, and silt control cost about one mill ion

dollars annually. Although the amount of silt decreased with the com­pletion

of Hoover Dam, channel degradation, bank erosion and storm run­off

still contribute a heavy silt load at Imperial Dam ( about 805,000

tons in calendar year 1965). The bulk of this silt is removed continu­ously

in six classifier type basins on the California side and by a single

basin with periodic sluicing of silt on the Arizona side of the river.

The sediment from the basins is sluiced downstream to a sediment retention

basin for removal by dredging. Removal of this sediment from the sluiceway

channel is required for satisfactory operation of the desilting basin and

overall sediment control measures at Imperial Dam.

2. Water is used in the operation of the National v! ildlife Service

Refuges, the Havasu Lake, Cibola and Imperial ~ ildlife Refuges. This water

use is covered by the Arizona vs. talifornia Supreme Court Decree. Con­sideration

is being given to dedication of a portion of the Lower Palo

Verde- Cibola Valley region to waterfowl management purposes, to provide

enough buffer lands to protect the waterfowl and to provide for future

re 1a tedrecrea tiona J needs.

3. Water is used at Mittry Lake, an Arizona State waterfowl area

in the downstream area from Imperial Dam. A State Wildl ife area is being

farmed for waterfowl habitat preservation and feed in the Cibola Valley.

B. Gila River - The Gila River System contains aquatic and wildl ife

resourc~ s in most of the flowing streams and impoundments. Such resources

include production of organisms, both plant and animal, that contribute

to the food chain supporting a fish population, and populations of other

animal I ife, including waterfowl and shore birds.

REG. 6- 2- 3.6 RECREATION

B. Gila River - The Gila is used for a variety of recreational pursuits,

including primary body contact uses. Some uses are restricted in certain

areas due to confl icting water rights and uses, but are generally available

in most areas in which sufficient flowing or stored water is available.

A. Colorado River - The Colorado main stem is used for a variety of

recreational pursuits, including primary body contact uses, between Page

and Yuma. The remainder of the river and the various tributaries are used

for secondary body contact uses with the exception of some impoundments

which may be used for primary body contact sports.

REG. FUTURE USES OF SURFACE WATER

Future consumptive uses of surface water of the Colorado and Gila Rivers,

other than those specifically mentioned as allocated, are of necessity

restricted until a major water augmentation program is real ized. It is

probable that some uses wil I have to be replaced by a higher priority use

under due procesS of law with ful I recognition of legal water rights.

REG. 6- 2- 3.8 CLASSIFICATION OF WATERS ACCORDING TO USE

1 i

-' J

Specific classification of waters by designation through finite geo­graphic

boundafizs cannot be made. The uses of the waters of the State

vary to a much greater extent than they normally do in more humid cl imates.

This is due to the fact that the majority of our streams are intermittent

and nearly al I streams having a perennial flow are completely regulated.

Thus varying uses are made of these waters depending upon the amount of

flow available, either from natural precipitation or releases from storage.

For example, most releases for agricultural purposes are made on a demand

basis, however when sustained flows are anticipated, plantings of fish may

create a fishery where none normally exists. A delineation of major cold

and warm water fishing areas on interstate waters in Arizona is shown in

Exhibit 23. Nearly all perennial waters are used for recreational pur­suits.

Use of surface waters for domestic and industrial purposes are

necessarily I imited to those areas having a dependable supply. Numerous

wei Is for domestic and industrial suppl ies are located in or adjacent to

the stream bed and a re great Iy inf I uenced by the surface waters that may

flow sporadically, therefore protection of such supplies is essential even

- 28-

- 29-

though the stream may not properly be classified as a surface water source

of such suppl ies.

All waters of the State governed by this document are protected for

esthetic values. This intludes perennial, intermittent and ephemeral

streams, and intermittent lakes.

REG. 6- 2- 3.9 ENHANCEMENT OF WATER QUALITY

In view of the present qual ity of Colorado River water and the prospect

of further degradation by upstream development, it is imperative that a

major water augmentation program be instituted for the Colorad~ River Sys­tem.

Since this program would entail interstate cooperation and Federal

sponsorship, the efforts of other appropriate State and Federal agencies

are necessary to effectuate it.

The Gila River is completely util ized by consumptive uses at the present

time. A water augmentation program would enhance these waters as well.

Control of natural sources of sal inity and discharge requirements for waste

systems can be used to maintain or improve the present quality of the water.

0,--;

I. The consideration of present conditions and contributing factors, an4

2. Qual ity iequirements for specified uses.

RATIONALE

GENERAL

CONSIfJERATION OF PRESENT CONDITIONS AND CONTRIBUTUJQ

FAt: TORS

6- 2- 4

6- 2- 4. I

6- 2- 4.2

SEC.

REG.

REG"

B. Ch' 2mi~~ Li: li.:~.:. ai:. teris!~~~ 2"- Disr. harg;;( ro: Ti fut~ re Upper Basin develop­ments

may ll1c' 82:: 8 c(" ltrib'..! t! OnS of cherr; kal::- t{) , vaters enterin9 Arizona.

In ariC: itlo", f:. i!" ther d8Vel:: ipr' 18nt in adjacet; 1: sta"': 8£ could C3use the same

problem. Sho:..: ld s:. Jc.!~ cr;(; L:~' or threaten, corrective measures wo<.: ld be L, i­tlally

sought through cooperative efforts wit~ the Basin States.

Although the water qual ity indicators under consideration ~ fe numerous,

they may effectively be grouped in:

The ne · v:: l fer water conservation in the Southwest j; · tclicatcs th,~ t bene­ficial

reuse of sewage effluents should be encaurao~ d, The increased

recreational use of the entire area could contr! L~ te human pathogens to

offset the effect of the el iminat ion of properiy trec: ted effl uents. Tn is

00jective wnl ( Ie met by e~:. ablishment of eff1\;;; llt u! scharge req~ irements

on sanitary \' ia::; tes rrcm pr. r'i~~ te and co" nmunit;: ::?"' I"' S~ ;:;~/ S!. F.:: 11S, ol'ganic

processing plants, recreational fa::: il it1es ai · td boats,

A. Bacter: oloqical - The objective is to keep waters of the State

bacteriologically safe for beneficial uses. The contributory sources of

patriogens Mr~ disposals of sanitary wastes from c,? mrnuilities, from private

estah 1 i 5hrnents) and from boats. -~',.:,,:-,?

i . Nat~ Jrc: 1 SOi~.~ c f !': 2: 1n i tI_ L' t · ...,.? ;; rg'~~' l:: l: of the Co lorado

. B. I~~ L - Some of the r. atural sources of sa: inity hav;~ been elUmerated in

previc'. J:; sections. The Arizona I:- li: erstCite Stre- 3m C0i11r; 1ission is currently

funded to conduct a st~ dy of the Little Colorado River Basin potential

\ ihich incL.: des Biue S::> ringsj~ o as: ertain its optimum role in con~ rol and

cevelopment: for the water resources progri: liil in .4rizcna.

Interstate coo;:; eratio'l will be necessary to evalua;:: e ard reduce the

531 inity cf waters re2-: hing t;, e Cc'o;-- ad,} Ri'ier frcm dc; jaCer1t stu;: es as

covered prp.'/ io ' lsly. '!!": e soii: 3 of the Colorado R. iver Basin closely resem­bie

the ? eological fcrmi':: i:; ons of their orisin, i'ameiy igneo;': 5, sedimentary

and metamcrphi::. Th; 3 slIts removed by const3! lt ero.,; j.') n of th~ uF=- per areas

have been dep': Jsited in tl-, e Lower Basin to form the great delta of the

Colorado River. These slIts contain large quantities of salts such as

sodium, calciu:. 1, and f: 12Si18Sii,: 11 ccmbii1ed \ vit~ ::: hioride:;~ car'cori3tl~, biczr­bonate

and sL; if:: l~ es. PI:': S t~ je soi~ s cf :: 1', e Coloredo r<; ver Ed:::: in 2re ~ he

bask source of t!~ e sa1 init)' i: l the \ v: iter, C:' I:)' 1 Imited a~ · E: · 3S have o--= en

leac:' ed sufficiently to ren'~.) ve these solutle s~ 1ts, and mO> l: lands of;: he

Basin must be ~ eached befQ~ a they will became productive.

" 30-

Efforts to control the natural sources of sal inity between Lees

Ferry and Lake Mead may meet with opposition from certain conservation

groups who have been attacking further development of the Colorado River

in this area. Every effort must be made to reconcile the many differences

of opinion on river development.

Gypsum reefs are quite common in the Lake Mead area, and there is

no feasible method of isolating these areas. Fortunately, they do not

appear to contribute a large amount of total salt as evidenced by U. S. B. R.

reports on Lake Mead and the Colorado River. The answer could be found in

deposition of silts and/ or precipitation of calcium carbonate as a crust

over the gypsum beds.

2. Natural sources of sal initv in the Gila River drainaqe area ­There

are numerous natural sources of sal inity in the drainage area. The

alluvial soils and rocks contain soluble salts. Although this source is

difficult to control, water management and watershed manipulation may help

reduce the effect of this source in the future. Salt springs and salt beds

in the vicinity of rivers and creaks are being sought out and methods of

control studied and more work must be done.

3. Aqricultural sources of sal inity - An operational salt balance

must be establ ished in all agricul tural operations. In general, all of

the salt entering the root zone of an agricultural project must be removed

from the area if a sustained operation is to be possible. Failure to re­solve

this problem may have contributed to the destruction of great civil i­zations

in the past, including the Hohokam Indian civil ization in the Salt

River Valley of AriIDna a few hundred years ago. With efficient irrigation

practices, about two- thirds of the water appl ied to crops is removed by

transpiration from the plants, use by the plants, and by evaporation from

the soil itself, concentrating all the salts originally present in the re­maining

one- third of the water. This water must be drained away from the

root zone to prevent salt damage to future crops. Thus agricultural drainage

water will have a higher concentration of dissolved salts or iDS than is

present in the appl ied water. It is obvious that the incremental increase

of TDS in drainage waters of the lower basin will be much higher than for

a similar operation in the upper basin because of the higher TDS in the

appl ied water.

The TDS concentration of drainage water resulting from the leaching

of new lands can be higher than the concentration resulting from a salt

balance operation. The effect, however, diminishes rapidly.

The programs outl ined in Reg. 6- 2- 2.1 ( canal I ining, pipe install­ation,

land levell ing, phreatophyte removal, watershed improvement, etc.)

are the current methods of water conservation which contribute to water

qual ity enhancement. These programs should be continued, giving consider­ntion

to their effect on other beneficial uses ( recreation and fish and

wiidl ife propagation). New, practical processes for reducing the sal inity

of irrigation return flows should be appl ied as they are developed.

The water tables in the Gila River System are generally quite low,

and there is very I ittle return flow to the rivers by surface drainage

- 31-

systems. Canal 1 ining, pipe Installation, land levell lng, phreatophyte

removal, watershed Improvement, etc. are the current methods of water con­servation

which contribute to water qual ity enhancement. These programs

should be continued, giving consideration to their effect on other bene­ficial

uses ( recreation and fish and wildl ife propagation). New, ~ rectical

processes for reducing the sal inity of irrigation return flows should be

appl ied as they are developed.

It should be recognized that such programs, while beneficial in pre­serving

and enha~ cing water quantity and qual ity, may produce undesirable

effects on recreation and wildl ife values.

4. Industrial sources of sal ini~ - There are a few minor sources

of sal inity in industrial operations along the Arizona reach of the Colorado

River. Most of these can be held to a minimum by proper discharge require­ments.

5. Municipal sources of sal init~ - Salts are added to water used

for domestic purposes. Domestic sewage generally has a TDS increase of

about 300 mg/ l over the supply water. This increase can be attributed to

a number of factors such as, but not I imited to human waste, water softener

operation, washing clothes and dishes, garbage disposals, etc. The most

significant increase is in sodium chloride.

Return flows from lawn and garden watering follows the pattern set

forth for agricultural drainage previously discussed.

Light industrial and commercial operations in cities usually con­tribute

salts to the municipal sewage or to the groundwater eventually re­turning

to the river. Although the individual contribution may be small,

the collective total can become appreciable, and all sources should be

evaluated for effective control.

6. The total sal inity problem - The salts added by the natural

and beneficial use sources I isted above combine with diminishing flows due

to consumptive use and diversions out of the Colorado River Basin to pre­sent

a serious sal inity problem for all of the users of the Colorado River

water downstream of Lake Mead. The Bureau of Reclamation and Geological

Survey are cooperating in an electric analog study of the diversions, use

and returns for the area downstream of Imperial Dam, but this study is

far too 1imited in scope and tends to convey the idea that the sal inity

problem is the responsibil ity of this one area alone, whereas it is a

total Basin problem. This concept of a local ized problem as set forth in

l1inute 218 ( Exhibit 21) is totally unacceptable to Arizona, and the tempo­rary

alleviation procedure effective until November 16, 1970 must be re­placed

by a more acceptable procedure which recognizes total Basin respon­sibil

ity. The Council will cooperate with the above agencies in working

out a satisfactory pol icy on sal inity control.

A report on the study and suggestions on the problem solution by

the Bureau of Reclamation and the Geological Survey is due on May 16 t 1970.

7. Heavv metals and associated chemicals - The concentrations of

- 32-

these chemicals in waters of the State are historically very low. Wastes

containing these elements are widely scattered and can be controlled by

discharge requirements on the individual waste stream. Each discharge re­quirement

wi Jl be based on appropriate factors such as, but not limited

to the di lutlon capacity of the stream and beneficial uses of the stream.

The setting of stream standards at USPHS drinking water limits

could be interpreted by a discharger as meaning that he could discharge

these chemicals into the stream up to the limit. In effect, then, stan­dards

could be unjustly used to discriminate against downstream users be­cause

there is no di lution capacity left. This problem of apportionment

of dilution capacity of the stream must be solved on an entire basin level

before specific limits can be placed on the main stem of the Colorado and

Gi la. This task is expected to take one to three years.

Unti I specific limits are set, the policy of the Council through the

State Department of Health is to minimize any discharge of these chemicals

to the river in accordance with the Statement of Policy. Generally, in­dustry

is the source of disposals containing these chemicals; ' and also

generally! these wastes are contained in relatively small volumes of water

which could be economically disposed of elsevihere.

8. Biocides - Biocides have been the subject of much discussion

in the past, and probably wi II be discussed for many years. Prudent use

of biocides has enabled our agriculturaJ industry to provide ample food

and fiber products for our high standards of living. EstheticaJly, we

can have better gardens and a more healthful existence because of biocides.

Uncontrolled use of biocides is not beneficial, and should not be allowed.

Generally speaking, biocides are expensive, and over applications are sel­dom

made. Discharges of wastes containing biocides from manufacturing and

tank cleaning operations must not be allowed.

More research and study of the cumulative effects of biocides on

humans and wi ldlife must be made, and appropriate safeguards applied as

standards for the waters of the State.

Types and effects of biocides are too numerous and varied for tabu­lation.

Further, the intricacies and variations of technical analysis

for biocides presently defy the prescription of anyone or a few tests for

their detection or determination. Bio- assay tests can be used to establish

allowable limits for biocides.

Application of biocides in agricultural operations which could re­sult

in biocide levels in waters of the State which are deleterious to

human, animal, plant or aqcatic life shall be subject to abatement. Mere

detection of a biocide in the water is not cause for abatement.

9. Radioactivity - Radioactivity in waters of the State is con­tained

within satisfactory limits. There are no wastes containins radio­acti~

ity being discharged into the Arizona reaches. Future problems wi II

be controlled by discharge requirements.

10. Other chemical characteristics - Boron reduction wi 11 be con-

- 33-

sidered along with reduction of sal inity in agricultural return flows.

Phenols and organic chemical concentrations are not now a problem,

and there are no known discharges. Any proposed discharges will be sub­ject

to regulations commensurate with timely technology.

Eutrophication, although not a major problem at this time, could be­come

a problem if the nutrient concentration in the water increases. Mini­mization

of nutrient contributions to the river systems is mandatory.

REG. 6- 2- 4.3 PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH METHODS OF REDUCING POLLUTANTS

3. When waters containing considerable dissolved salts are being

considered for discharge to the river, total resource effects should be

determined, and the decision should not be made on the basis of the con­centration

of the discharge alone. This concept is vital in the conser­vation

of total water supply in the stream. Unwarranted depletions could

deprive downstream user~ of valuable rights to water use.

The major problem associated with control of pollutants in the waters

of the State is that the method chosen may reduce the quantity of water

available to downstream users, or may adversely affect the user downstream

by a chemical or physical change in the water. Factors such as the follow­ing

should be considered in setting numerical stream standards.

2. Disposal of sewage effluents outside of the river area can

reduce the total flow of the river and reduce the assimilative capacity

of the river downstream, denying the downstream user of his legal entitle­ment

to use of the water.

I. Hardness in domestic water is undesirable, and can be removed

by several processes. Ion exchange or precipitation methods can alter the

cation balance of the water to the extent that the change can adversely

affect penetration rates of water in agricultural operations.

4. In view of the fact that water disposed of on land in a basin

could return to the river underground in worse condition than when " dis­posed

ofII , careful consideration of requirements for disposal on land

must be made. In effect, such disposal could be similar to reclamation

of new land for agricultural purposes as far as sal inity buildup is con­cerned.

8. Investiqations - In view of the changing topography and increasing

A. Water augmentation - The need of a major water augmentation program

for the Colorado River System is immediate. Institution of this important

program requires cooperative actions and representations between local,

state, interstate and federal agencies. The Council and the State Depart­ment

of Health will do all that it can to expedite the institution of such

water augmentation program to improve water qual ity in the Colorado and

Gila River Systems.

REG. f,- 2- 4.4 ADDITIONAL MEASURES TO ENHANCE WATER QUALITY

- 34-

intensity of multiple use of waters of the State, it is necessary that

periodic investigations be conducted in the river or on the watershed to

remain apprised of the most recent conditions which may degrade water

qual ity, and which may affect any particular beneficial use of the river

waters. The scope of such investigations will vary from cursory field

inspections to technical studies of water qual ity conditions. The in­vestigations

will be conducted under the direction of the Council by the

State Department of Health staff either alone or in cooperation with other

agencies. However, where specialty is required, the State Department of

Health will either request or contract the necessary services.

Special emphasis wil 1 be placed on finding practical means of reducing

the sal inity of agricultural drainage water, since this beneficial use

requires that large quantities of water be returned to the river in order

to maintain a salt balance.

C. Coordination with other agencies - The Council and the State Depart­ment

of Health, in the pursuance of their water qual ity control activittes

will at all times remain in advisement and consultation with the several

interested agencies, and will work cooperatively with these agencies to

produce the most effective water qual ity control program.

REG. 6- 2- 4.5 QUALITY REQUIREMENTS FOR SPECIFIED USES

Each beneficial water use requires certain indicators of water qual ity

as desirable or essential. Pertinent indicators are investigated for

adequate protection of each beneficial use. Hater qual ity objectives

are formulated in consideration of these indicators, and effects upon

the economy of the area which may result from various levels of control.

Where more than one level of an indicator is under consideration in the

protection of various beneficial uses, preferential selection is given

to that level which represents the superior water qual ity.

In the selection of standards for a particular water qual ity objective,

consideration must be given to the economic and social effects which may

result therefrom.

General water quality objectives are:

l. To provide the highest qual ity water practicable for all bene­f

ic ia I uses.

2. To protect the publ ic health.

3. To preclude pollution of the waters of the State.

The most important water qual ity indicators for protection of irrigated

agriculture are sal inity, sodium relationships, boron and bicarbonate

effects. These Indicators are as follows:

I. Sal inity - Excessive sal inity in the root zone causes adverse

effects upon plant life, ranging from leaf- burn to death of the plant.

Sal inity characteristics of water for agricultural appl ications are most

REG. 6- 2- 4.6 AGRICULTURE

- 35-

effectively indicated by measuring the:

a. Total Dissolved Solids ( TDS), in mg/ l.

b. Electrical Conductivity ( ECxI06), micromhos.

The records indicate some increase of sal inity in Colorado River

water released towards Arizona, as well as continuing increase in total

quantities of salts returned to the main stem from farm drainage on both

sides of the river along the Arizona reach.

The use of waters of the State for irrigation requires special manage­ment

for salinity control. Adequate drainage must be provided, and" crop

selection must be I imited to those crops which wifl tolerate the existing

salt content at the point of use.

TDS I imits for stockwatering are far more I iberal than are those for

irrigation. Therefore, sal inity control is oriented towards irrigation re­quirements.

2. Sgdium relationships - The predominance of sodium salts in soil

is detrimental to maintenance of proper tilth and structure for agricultural

purposes. High concentrations of sodium in agricul tural supply waters

( relative to calcium and magnesium) will cause cationic exchange whereby

sodium will replace calcium and magnesium in the so! L The water qual ity

indicator which expresses the level of sodium, relative to calcium and

magnesium, is called " percent sodium" and is expressed mathematically as

Na x 100

Na+ Ca+ Mg+ K

where the basic constituents are expressed as mill iequivalents per 1iter.

The sodium percentage of a water can change as water concentrates

by evaporation. For this reason, the " alkal i factor", or ratio of sodium

to chloride plus sulfate, in millequivalents per I iter, could be a more

definitive term for sodium hazard, and its use is gaining in popu~ arity.

An alkal i factor of 1.0 or greater represents a " black alkal i" condition

( an excess of bicarbonate over calcium plus magnesium), which is more damag~

ing than the " white alkal i" which is essentially sodium chloride and sodium

sulfate. An alkal i factor less than 0.70 would be satisfactory for irri­gation

use. A lower I imit of 0.40 to 0.50 would probably be suitable for

the benefit of non- agricultural users.

Percent sodium in Colorado River water ranges from approximately 28

at Lees Ferry to approximately 51 at Imperial Dam. The recommended safe

1imit of this characteristic for continuous appl ications is 50. The

alkal i factor increases from about 0.49 to 0.55 between Lees Ferry and

Imperial Dam. In view of the low soil permeabil ity of many Lower Basin

areas being irrigated with this water, every effort should be made to con­trol

sodium content in Colorado River waters, such that the present Jevel

of this indicator wilJ. not be fncreased at Imperial Dam. Sodium and alkal i

figures vary widely in. the Gila River Basin.

- 36-

3. BO~£ Q - The symptoms of boron injury, particularly in trees

which are less tolerant to this constituent, are leaf yellowing and burn­ing,

premature leaf drop, and reduced yield. Citrus trees are among the

crops most sensitive to boron. The critical concentration is accepted as

0.4 to 0.5 mg/ l in irrigation waters. Citrus is one of the main crops in

both the Yuma area of Arizona and the Coachella Valley of Cal ifornia.

Both of these areas draw water from Imper ia I Dam. Our in9 1964, the aver­age

boron content of Colorado River water at Imperial · Dam was 0.2 mg/ I and

the maximum content was 0.4 mg/ I.

To protect the extensive citrus industries cited, the qual ity of

Colorado River water at Imperial Dam, as represented by boron concentra­tions,

must be at least maintained, and this qual ity should be enhanced

if at all possible. Boron concentrations in the Gila varies widely and

this restricts its use for some crops.

4. Bicarbonate effects - Bicarbonate in irrigation water adds to

the sodium hazard by precipitating out the calcium and magnesium salts,

with the resultant proportional increase in sodium content. This effect

is usually expressed in terms of the " res idual sodium carbonatell ( RSC),

defined as

RSC 0 ( C03 + HC03) - ( Ca + Mg)

The RSC levels of Colorado River water in Arizona are as follows

( 1962 water year, the last data available before the fill ing of Lake Powell)

These ionic constituents are expressed as mill iequivalents per liter.

Waters containing 1.25 - 2.5 meq. per 1iter of RSC are of marginal quality

for irrigation purposes. Waters containing over 2.5 meq. per I iter of RSC

are not suitable for irrigation purposes.

Station

Lees Ferry

Hoover Dam

Imperial Dam

RSC Level

- 3.7 meq/ l

- 4.1 meq/ I

- 3.8 meq/ l

Similar negative RSC levels are found in Gila River water.

In view of the negative values, it appears that the bicarbonate

level of the waters of the State are well within the safe range for agri­cultural

purposes.

The State Department of Health is the unit of State Government with

primary responsibil ity for formulating and enforcing qual ity of water de-l

ivered for domestic purposes. This responsibil ity also includes con­sideration

of the qual ity of raw water being diverted for domestic use.

The USPHS Drinking Water Standards are appl ica, bl. e, but I iberal interpre­tation

must be used because of the high natural. sal inlty of Arizona waters.

REG. 6- 2- 4.7 RA\ t! DOMESTIC WATER

It Is recognized that USPHS Standards apply to treated drinking water

- 37-

suppl ies. However, since many: of the indicators cannot be removed by

conventional or reasonable treatment, the USPHS I imits for most of the

Indicators are applicable to raw domestic water supplies. Bacteriological,

physical, chemical and radioactivity indicators must be considered as

follows:

I. Bacteriological Quality - Publ ished records show that existing

coliform counts in certain reaches of the'Colorado River are appreciable~

Col iform counts at WPSS Stations in the Upper Colorado River Basin have

been consistently higher than those at Page, Arizona. The long stretches

of the river in remote, inaccessible areas