DOCSLIB.ORG

Floods of November 1965 to January 1966 in the Gila River Basin, Arizona and New Mexico, and Adjacent Basins in Arizona

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Floods of November 1965 to January 1966 in the Gila River Basin, Arizona and New Mexico, and Adjacent Basins in Arizona Floods of November 1965 to January 1966 in the Gila River Basin, Arizona and New Mexico, and Adjacent Basins in Arizona GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1850-C Floods of November 1965 tc January 1966 in the Gila River Basin, Arizona and New Merico, and Adjacent Basins in Arizona By B. N. ALDRIDGE FLOODS OF 1965 IN THE UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1850-C UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1970 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR WALTER J. HIGKEL, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY William T. Pecora, Director For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing O<"ice Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $2.50 (paper cover) CONTENTS Page Abstract._-_______--_______-____-_-_-__----__--___--_-_----___-_ Cl Introduction. __-__________________-___-_--------_---_-_-_--_--____ 2 Acknowledgments. ____________________________________________ 2 Geographic setting.___________________-_--__-_-___---_--_---____-__ 3 Storms and weather conditions.___________-_---_______-_-_____--____ 3 Storms of November 22-25, 1965________._..___.-___---_-______ 6 Storms of December 9-11 and December 14-15, 1965.______ _______ 7 Storm of December 22-23, 1965_____.______-__-_-______-_.____ 10 Storm of December 29-30, 1965.______._.______________ 10 Floods and runoff_---_____-___-_-_-_----_----_-_---__-------_-_--__ 11 Gila River basin above Coolidge Dam______----____-_-----_---_- 12 Gila River basin between Coolidge Dam and Salt River_____ ________ 14 Salt River basin and Gila River below Salt River. -____-______.-__ 17 Reservoir inflow________-______-_______--_________-_-_-_- 17 Regulated discharge at Stewart Mountain and Bartlett Dams... 18 Stages and discharges downstream from Granite Reef Dam during the Phoenix flood._____--______-_.._-__--____-____- 19 Effects of the Phoenix flood_____-_.__-___-__._____---_-- 22 Reduction in peak discharge by storage in reservoirs. ___.. _____ 25 Comparison with previous floods. _________________________ _. 25 Effects of the floods on ground-water levels.__________________________ 29 Streamflow data at gaging stations and miscellaneous measuring sites..__.. 31 Determination of flood discharges_________-___-___-___-_______,__ 31 Summary of flood stages and discharges.__----__---__---_-_______ 31 Explanation of station data_-__-_-__-_---__-----_-__---_-_------ 33 Station data._________________________________________________ 41 References cited.__________________________________________________ 171 Index... _._...___.... ... ..__.....___. ..........._._...._... 173 ILLUSTRATIONS [Plates in pocket] PLATE 1. Map showing area of report and sites where hydrologic data were collected, Gila River basin, Arizona and New Mexico. 2. Maps showing precipitation, November and December 1.965, in the Gila River basin, Arizona and New Mexico. 3. Hydrographs showing discharge at selected gaging stations, Santa Cruz and Gila River basins, Arizona and New Mexico. 4. Graphs showing discharge and stage at selected stations on the Salt, Verde, and Gila Rivers, Ariz. 5. Photographs and flood map of the Salt River in the Phoenix metro­ politan area, Arizona. 6. Maps and hydrographs showing daily mean discharge and rise in water levels at selected wells along Rillito and Tanque Verde Creeks and Salt and Gila Rivers, Ariz. in IV CONTENTS Page FIGURE 1. Map showing ma] or areas where large amounts cf runoff originated from storms of November and December 1965-_ C4 2. Profile of flood crest on Rillito Creek and the Santa Cruz River. _ 16 TABLES Page TABLE 1. Snowfall and snow on the ground, December 1965___________ C8 2. Snow-survey data, December 1965-_______________________ 10 3. Times when the Phoenix flood reached different points on the Salt and Gila Rivers__-_---__. ________-__..____ 21 4. Runoff of the Salt and Gila Rivers downstream from Granite Reef Dam____________-__-___________-__._____________ 22 5. Summary of damages from the Phoenix flood along the Salt and Gila Rivers_______________________________________ 24 6. Discharge data for major floods, Salt River and main tribu­ taries, 1888-1965._________________________ 26 7. Sources of data for major floods, Salt River and main tribu­ taries, 1888-1965_._____________________ 28 8. Representative rises in ground-water levels along major flood plains in the Gila River basin, spring 1965 to spring 1966_ 30 9. Summary of flood stages and discharges.___________________ 36 FLOODS OF 1965 IN THE UNITED STATES FLOODS OF NOVEMBER 1965 TO JANUARY 1966 IN THE GILA RI^ER BASIN, ARIZONA AND NEW MEXICO, AND ADJACENT BASINS IN ARIZONA By B. N. ALDREDGE ABSTRACT Above-normal precipitation, which fell over much of Arizona and New Mexico in November and December 1965 during five distinct storm periods, caused flood­ ing in several parts of the Gila River basin. The floods caused about $5 million in damages in the Gila River basin upstream from Salt River anc' about $6 million in damages along the Salt River and Gila River below Salt River. The most significant flood was the Phoenix flood, which resulted from the release of water from storage reservoirs on the Salt and Verde Rivers. A large volume of fall and winter runoff added to a large carryover storage from the preceding spring raised the contents of the reservoirs to an unusually high level for De­ cember. The regulated discharge in the Salt River below Granite Ree* Dam was the highest since the reservoir system was completed-in 1939; however, several larger floods had occurred in earlier years. The maximum discharge of the Salt River through the downtown £ rea during the Phoenix flood was 66,000 cfs (cubic feet per second) on December 31, 1965. Without the storage provided by the upstream reservoirs, the peal- discharge during the flood would have been more than 80,000 cfs, and the peak discharge on December 23 might have exceeded 120,000 cfs. If the reservoirs were not present, a peak discharge of 66,000 cfs, equal to that of December 31, would occur on an average of about once every 6 years. The peak discharge during the Phoenix flood was reduced only sl'ghtly as it traveled from Granite Reef Dam on the Salt River to Gillespie Dam on the Gila River; however, the volume of flow was reduced considerably in the same reach. More than 500,000 acre-feet of water passed over Granite Reef Dam, but only 37,000 acre-feet of water reached the mouth of the Gila River. Rises in ground- water levels in the flood plains indicate that a large amount of the streamflow loss went to ground-water recharge. Cl C2 FLOODS OF 196i5 IN THE UNITED STATES INTRODUCTION Five major storms moved into Arizona and western New Mexico from the Pacific Ocean in November and December 1965. From the last week in November until the end of December, stcrms were a weekly occurrence, and rain or snow fell on about four out of every 10 days. The major storms occurred November 22-25, December 9-11, December 14 15, December 22-23, and December 29-30, Only the last two storms caused appreciable flooding, although the earlier storms did cause extremely high flows in some areas. The earlier storms set the stage for the floods later in December by thoroughly soaking the soil at low altitudes and by depositing snow in the mountains. The most significant flood with respect to property damage began December 31, when water was released from storage reservoirs into the normally dry channel of the Salt River below Granite Ree f Dam; the reservoirs were full because of the unusually heavy autumn and winter runoff and the above-normal carryover storage from the 1965 irriga­ tion season. The flood, which is called the Phoenix flood, caused severe damage along the Salt River below Granite Reef Dam and along the Gila River below Salt River. Flood runoff continued until May 1966 in the lower reaches of the Gila River. Severe flooding also occurred in the Gila River basin upstream from the Salt River following the storm of December 22-23 and in the Gila River basin upstream from Coolidge Dam following the storm of December 29-30. The purpose of the report is to summarize the conditions preceding the floods, to give a factual account of the floods, to describe the floods in proper perspective to past floods, and to show the effects of the reservoirs on the floods in the Salt and Verde Rivers. Although the report deals primarily with the Phoenix flood, it contains data for the other floods (fig. 1). ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to acknowledge the assistance given by L. C. Goldsmith, hydrology analyst, Salt River Valley Water Users'- Asso­ ciation; Paul Kangeiser, State climatologist, U.S. Weathe*' Bureau; R. W. Enz, snow-survey supervisor, U.S. Soil Conservation Service; Ralph Edde, supervisor of county mapping, Photogrammetry and Mapping Division, Arizona Highway Department; and the Los An­ geles district, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, who supplied hydrologic data concerning the area. GILA RIVER BASIN, ARIZONA AND NEW MEXICO C3 GEOGRAPHIC SETTING The Mogollon Rim extends across the eastern half of Arizona and divides the north-flowing tributaries of the Little Colorado River from the south-flowing tributaries of the Verde, Salt, and Gila Rivers (pi. 1). The Mogollon Rim rises sharply above the surrounding area and is generally at altitudes between 6,500 and 7,500 feet. TYQ, White Mountains in Arizona and the Gallo and Mangas Mountain? in New Mexico form the eastern end of the divide between the Gila and Little Colorado Rivers. The floods of November 1965 to January 1966 originated along this divide, in the rugged mountainous area south of the divide, and in a few small areas in southern Arizona (fig.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Arizona TIM PALMER FLICKR
    Arizona TIM PALMER FLICKR Colorado River at Mile 50. Cover: Salt River. Letter from the President ivers are the great treasury of noted scientists and other experts reviewed the survey design, and biological diversity in the western state-specific experts reviewed the results for each state. RUnited States. As evidence mounts The result is a state-by-state list of more than 250 of the West’s that climate is changing even faster than we outstanding streams, some protected, some still vulnerable. The feared, it becomes essential that we create Great Rivers of the West is a new type of inventory to serve the sanctuaries on our best, most natural rivers modern needs of river conservation—a list that Western Rivers that will harbor viable populations of at-risk Conservancy can use to strategically inform its work. species—not only charismatic species like salmon, but a broad range of aquatic and This is one of 11 state chapters in the report. Also available are a terrestrial species. summary of the entire report, as well as the full report text. That is what we do at Western Rivers Conservancy. We buy land With the right tools in hand, Western Rivers Conservancy is to create sanctuaries along the most outstanding rivers in the West seizing once-in-a-lifetime opportunities to acquire and protect – places where fish, wildlife and people can flourish. precious streamside lands on some of America’s finest rivers. With a talented team in place, combining more than 150 years This is a time when investment in conservation can yield huge of land acquisition experience and offices in Oregon, Colorado, dividends for the future.
    [Show full text]
  • The Gila and Little Colorado General Stream Adjudications
    THE GILA AND LITTLE COLORADO GENERAL STREAM ADJUDICATIONS Cynthia M. Chandley 1 ©© 2014 2014 Snell Snell & & Wilmer Wilmer Arizona’s Watersheds 2 © 2014 Snell & Wilmer Scope of Adjudications Gila Adjudication Little Colorado River Adjudication 30,000 5,000 SOCs SOCs Claimants 85,000 14,000 Claimants 3 © 2014 Snell & Wilmer Initiation of Arizona’s Adjudications SRP initiates U.S. Supreme Court Phelps Dodge Verde River Buckeye Irrigation decides jurisdiction in on- initiates Little Adjudication District intervenes going state adjudications. Colorado River Ariz. v. San Carlos Adjudication Apache Tribe (U.S. 1983) 1974 1976 1978 1979 1980 1981 1983 1985 Arizona Supreme SRP initiates Phelps Dodge initiates Court consolidates Salt River Gila River Adjudication Arizona Arizona Supreme Court Gila River cases Adjudication Adjudication statues decides state jurisdiction ASARCO initiates San revised over federal and Indian Pedro River Adjudication water rights. U.S. v. Superior Court (Ariz. 1985) 4 © 2014 Snell & Wilmer Maricopa County Court Proceedings • 1986 – Judge Goodfarb issues Pretrial Order No. 1 • 1990 – Arizona Supreme Court grants interlocutory review of six key issues 5 © 2014 Snell & Wilmer Arizona Supreme Court Rulings • Issue 1: Service of process – Gila I (1992) • Issue 2: Subflow – Gila II (1993) & Gila IV (2000) • Issue 3: Indian reserved water rights – Gila V (2001) • Issues 4 & 5: Federal reserved groundwater rights – Gila III (1999) • Issue 6: To be decided. 6 © 2014 Snell & Wilmer Major Adjudication Issues Subflow Trial No. 1; Adjudication Gila III and San Subflow Order Carlos Apache Court defines ADWR Subflow defines saturated Tribe, et al. v. ADWR Subflow 50%/90-day test Technical Report floodplain Holocene Superior Court Delineation ADWR Revised alluvium and evidentiary Report Subflow Report hearing 1986 1988 1993 1994 1995 1999 2000 2002 2005 2009 2012 2014 2014 2012 20142014 Pretrial Order Gila IV – affirms Gila II: rejects Subflow Subflow trial No.
    [Show full text]
  • The Church Rock Uranium Mill Tailings Spill a Health and Environmental Assessment
    THE CHURCH ROCK URANIUM MILL TAILINGS SPILL A HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT Jere Millard Bruce Gallaher David Baggett Steven Gary September 1983 New Mexico Environmental Improvement Division Health and Environment Department P.O. Box 968 Santa TQ, New Mexico 87504-0968 000791 Front and Rear Cover Photographs Provided Courtesy of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory. Las Vegas, Nevada. 000792 THE CHURCH ROCK URANIUM MILL TAILINGS SPILL: A HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Executive Summary The largest single release of liquid radioactive waste in the Uruted States occurred at the United Nuclear Corporation^ uranium mill near Church Rock, New Mexico, in July 1979. This document reports the results of environmental monitoring conducted by the New Mexico Envi- ronmental Improvement Division (EID) subsequent to the mill tailings spill* Interpretation of data leads to the general conclusion that although the spill was potentially hazardous. Its short-term and long- term impacts on people and the environment were quite limited. How- ever/ the data suggest that dewatering effluents (water from under- ground uranium mines) continually pumped into the Puerco River may represent a greater long-term hazard than the spill. Recommendations are made regarding continued environmental monitoring and resumption of normal land and water use along the Puerco River. EID is also spillissuin ang dtwo its technicaimpacts.l reports to provide more detailed information on the The spill occurred early on the morning of July 16 when the retention dam for a tailings pond failed. Most of the 1100 tons of solid material released was caught by a small emergency catchment dam.
    [Show full text]
  • GR-03-13 Revised Title 5, Criminal Code
    GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY SACATON, AZ 85147 ORDINANCE GR-03-13 THE GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY COUNCIL HEREBY AMENDS THE 2009 GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY CODE BY RESCINDING TITLE 5, CRIMINAL CODE, AND ENACTING THE REVISED CRIMINAL CODE WHEREAS, the Gila River Indian Community Council (the "Community Council") is the governing body of the Gila River Indian Community (the "Community), a federally recognized and sovereign Indian tribe; and WHEREAS, the Community Council is authorized by Article XV, Section l(a)(9) of the Constitution and Bylaws of the Community (March 17, 1960) (the "Constitution") to promote and protect the health, peace, morals, education, and general welfare of the Community and its members; and WHEREAS, the Community Council is authorized by Article XV, Section 1(a)(17) of the Constitution to provide for the maintenance of law and order and the administration of justice by establishing a Community Court and police force and defining the powers and duties thereof; and WHEREAS, the Community Council is authorized by Article XV, Section 1(a)(19) of the Constitution to pass ordinances necessary or incidental to the exercise of any of their powers authorized by Article XV, Section 1(a) of the Constitution; and WHEREAS, the power to enact laws and ordinances is an inherent function of self-government which the Community has exercised over the years; and WHEREAS, the safety of the Community, the ability to prosecute criminal behavior, and the ability to order longer or enhanced sentences as appropriate to the offense and
    [Show full text]
  • The Trail Inventory of U.S
    The Trail Inventory of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Stations in Arizona Prepared By: Federal Highway Administration Central Federal Lands Highway Division March 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1. AZ STATE SUMMARY Table of Contents 1-1 List of Refuges 1-2 Mileage by Trail Class, Condition, and Surface 1-3 2-9. REFUGE SUMMARIES Mileage by Trail Class, Condition, and Surface X-1 Trail Location Map X-2 Trail Identification X-3 Condition and Deficiency Sheets X-4 Photographic Sheets X-5 10. APPENDIX Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations 10-1 Trail Classification System 10-4 1-1 FWS Stations in Arizona with Trails Station Name Trail Miles Chapter Bill Williams River NWR 0.27 2 Buenos Aires NWR 6.62 3 Cabeza Prieta NWR 0.16 4 Cibola NWR 0.91 5 Havasu NWR 0.22 6 Imperial NWR 1.31 7 Leslie Canyon NWR 1.47 8 San Bernardino NWR 2.39 9 1-2 Arizona NWR Trail and Summaries Trail Miles and Percentages by Surface Type and Condition Mileage by Trail Condition Total Trail Surface Excellent Good Fair Poor Very Poor Not Rated* Miles Type MILES % MILES % MILES % MILES % MILES % MILES % Native 7.91 59% 0.20 2% 0.32 2% 0% 0% 0% 8.43 Gravel 0.96 7% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.96 Asphalt 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.00 Concrete 0.27 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.27 Turnpike 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.00 Boardwalk 0.26 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.26 Puncheon 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.00 Woodchips 0.05 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.05 Admin Road 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.36 25% 3.36 Other 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.00 Totals 9.45 71% 0.20 2% 0.32 2% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 3.36 25% 13.33 Trail Miles and Percentages by Trail Classification and Condition Mileage by Trail Condition Total Trail Excellent Good Fair Poor Very Poor Not Rated* Miles Classification MILES % MILES % MILES % MILES % MILES % MILES % TC1 2.60 20% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2.60 TC2 1.88 14% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1.88 TC3 1.04 8% 0% 0.32 2% 0% 0% 0.97 7% 2.33 TC4 3.61 27% 0.20 2% 0% 0% 0% 2.39 18% 6.20 TC5 0.32 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.32 Totals 9.45 71% 0.20 2% 0.32 2% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 3.36 25% 13.33 * Admin Roads are included in the inventory but are not rated for condition.
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Assessment After Uranium Mill Tailings Spill, Church Rock, New Mexico
    FOR ADMINISTRATIVE USE LIMITED DISTRIBUTION PUBLIC HEALTH SERVlCE-CDC-Atlanta KOT TOR PUBLICATION EPI-79-94-2 December 24, 1980 TO Director, Centers for Disease Control FROM Chronic Diseases Division Bureau of Epidemiology : • i I'J' ! •t;?| SUBJECT: Biological Assessment After Uranium Mill Tailings Spill, Church Rock, New Mexico SUMMARY On July 16, 1979, a tailings pond dam broke near Church Rock, New Mexico, spilling liquid and solid wastes contami- nated with radioactive uranium, thorium, radium, lead, and polonium- Subsequent evaluation of 6 Navajos potentially exposed to the materials spilled in the Rio Puerco River showed them to have no detectable increase in radioactivity by whole-body counting and no increase in urinary radio- nuclides* Since food-chain analysis is a more sensitive indicator of possible radiation dose, 8 local and 3 control animals were aufcopsied to determine radionuclide concentrations in edible tissues. Calculations indicate that human doses which would result from consumption of such animals would be higher from local than from control animals; however, the data also suggest chat exposure from chronic ingest ion of uranium mine dewatering effluent may be responsible for the elevated radionuclide concentrations found in tissue of local animals. Even though no state or federal regulations were violated, radionuclide concentrations found in animals and calculated human ingestion doses fell in a range Chat justifies both further surveillance of radionuclides in animals and the natural environment and further efforts to reduce the amount of radiation Co which humans and animals are exposed, Navajos in the area have been advised that. theiT exposure Co radionuclides may be reduced by not eat^ - ing kidney and liver from local animals.
    [Show full text]
  • USGS Open-File Report 2009-1269, Appendix 1
    Appendix 1. Summary of location, basin, and hydrological-regime characteristics for U.S. Geological Survey streamflow-gaging stations in Arizona and parts of adjacent states that were used to calibrate hydrological-regime models [Hydrologic provinces: 1, Plateau Uplands; 2, Central Highlands; 3, Basin and Range Lowlands; e, value not present in database and was estimated for the purpose of model development] Average percent of Latitude, Longitude, Site Complete Number of Percent of year with Hydrologic decimal decimal Hydrologic altitude, Drainage area, years of perennial years no flow, Identifier Name unit code degrees degrees province feet square miles record years perennial 1950-2005 09379050 LUKACHUKAI CREEK NEAR 14080204 36.47750 109.35010 1 5,750 160e 5 1 20% 2% LUKACHUKAI, AZ 09379180 LAGUNA CREEK AT DENNEHOTSO, 14080204 36.85389 109.84595 1 4,985 414.0 9 0 0% 39% AZ 09379200 CHINLE CREEK NEAR MEXICAN 14080204 36.94389 109.71067 1 4,720 3,650.0 41 0 0% 15% WATER, AZ 09382000 PARIA RIVER AT LEES FERRY, AZ 14070007 36.87221 111.59461 1 3,124 1,410.0 56 56 100% 0% 09383200 LEE VALLEY CR AB LEE VALLEY RES 15020001 33.94172 109.50204 1 9,440e 1.3 6 6 100% 0% NR GREER, AZ. 09383220 LEE VALLEY CREEK TRIBUTARY 15020001 33.93894 109.50204 1 9,440e 0.5 6 0 0% 49% NEAR GREER, ARIZ. 09383250 LEE VALLEY CR BL LEE VALLEY RES 15020001 33.94172 109.49787 1 9,400e 1.9 6 6 100% 0% NR GREER, AZ. 09383400 LITTLE COLORADO RIVER AT GREER, 15020001 34.01671 109.45731 1 8,283 29.1 22 22 100% 0% ARIZ.
    [Show full text]
  • Roundtail Chub Repatriated to the Blue River
    Volume 1 | Issue 2 | Summer 2015 Roundtail Chub Repatriated to the Blue River Inside this issue: With a fish exclusion barrier in place and a marked decline of catfish, the time was #TRENDINGNOW ................. 2 right for stocking Roundtail Chub into a remote eastern Arizona stream. New Initiative Launched for Southwest Native Trout.......... 2 On April 30, 2015, the Reclamation, and Marsh and Blue River. A total of 222 AZ 6-Species Conservation Department stocked 876 Associates LLC embarked on a Roundtail Chub were Agreement Renewal .............. 2 juvenile Roundtail Chub from mission to find, collect and stocked into the Blue River. IN THE FIELD ........................ 3 ARCC into the Blue River near bring into captivity some During annual monitoring, Recent and Upcoming AZGFD- the Juan Miller Crossing. Roundtail Chub for captive led Activities ........................... 3 five months later, Additional augmentation propagation from the nearest- Department staff captured Spikedace Stocked into Spring stockings to enhance the genetic neighbor population in Eagle Creek ..................................... 3 42 of the stocked chub, representation of the Blue River Creek. The Aquatic Research some of which had travelled BACK AT THE PONDS .......... 4 Roundtail Chub will be and Conservation Center as far as seven miles Native Fish Identification performed later this year. (ARCC) held and raised the upstream from the stocking Workshop at ARCC................ 4 offspring of those chub for Stockings will continue for the location. future stocking into the Blue next several years until that River. population is established in the Department biologists conducted annual Blue River and genetically In 2012, the partners delivered monitoring in subsequent mimics the wild source captive-raised juvenile years, capturing three chub population.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Flows and Water Demands in Arizona
    Environmental Flows and Water A University of Arizona Water Resources Research Center Project Demands in Arizona ater is an increasingly scarce resource and is essential for Arizona’s future. Figure 1. Elements of Environmental Flow WWith Arizona’s population growth and Occurring in Seasonal Hydrographs continued drought, citizens and water managers have been taking a closer look at water supplies in the state. Municipal, industrial, and agricul- tural water users are well-represented demand sectors, but water supplies and management to benefit the environment are not often consid- ered. This bulletin explains environmental water demands in Arizona and introduces information essential for considering environmental water demands in water management discussions. Considering water for the environment is impor- tant because humans have an interconnected and interdependent relationship with the envi- ronment. Nature provides us recreation oppor- tunities, economic benefits, and water supplies Data Source: to sustain our communities. USGS stream gage data Figure 2: Human Demand and Current Flow in Arizona Environmental water demands (or environmental flow) (circle size indicates relative amount of water) refers to how much water is needed in a watercourse to sustain a healthy ecosystem. Defining environmental water demand goes beyond the ecology and hydrol- Maximum ogy of a system and should include consideration for Flows how much water is required to achieve an agreed Industrial 40.8 maf Industrial SW Municipal upon level of river health, as determined by the GW 1% GW 8% water-using community. Arizona’s native ani- 4% mals and plants depend upon dynamic flows commonly described according to the natural Municipal SW flow regime.
    [Show full text]
  • The Salt River – by Elly – Summer 2016
    The Salt River – by Elly – Summer 2016 After living in Arizona for many years, I only recently discovered the pleasure of kayaking and tubing. So far, I have been on the river below Saguaro Lake, on Saguaro Lake, and on Canyon Lake; the other two lakes created in the Salt River, Apache and Roosevelt Lakes, (hopefully) remain to be explored. The Rio Salado, or Salt River, was dammed between the early 1900s and 1930s to provide water and electricity to the Phoenix area, and later served recreational needs. The first dam to be constructed was Roosevelt so my description goes from the `younger’ to the `older’ lakes. Some of my information on the river comes from here. The Four Lakes of the Salt River, from left to right: Saguaro, Canyon, Apache, and Roosevelt The Salt River flows into the Gila River to the West of Phoenix and the Gila contributes to the Colorado, near Yuma, in the Southwest of Arizona. This river is supposed to end in the Gulf of California but rarely has enough water (see here). The ecological impact of dams has been huge. Edward Abbey and others are famous for having suggested Monkey Wrenches to sabotage the plans for the dams in the West. There is always talk of restoring the natural flow in the river; see here. Apart from the ecological impact on bird populations, salinization, and silting, the politics behind dams is ugly. The 1972 Damming the West details the lobbying of the Bureau of Reclamation to keep new projects going even though there was no (agricultural) need for them.
    [Show full text]
  • ARIZONA WATER ATLAS Volume 1 Executive Summary ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
    Arizona Department of Water Resources September 2010 ARIZONA WATER ATLAS Volume 1 Executive Summary ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Director, Arizona Department of Water Resources Herbert Guenther Deputy Director, Arizona Department of Water Resources Karen Smith Assistant Director, Hydrology Frank Corkhill Assistant Director, Water Management Sandra Fabritz-Whitney Atlas Team (Current and Former ADWR staff) Linda Stitzer, Rich Burtell – Project Managers Kelly Mott Lacroix - Asst. Project Manager Phyllis Andrews Carol Birks Joe Stuart Major Contributors (Current and Former ADWR staff) Tom Carr John Fortune Leslie Graser William H. Remick Saeid Tadayon-USGS Other Contributors (Current and Former ADWR staff) Matt Beversdorf Patrick Brand Roberto Chavez Jenna Gillis Laura Grignano (Volume 8) Sharon Morris Pam Nagel (Volume 8) Mark Preszler Kenneth Seasholes (Volume 8) Jeff Tannler (Volume 8) Larri Tearman Dianne Yunker Climate Gregg Garfin - CLIMAS, University of Arizona Ben Crawford - CLIMAS, University of Arizona Casey Thornbrugh - CLIMAS, University of Arizona Michael Crimmins – Department of Soil, Water and Environmental Science, University of Arizona The Atlas is wide in scope and it is not possible to mention all those who helped at some time in its production, both inside and outside the Department. Our sincere thanks to those who willingly provided data and information, editorial review, production support and other help during this multi-year project. Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 CONTENTS SECTION 1.0 Atlas Purpose and Scope 1 SECTION 1.1 Atlas
    [Show full text]
  • Historical Geomorphology .. and Hydrology of the Santa Cruz River
    Historical Geomorphology .. and Hydrology of the Santa Cruz River Michelle Lee Wood, P. Kyle House, and Philip A. Pearthree Arizona Geological Survey Open-File Report 99-13 July 1999 Text 98 p., 1 sheet, scale 1: 100,000 Investigations supported by the Arizona State Land Department as part of their efforts to gather technical information for a stream navigability assessment This report is preliminary and has not been edited or reviewed for conformity with Arizona Geological Survey standards. EXTENDED ABSTRACT This report provides baseline information on the physical characteristics of the Santa Cruz River to be used by the Arizona Stream Navigability Commission in its determination of the potential navigability of the Santa Cruz River at the time of Statehood. The primary goals of this report are: (1) to give a descriptive overview of the geography, geology, climatology, vegetation and hydrology that define the character of the Santa Cruz River; and, (2) to describe how the character of the Santa Cruz River has changed since the time of Statehood with special focus on the streamflow conditions and geomorphic changes such as channel change and movement. This report is based on a review of the available literature and analyses of historical survey maps, aerial photographs, and U.S. Geological Survey streamgage records. The Santa Cruz River has its source at the southern base of the Canelo Hills in the Mexican Highlands portion of the Basin and Range province. The river flows south through the San Rafael Valley before crossing the international border into Mexico. It describes a loop of about 30 miles before it re-enters the United States six miles east of Nogales, and continues northward past Tucson to its confluence with the Gila River a few miles above the mouth of the Salt River.
    [Show full text]