William Martin Little a Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the In

An engineering and economic feasibility study for diversion of Central Arizona Project waters from alternate sites.

Item Type Thesis-Reproduction (electronic); text

Authors Little, William Martin,1944-

Publisher The University of Arizona.

Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.

Download date 26/09/2021 17:22:05

Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/191503 AN ENGINEERING AND ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR DIVERSION

OF CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT WATERS FROM ALTERNATE SITES

by William Martin Little

A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the

COMMITTEE ON HYDROLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE In the Graduate College

THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 1968 STATEMENT BY AUTHOR

This thesis has been submitted In partial fulfillment of requirements for an advanced degree at The University of Arizona and is deposited in the Univeristy Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library. Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or In part may be granted by the head of the major department or the Dean of the Graduate College when in his judg- ment the proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholarship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author.

SIGNED: -c27ttt

APPROVAL BY THESIS DIRECTOR This thesis has been approved on the date shown below:

D. D. LEWIS cturer in Civil Engineering TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES v

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS vi

ABSTRACT vii

INTRODUCTION 1

PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS 4

AQUEDUCT ROUTE DESCRIPTION 6

Hualapai Aqueduct 7 Mohave Aqueduct 8 Navajo Aqueduct 9 Powell Aqueduct 9 Granite Reef Aqueduct 9

POWER GENERATION FACILITIES 14

Verde River Complex I 14 Verde River Complex II 15 West Clear Creek Complex 15 Internal Power Drops 16

GENERAL AND ENGINEERING GEOLOGY 22

COST ANALYSIS 27

JUSTIFICATION OF POWER FEATURES 33

RESULTS OF COST ANALYSIS 47

NON-QUANTIFIABLE BENEFITS AND COSTS 49

Benefits 49 Costs 52 iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS--Continued

Page

NON-TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS 54

Other Colorado River Water Users 54 Preservationjst Opposition 55 Advantages to Arizona 56

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS 58

APPENDICES 60

APPENDIX A: CAPITAL COSTS 61

APPENDIX B: ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS 62

APPENDIX C: CONVEYANCE LOSSES 63

Criteria 63 Computation 64

APPENDIXD: POWER 65

Computation 65

REFERENCES 67 LIST OF TABLES

Page

AQUEDUCT DATA 11

VERDE RIVER COMPLEX I DESIGN 18

VERDE RIVER COMPLEX II DESIGN 19

WEST CLEAR CREEK COMPLEX DESIGN 20

GEOLOGIC SECTION--NAVAJO AND POWELL AQUEDUCTS GEOLOGIC SECTION--MOHAVE AND HUALAPAI AQUEDUCTS 25

GEOLOGIC SECTION--VERDE RIVER COMPLEX I GEOLOGIC SECTION--VERDE RIVER COMPLEX II GEOLOGIC SECTION--WEST CLEAR CREEK COMPLEX 26

CAPITAL COST CRITERIA 31

ANNUAL COST CRITERIA 32

BREAK EVEN POWER RATE 35

AQUEDUCT COSTS, INCLUDING PUMPING PLANTS 36

POWER GENERATION COMPLEX DATA. 37

INTERNALPOWERDROPDATA 38

DATA FORALTERNATE ROUTES 39

ANNUAL POWER CASH FLOW--COMPLETE ROUTES 41

ANNUAL POWER CASH FLOW--BARE BONES" ROUTES 42

LOW INTEREST ANNUAL CASH FLOW--COMPLETE ROUTES . . 43

LOW INTEREST ANNUAL CASH FLOW--BARE BONES" ROUTES. 44

HIGHER INTEREST ANNUAL CASH FLOW--COM PLETE ROUTES. . . 45

HIGHER INTEREST ANNUAL CASH FLOW--BARE BONES" ROUTES 46

V LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure Page

General Location Map 2

Profile--Mohave and Hualapai Aqueducts 12

Profile--Navajo and Powell Aqueducts 13

Profile--Verde River and West Clear Creek 21 Mohave and Hualapai Aqueducts Route Map In pocket Navajo and Powell Aqueducts Route Map West Clear Creek Power Complex In pocket Verde River Power Complexes I and II Chino Creek Canal In pocket

vi ABSTRACT

Alternate surface diversion routes for the Central Arizona Project aqueduct are presented, extending from 1) Lake Powell, 2) the proposed Marble Canyon Reservoir, 3) the proposed Hualapai (Bridge Canyon) Reservoir, and 4) Lake Mead to a common terminus at Granite Reef Dam on the Salt River.The routes are compared with each other and with the proposed Granite Reef Aqueduct. Estimated capital costs, operation and maintenance charges, and power costs/revenues are analyzed in yearly cash flows. A most economical route Is chosen by the criterion of least annual cost.Non-quantifiable benefits and costs are examined when they tend to alter the choice of a most feasible route. Under all of the assumptions considered, the most economically attractive route appears to be the proposed Granite Reef Aqueduct, with the most economical alternative being the Hualapai route.Certain non- quantifiable benefits accrue to the latter which tend to close the cost gap.

vii CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

One of the major features of the Central Arizona Project is an aqueduct system to bring the water from the diversion point on the main stem of the Colorado River to a delivery point in central Arizona.Before finalizing selection of any one system, it would be well to consider several possible ones. For the purposes of this study, it is assumed that the diversion point may be selected from any of five existing or proposed reservoirs on the main stem of the Colorado River:Lake Powell, Marble Canyon, Hualapal (Bridge Canyon), Lake Mead or Lake Havasu; and that the delivery point be Granite Reef Dam on the Salt River.(See general location map Figure 1.) The Navajo and Powell aqueducts would begin on the proposed Marble Canyon Reservoir or Lake Powell, respectively, and deliver water to the head of drainage on West Clear Creek, a tributary of the Verde River.The Hualapai and Mohave aqueducts would pump from the proposed Hualapai Reservoir or Lake Mead, respectively, and deliver water to the Verde River at a site near Paulden, Arizona. The Granite Reef Aqueduct (as proposed by the Bureau of Reclamation in the Pacific

1 'Lake Powell Lake Mead MarbleNavajo Canyon Aqueduct - Dam Site PointedPower Desert Drops MohaveAqued t DarnHu:atapai Site. HuaIapai Aqueduct iño Creek Powell Aqueduct ColOrado River Chffio Creek Canal Power D:rop ComplexVerde RiverI est Clear Lake Havasu Grarute Reef VerdeComplex River 11Creek Complex Aqueduct P hOenix -' Gronite Reef Dam Salt River FIGURE I GENERAL LOCATION MAP N 3

Southwest Water Plan (Bureau of Reclamation, 1964) would pump from Lake Havasu and deliver water directly into Granite Reef Dam. In order to compare the several routes, the major design features for the Powell, Navajo, Hualapai and Mohave routes are presented, including their accompanying power generation facilities.These designs will then be compared among themselves and with the Granite Reef Aqueduct.In whatever degree possible, these comparisons will be made in terms of dollar values of capital cost and operating costs/revenue s. It is not within the scope of the thesis to perform a complete feasibility study of a non-federally financed project, which Is a complex problem dealing with sources of revenue, credit and a host of other diffi- culties.However, wherever it seems appropriate, some mention is made of possible advantages or disadvantages accruing to an Arizona-financed Central Arizona Project. CHAPTER 2

PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS

The major document dealing with importation of Colorado River water into central Arizona is the 1947 U. S. Bureau of Reclamation project planning report on the Central Arizona Project.However, the proposal to divert Colorado River water into this water-short area was first made as early as 1920.The assumption that this impertation would one day be feasible and desirable underlies much of the State's resource planning (Bureau of Reclamation, 1947). Most early proposals considered a diversion point somewhere in the northern part of the state.The Arizona Highline Reclamation Associ- ation proposed diversion from a point near Bridge Canyon damsite and conveyance by "a gravity system several hundred miles in length, termi- nating at Granite Reef Dam on the Salt River" (Bureau of Reclamation, 1947). Many such organizations were formed to promote various diversion schemes: tunnel, or a combination of tunnel and gravity canal routes from Glen Canyon, Marble Canyon or Bridge Canyon sites (Bureau of Reclamation, 1947). In the early 1940's, the Bureau of Reclamation undertook studies to select a diversion route and rapidly narrowed their studies to three possibilities:1) the Marble Canyon route, which includes a tunnel from the proposed Marble Canyon Reservoir to a point on the Verde River just

4 5 below Camp Verde, thence by the natural channel of theVerde River to Granite Reef Dam, 2) the Bridge Canyon route, comprising atunnel from the proposed Bridge Canyon Reservoir to a point on BigSandy Wash, thence by gravity canal to Granite Reef Dam, and3) the Parker route, consisting of a series of pump lifts and a gravitycanal from Lake Havasu to Granite Reef Dam. The details of thesedesigns are presented in "Comparison of Diversion Routes - Central ArizonaProject' (Bureau of

Reclamation, 1945).By the time of publication of the CentralArizona Project report (Bureau of Reclamation,1947), the Parker route had been selected as the most desirable. The Parker route (Granite ReefAqueduct) has been retained in all subsequent Bureau of Reclamation studies,the most recent of which is the Pacific Southwest Water Plan(Bureau of Reclamation, 1964). At the present time the Ralph M. ParsonsCompany, of Los Angeles, California, has been retained by theState of Arizona to review the feasibility of various diversion routes aspart of a state-wide water

plan.This report is not, however, available tothe public at this time. CHAPTER 3

AQUEDUCT ROUTE DESCRIPTION

The basic design parameters for the major aqueducts are taken from Bureau of Reclamation designs (Bureau of Reclamation, 1947), and assume a diversion of 1800 cubic feet per second (cfs). A full scale design study would probably optimize canal cross section, slope, and therefore pumping lift at other than the quoted values; but these uniform criteria here will facilitate comparison among the routes. The canal sections will be concrete lined throughout, with the following hydraulic properties:

A V Q r n S

569 3.16 1800 8.40 0.014 0.00005

Where A = cross sectional area in square feet, V = velocity in feet per second, Qcapacity in cubic feet per second, r = hydraulic radius in feet, n = hydraulic roughness, and S = slope. Tunnels will be lined 18 feet in diameter, will have a slope of 0.0001, and will operate with a free water surface. Siphons will be single barreled reinforced concrete structures, 18 feet in diameter, with a fall of 5 feet permile.

6 7 The China Creek Canal, due to its steep slope, hasa restricted section and higher velocity.Its hydraulic properties are as follows:

A V Q r n S

278 6.47 1800 6.40 0.014 0.0032

Where the variables are as noted above. Several possible sites for re-regulating reservoirs are marked on the route maps. All routes share a common terminal re-regulating reservoir, the proposed Maxwell Reservoir above Granite Reef Dam.

Hualapai Aqueduct The Hualapai aqueduct extends 50 milesfrom the proposed Hualapal Reservoir southeastward to the China Creek Power Drop (200 feet head) at the head of Chino Valley.The major lift(3136feet) is located on Robber's Roost Canyon, approximately16river miles upstream from Hualapai damsite on the Colorado River. A second, smaller lift (402 feet) and a 5.5 mile tunnel complete the major features. From this tunnel onward, the Mohave and Hualapai aqueducts follow a common route. From the China Creek Power Drop, waters from either the Mohave or Hualapal aqueducts pass through the China Creek canal, which extends 46 miles down the length of Chino Valley to the vicinity of Sullivan Lake on the Verde River. 8 The Chino Valley is a broad alluvial valley, in a semi-arid climatic zone. Were the water merely released into the natural channel or impounded in reservoirs, large losses would occur from seepage into the unsaturated alluvium and evapotranspiration. Chino Creek is subject to occasional floods. Under a regime of heavy clear-water flows from canal discharge and occasional sediment laden flood flows, the natural channel could not be stabilized; and extensive erosion would result (Maddock, unpublished).Since the prime function of the project is to deliver water, it was decided to use a canal with steep slope (17 feet/ mile) and restricted section to pass the water through the valley with minimum losses. The 900 feet of fall through the valley are thus not reclaimed for power.

Mohave Aqueduct The Mohave aqueduct extends 166 miles from Bonelli Bay on Lake Mead to the Chino Creek Power Drop. From the initial lift of 430 feet, it runs south 45 miles, up Detrital Valley (lift 1414 feet), crosses the Cerbat Mountains through a 12. 5 mile tunnel, then runs east and south 106 miles to its terminus.The water is lifted to its highest elevation of 5400 feet just west of Aubrey Valley by a series of lifts of 2400 feet and canals roughly paralleling the route of the Santa Fe railroad line south of Peach Springs.Here It joins the route of the Hualapai aqueduct. 9 Navajo Aqueduct The Navajo aqueduct extends from a pumping plant on the proposed Marble Canyon Reservoir some 22 river miles above Marble Canyon damsite to the head of drainage on West Clear Creek. The 189 mile route trends generally south, crossing the Little Colorado River shortly above Grand Falls by a high head siphon. The Painted Desert Power Drops (head 1084 feet) are in the reach just west of Tuba City.

Powell Aqueduct The Powell aqueduct extends 212 miles from a pumping plant on Lake Powell just north of Page to the head of drainage on West Clear Creek. From the Lake Powell pumping plant the route lies along the plateau above the Colorado River, through a 1.25 mile tunnel south of Echo Peak, and along the base of Echo Cliffs, where it joins the route of the previously described Navajo aqueduct.

Granite Reef Aqueduct The Bureau of Reclamation's description is quoted below from the Pacific Southwest Water Plan. The Granite Reef Aqueduct would transport water diverted from Lake Havasu by the Havasu Pumping Plants, 219 miles to Granite Reef on the Salt River. . . . Three tunnels and three siphons would be located in the first 19 miles of aqueduct location in the extremely rough, rocky terrain of the Buckskin Mountains lying along the south bank of Bill Williams River. Throughout its length to the Hassayampa River, the aqueduct would pass along the southern slopes of the Little Harquehala 10 and Big Horn Mountain Ranges andacross flat desertland (sic) between these ranges. From the Hassayampa River Pumping Plant, the aqueduct wouldpass through the north edge of White Tank Mountains bymeans of a 6-mile tunnel, and it would pass some 4 miles north of Phoenixen route to Its terminus at Granite Reef Dam.(Bureau of Reclamation, 1964) AQUEDUCT DATA TABLE 1 Aqueduct Total Length (miles) Tunnel Siphon Pumping Plants (number) Pumping Lift LossesAnnual MohaveHualapai 166.0 50.0 Canal122.5 Conduit39.0 5.5 5.5 0.0 11 5 (feet)42693538 (acre-feet) 311000a PowellNavajo 212.0189.0 149.3130.2 47.044.824.0 14.213.018.0 1.51.0 1212 44344991 120,000104,00098,000 ChinoCreekGranite ReefbCanal 219.0 46.0 46.0-- 0.0 0.0 0.0 -- 04 1084 0 176,00028,000 bBureauaAppendiC of Reclamation, 1963. line 1. Hualapai 5000 Aqueduct Chino Canal -Chino Creek Power Drop Outfall 40003000 AqueductMohave Lake Sullivan 2000- 000 Lake Mead ReservoirHualapai - LIFT INTERNAL POWER DROP FIGURE 2 PROFILE-- MOHAVE AND HUALAPAI AQUEDUCTS50 LENGTH (MILES) 100 ISO 200 7000 Outfall HU-Lu 5000600 Powell Aqueduct LU> 4000 PowellLake MarbleNavajo AqueductCanyon Reservoir INTERNALLIFT POWER DROP 300 0 FIGURE 3 PROFILE 50 LENGTH (MILES) NAVAJO AND POWELL AQUEDUCTS 100 ISO 200 CHAPTER 4

POWER GENERATION FACILITIES

From the aqueduct outfalls on the Verde River or West Clear Creek there is approximately 3000 and 5700 feet of fall, respectively. A series of dams and power plants on these streams Is proposed to regain this head and convert it into salable power. On the Verde River there are two complexes. Complex I Is in the reach between Paulden and Clark- dale, and Complex II is in the reach between Camp Verde and Granite Reef Dam. The third complex, West Clear Creek, extends through much of the length of this stream.

Verde River Complex I Six dams, designated A through F, are proposed to control a gross head of 900 feet. The reservoir behind each structure will extend to the tail water of the structure above, a general rule to be followed on the other two complexes as well. Damsite E will require an earth fill structure; the other sites are suitable for a slab and buttress type of construction.Installation of dams and reservoirs on sites D through F will necessitate relocation of the Santa Fe railroad line which lies along this reach of the Verde River.

14 15 Verde River Complex II

The design for this complex is taken froma Bureau of Recla- mation design (Bureau of Reclamation, 1945).It consists of seven proposed new dams and power houses, an extensionon the existing Horseshoe Dam, power plants at Horseshoe and Bartlett Dams, and the Verde Power Canal. This complex controls agross head of 1812 feet, with a rated head of 1656 feet. The only unregulated fall (323 feet) on the Verde River would be in the reach between Clarkdale and Camp Verde.This area is extensively built up and also contains some prehistoric Indian ruins, such as Tuzi- goot National Monument. The costs of moving all this activity and the expected objections of the Park Service make the area unavailable for dam and reservoir sites.For this reason the area has been removed from further consideration.

West Clear Creek Complex A total of 13 slab and buttress type dams are proposed to control 3000 feet out of a total fall of 3875 feet.The combination of steep stream slope (81 feet/mile) and a narrow valley provide favorable power reservoir sites with small volume and surface area.The 275 feet of unregulated fall below the complex are in the stream reach where the valley widens and enters the Verde Valley with its deep alluvial cover.The stream reach above the complex (representing a fall of 400 feet) can be 16 reserved for sport fishing and future development.In this reach the stream flows over the Kaibab limestone where reservoir losses might be high due to Joints and solution cavities in the limestone. The two 100- foot gaps within the chain of dams represent stream reaches which have no suitable damsites. The design of generation facilities will wait upon a detailed operation study optimizing storage capacity and demand loadings. Most Installations would be moderate head facilities with capacities of 20,000 to 30,000 kw. A possible design from such a study Is presented in Table 3, abstracted from the Bureau of Reclamation (1945). A more probable design would include hydraulic capacities sufficient to pass the Colorado River diversion (1 . 2 million acre-feet per year) and the natural flow of the Verde River (500,000 acre-feet per year).This combined flow is equivalent to a constant flow of 2340 cubic feet per second.It is also worth noting that all structures need not be installed in the initial project. More power plants can come on the line as the power demand grows; these plants would be built according to an optimized constructionplan incorporated in the above operation study.

Internal Power Drops The Painted Desert Power Drops called for in the Navajo and Powell Aqueduct designs and the Chino Creek Power Drop in the Mohave 17 and Hualapal designs will be analogous to run-of-the-river power plants, utilizing the flow of the canal as it passes through them with a minimum of storage. They will be similar in appearance and cost to the pumping plants, utilizing a long penstock and generators with a high hydraulic capacity. 18

TABLE 2

VERDE RIVER COMPLEX I DESIGN

Normal Water Normal Tail Gross Head Dam Surface Elevation Water Elevation (feet)

A 4350 4175 175

B 4175 4000 175

C 4000 3850 150

D 3850 3725 125

E 3725 3575 150

F 3575 3450 125

Total 900 VERDE RIVER COMPLEX(Bureau II DESIGN of Reclamation, 1945) TABLE 3 CampUnit Verde Rated Head (feet) 217 GeneratorCapacity 5,000(kw) HydraulicCapacity (cfs) 340 ConstructionEarth Fill Type NormalElevation Water Surface 3125 Tail WaterElevation Normal2880 FossilMalpais 145195 22,00029,000 2,2402,195 Earth Fill 253026802880 253026802340 YavagilaTanglePete's Cabin Creek 135185123 22,00029,00022,000 2,6402,4042,314 Slab and Buttress 22002340 20722200 CliffHorseshoe DwellersEnlargement 141 93 29,00018,000 2,8573,036 Conc.Earth Fill GravityButtress& embankment 20721896 18961798 VerdeBartlett Power Canal Total 1656 269153 31,00029,000 2,7981,700 MultipleArch 15821798 16071313 20

TABLE 4

WEST CLEAR CREEK COMPLEX DESIGN

Normal Water Normal Tail Gross Head Dam Surface Elevation Water Elevation (feet)

1 6600 6400 200

2 6400 6200 200

3 6200 6000 200

4 5900 5600 300

5 5600 5400 200

6 5400 5100 300

7 5100 4900 200

8 4900 4600 300

9 4600 4400 200

10 4400 4100 300

11 4000 3800 200

12 3800 3600 200

13 3600 3400 200 Total 3000 7000 \PROPOSED RESERVOIR 6000 West Clear Creek EXISTINGRESERVOIRPROPOSEDPOWER CANAL 5000 -Complex I Corn plex 4000 Cv 3000 Verde River PC TOComplex U 20001000 H CD --vPC Granite Reef Dam 0FIGURE 4 PROFILE 50 VERDE RIVER AND WEST CLEAR CREEK LENGTH ( MILES) 100 ISO CHAPTER 5

GENERAL AND ENGINEERING GEOLOGY

The canal routes traverse areas with strikingly different geologic frameworks and lithologles.The Mohave aqueduct lies largely in block faulted Basin and Range topography; the Hualapai, Navajo and Powell aqueducts lie in the Colorado Plateau Province composed of gently dipping sedimentary strata.Near the terminus of the Mohave aqueduct, where it joins the route of the Hualapai aqueduct, the route crosses relatively flat lying Paleozoic sediments.Near the common terminus of the Navajo and Powell aqueducts, the route crosses extensive areas of Quaternary- Tertiary basalt flows. Each of the stream system-damsite complexes also lies in disparate geologic settings. The western part of Mohave county is a region transitional between the Colorado plateau to the east and the Basin and Range Province to the west (KIng, 1959).The topography, however, is much like that of typical "basin ranges" (Fennemann, 1931) and is characterized by fault- block mountains spaced between broad alluvial valleys.The largest portion of the hard rock in the area is older Precambrian gneiss. Each of the mountain areas Is itself faulted and jointed in varying degrees. The alluvium on the valley floors is a heterogeneous deposit of sand,, silt

22 23 and gravel, unconsolidated or semi-consolidated. Some is in the form of alluvial fans; the rest is relatively flat-lying valley fill. The sediments underlying the Colorado Plateau in northeastern Coconino County are largely Mesozoic clastics, exposed in flat plateaus bounded by impressive, usually highly colored escarpments. The major structure along the canal route is the Echo Cliffs monocline, dipping steeply to the east and forming "a structural depression which amounts

to 2,500 feet, . .diminishing southward" (Wilson, 1962)The scarp, Echo Cliffs, faces west, toward the upflexed side.There are also some normal faults trending north and northeast. The structural relief exceeds the topographic relief across the area.Lapping onto the plateau from the south are Quaternary-Tertiary basalt flows, representing several periods of eruption.

While the lithologies along the canal routesvary considerably, all rock areas can be reasonably classed as "hard rock," andconstruction costs have been estimated on this basis.

West Clear Creek cuts down through extensive basalt flows,in

places cutting through to the underlying late Paleozoic sediments.The basalts are formed of successive flows, moderately to highlyjointed, with some interbedded ash and tuffs.Damsites here will have to be Investigated for joints and porous beds in the basalts and forsolution cavities and joints in the sediments. 24 The Verde River flows through a complex mountain system, folded, faulted and extensively mineralized in certain localities. A portion of the damsites lie in middle Paleozoic limestones; these sites will have to be explored for possible solution cavities, and all sites will have to be examined for faults. The geologic formations traversed by each feature are presented in Tables 5 and 6.Table 5 is repeated in the legend of Figures 5 and 6. 25

TABLE 5

GEOLOGIC SECTION--NAVAJO AND POWELL AQIJEDUCTSa

Qs silt, sand, gravel Qb basalt; flows, tuffs, agglomerate Jsr San Rafael Group; Includes Summerville Fmn, Cow Springs Ss, Bluff Ss, Entrada Ss and Carmel Fmn Jg Glen Canyon Group; includes Navajo Ss, Kayenta Fmn, Moenave Fmn and Wingate Ss c Chinle Fmn s Shinarump Cgl m Moenkopi Fmn Pk Kaibab Ls

GEOLOGIC SECTION--MOHAVE AND HUALAPAIAQuEDucTsa

Qs silt, sand, gravel QTs sand, gravel, cgl Qb basalt; locally includes tuffs and agglomerate Tr rhyolite; Includes tuffs and agglomerate Lgr granite and related crystalline rocks Kgr Gold Road volcanics; includes rhyolite, latite and andesite.Locally contains volcanic glass CD1 Redwall and Martin Lss -Ct Tonto Group; includes Muav Ls, Bright Angel Sh and Tapeats Ss gr granite and related crystalline intrusive rocks sch schist gn granite gneiss

aGeologicmaps of Coconino, Mohave and YavapaiCounties. 26

TABLE 6

GEOLOGIC SECTION--VERDE RIVER COMPLEX1a

Qal gravel and alluvium

QTvv Verde Fmn; fine grained lake bed deposits

QTv Verde Fmn; volcanics, rhyolitic tuffs

Mr Redwall Ls

IJm Martin Ls

GEOLOGIC SECTION--VERDE RIVER COMPLEXJJb

Qal gravel and alluvium

QTb basalt and tuff, andesite gr granite

GEOLOGIC SECTION--WEST CLEAR CREEKCOMPLEXC

QTb basalt; flows, tuffs, agglomerate

Pk Kaibab Ls; includes Toroweap Fmn

Pc Coconino Ss

Ps Supai Fmn; includes ss and sh

a.ejger1965. bBureau of Reclamation, 1945. CGeologic maps of Coconino and Yava pal Counties. CHAPTER 6

COST ANALYSIS

In order to make preliminary comparisons of the physical facilities of the various routes, some estimate has to be made of the capital costs and cash flows involved.Further, since no detailed design analysis is possible, some rather severe simplifying assumptions have to be made as to the nature of these costs.Instead of using unit costs of material, machinery and labor for each facility, lump sums per physical unit are used. The major portion of these are from recent Bureau of Reclamation design figures and are presented in the accompanying Tables 7 and 8. Many costs, broadly considered as overhead, have been omitted on the basis that these should be uniform for any route chosen. They include such things as planning and design, inspection, access roads, construction camps and supply facilities, and power transmission facilities.Such omissions account for the discrepancy between the Bureau of Reclamation figures for the Granite Reef Aqueduct (Bureau of Reclamation, 1963) and those presented in this study ($315.4 vs. $248.3 millions, respectively). The costs thus developed for each feature admittedly gloss over differences of site and other special construction problems.For instance,

27 28 the cost of the aqueducts includescross drainages, bridges and other appurtenant structures, under the assumption that such structures will be equally distributed along any route.It is reasonable to assume that these uniform criteria, if not differing too widely from real costs, will provide a valid means of comparison among the several routes. Construction costs for the power generation complexes are the most indeterminate. They were originally made for the series of structures herein designated Verde River Complex II (Bureau of Reclamation, 1945). The prices were adjusted to 1967 levels by use of the Engineering News- Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index (Engineering News-Record, March 18, 1965, pp. 73-6, December 21, 1967).The ENR Index is similar to any other price index, such as the cost-of-living index, and measures the trend of general construction costs.By suitable manipulation of the index, it can be used to evaluate estimates made in any given year in terms of current dollars (Engineering News-Record, March 18, 1965, pp. 88-9). The indeterminacy In power facility construction costs stems from two major sources, 1) the long time which has elapsed since these estimates were made and 2) the transfer of these figures to similar, but not identical sites for Verde River Complex I and the West Clear Creek Complex. The problem is further complicated by the criterion that these optional features pay their own costs.If the Bureau of Reclamation 29 estimates are reasonable and the ENR Index is a proper means ofup- dating the figures, then the high costs presented in Table 11 reflect the prevailing conditions. Estimated construction costs for the aqueducts themselves should be quite reasonable, as they are based on either current or 1962 estimates by the Bureau of Reclamation. Construction costs in general constitute the great unknown for the project. As stated earlier, they are not based on proper site investigations, detailed designs and unit prices.Such an analysis would perhaps show vastly different cost magnitudes. The present analysis is based on the supposition that the relative magnitudes would not be changed by a detailed design and cost analysis.This is strongly dependent upon whether all of the factors vary proportionately and in the same direction. The interest rates quoted are merely convenient.It is not the present purpose to join in the great debate as to the proper Interest rate to be applied to water resources development. The Bureau of Reclamation uses 3-1/8 percent in the Pacific Southwest WaterPlan (Bureau of Recla- mation, 1964); the rate of 3 percent was adopted for computational con- venience. A rate of 4-1/2 percent serves the purposeof being signifi- cantly larger than the 3 percent rate and provides areadily discernible difference in average annual equivalent.It Is acknowledged that interest rates have drastic effects on the feasibilityof any investment. 30 The power prices quoted are favorable rates in currentuse. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (1967) is procuring pumping energy from Glen Canyon Dam at 3 mils/kwh, and other estimated and quoted prices fall close to this figure.Thus the base rate of 3 mlls/kwh for both purchase and sale of base load power has been adopted. The peak power rate of 9 mils/kwh is based on current estimates for pumped storage projects.The Arizona Power Authority proposes to sell generator capacity for their Montezuma and Havasu pumped storage projects at $15 and $12.50 per kilowatt-year, respectively (Nielson, Arizona Power Authority, personal communication). The Philadelphia Electric Company estimated costs for their Muddy Run pumped storage installation at $14.25 per kw-yr, predicated on supplying peak power for 1500 hours per year (Hunt, 1968).If all these estimates are reduced to a cost per kilowatt-hour for 1500 hours operation, the figures are 10.0, 8.3 and 9.5 mlls/kwh. Thus a figure of 9 mils/kwh will provide a reasonable estimate, as the power generation complexes can be operated to supply peaking power. 31

TABLE 7

CAPITAL COST CRITERIA

Unit Criteria Aqueduct Granite Reef, Mohave $1 million/mile and Hualapaia Navajo and PoweliC $1.2 million/mile (These costs have been increased due to hard rock excavation costs) Chino Creek CanaiC $500,000/mile Pumping Plantsa Q(cfs) x lift(feet) x $15

Tunnelsa $ 880/foot

Siphons high heada $ 670/foot low headC $ 400/foot Power Facilities Internal Power DropsC Q(cfs) x llft(feet) x $15 Power $8,274,000 each West Clear CreekDamsb $125,784/foot of height Verde River Complex I Slab & buttressdamsb $20,497,200 each Earth-filldamsb $27,954,500 each Verde River Complex $273,271,200 total

aSource: Phoenix Development Office, Bureau of Reclamation. bSource:Bureau of Reclamation, 1945.

CSourCe: Author. 32

TABLE 8

ANNUAL COST CRITERIA

Unit Criteria Capitalrecoverya 3% interest for 100 year Capital recovery factor recovery period crf - 0.03165 4-1/2% interest for 50 year Capital recovery factor recovery period crf = 0.05060 Operation and maintenance Aqueductsb $6, 000/mile

Pumping plantsc $74,750 each

Dams and powerpiantsd $180,000 each Internal powerthOPSe $74,750 each Power rates Pump powere 3 mils/kwh

Salepowere peaking 9 mils/kwh base 3 mils/kwh

aSoce.Grant and Ireson, 1964. bsource:Phoenix Development Office, Bureauof Reclamation. CSource: Bureau of Reclamation, 1964. dsource: Bureau of Reclamation, 1945. eSource: Author. CHAPTER 7

JUSTIFICATION OF POWER FEATURES

The inclusion of any optional feature in the design is based upon its ability to pay back its own fixed and variable costs.In this Instance, the optional portions are the power generation facilities.The rate at which power must be sold in order to just pay the capital costs and operation and maintenance are presented In Table 9 for each feature, using the two assumed interest rates. The internal power drops, since they are analogous torun-of-- the-river facilities with no storage, produce power for thebase load rate of 3 rnils/kwh. Given this, they are easily justifiedunder either interest alternative and could even be justified for higher interest orconstruction costs. The dams, while quite profitable underthe lower interest, are Infeasible under the higher, since a power rate over9 mils is not reasonable, even for peak loads.See discussion under Cost Analysis. It is reasonable to assume thatthe dams will be eliminated from the design if 1) the power rate is muchbelow 9 mils, 2) construction costs go up, or 3) the interest rategoes much above 4 percent. However,if

33 34 construction or interest costs are lower, the feasibility of these units will be enhanced. 35

TABLE 9

BREAK EVEN POWER RATEa (mils.kwh)

Unit Low Interest Higher Interest

Internal Power Drops 1. 1 1 . 6

Verde River Complex I 7. 6 11 . 4

Verde River Complex II 6. 2 9. 5 West Clear Creek Complex 6.0 9.1

aComputed from crf x capital costs + operation & maintenance costs power output all values from Tables 11, 12. 36

TABLE 10

AQUEDUCT COSTS, INCLUDING PUMPING PLANTS (dollars)

Annual Operation Aqueduct Capital Costs arid Maintenance Hualapai 165600000a 6081000b

Mohave 348,500,000 1,557,000

Navajo 399,400,000 1,678,000

Powell 416,600,000 1,793,000 Granite Reef 248,300,000 1,613,000 Chino Creek Canal 23,000,000 276,000

aAd.Aline 4. bAppendixB, line 3. 37

TABLE 11

POWER GENERATION COMPLEX DATA

Costs (dollars) Annual Operation Complex Capital Costs and Maintenance 000b Verde River I 179,100000a 1, 080,

Verde River II 273,300, OOO 618,000d West Clear Creek 484, 800, 000 340, 000

Annual Power and Power Revenues

Complex Power Output Power Revenue (kwh) (dollars) 000e 7,990,000f Verde River I 887,800, 000h Verde River II 1,633,000,000g 14, 700, West Clear Creek 2,959,000,000 26, 630,000

aAppendixAline 10. bAppendix B, line 6.

CTable 7. dAppendix B, line 7. eAppendix D, line 4. 1AppendlxD, line 7. Append1xD, lineS. hAppendlxD, line 8. 38

TABLE 12

INTERNAL POWER DROP DATA

Costs (dollars) Annual Operation Power Drop Capital Costs and Maintenance Chino Creek 5, 400,000a 000b Painted Desert 29,300,000 224,000

Annual Power and Power Revenues

Power Drop Power Output Power Revenue (kwh) (dollars) 197280000c 592000d Chino Creek Painted Desert 1,069,258,000 3,208,000 aAd.A line 6. bAppendixBline 5. CAppendixDline 3.

dAppendixDline 6. DATA FOR ALTERNATE ROUTES TABLE 13 AnnualRoutePumping Pumping lift (feet)a Energy (kwh x i0) Hualapai 543b3538 Mohave 4269 6.6 Navajo 4991 7.7 Powell 44346.81 Granite Reef Aqueduct 1.665 1084 Complete Routes AnnualCapitalPower CostsLossesPower Head ($ Output (acre-feet)(feet)d millions) (kwh x io-) 18l,000f 649.4 2756272e 248,000 829.2 272e2756 261,0001,187.0 5.665740 277,0001,204.0 5.665740 176,000 248.3 "Bare Bones' Routes AnnualPowerCapital PowerHead Costs (feet)d Output ($ millions) (kwh x 10) 831OQOi 0197h1940g 200 150,000 0g7h376.9 200 120,000 429.01.069 1084 136,000 1.069445.9 1084 176000 248.3 Annual Losses (acre-feet) aTbi 1 dumbAppendlxDCAppendjxA of head on all power features. line;one 12. 1. e Appencu.xAppendixD, C, lineline 9.6. TABLE 13 Continued hAppendix'AppendixAppdjx D, C, line line 10.B, 7. line 13. 41

TABLE 14

ANNUAL POWER CASH FLOW-- COMPLETE ROUTES (dollars)

Route Pumping Costs Power Revenue Net Power CostsC Hualapai 16129o,000a 2312801000b - 6,993,000 Mohave 19,800,000 231280,000b - 3,483,000 NavaJo 23,100,000 44,540,000 -21,440,000 Powell 20,430,000 44,540,000 -24,110,000

Granite Reef 4,995,000 0 + 4,995,000 Aqueduct

aAppendlxDline 2. bAppendlxDline 11. less Revenue. 42

TABLE 15

ANNUAL POWER CASH FLOW-- "BARE BONES" ROUTES (dollars)

Route Pumpinq Costs Power Revenue Net Power CostsC Hualapal 16,290000a 592000b 15,700,000 Mohave 19,800,000 5921000b 19,210,000

NavaJo 23,100,000 3,208,000 19,890,000

Powell 20,430,000 3,208,000 17,220,000

GraniteReef 4,995,000 0 4,995,000 Aqueduct

aAppendixDline 2. bApfldjxDline 12. CCosts less Revenue. 43

TABLE 16

LOW INTEREST ANNUAL CASH FLOW-- COMPLETE ROUTES (dollars)

Average Operation Net Total Annual and Power Annual Route Equlvalenta Maintenance CostsC co5tsd Hualapai 20,550,000 31657,000b - 6,993,000 17,220,000

Mohave 26,240,000 4,606,000 -3,483,000 27,320,000

Navajo 37,570,000 5,861,000 -21,440,000 22,320,000

Powell 38,100,000 5,975,000 -24,110,000 19,970,000 Granite 7,858,000 1,613,000 +4,995,000 14,470,000 Reef Aqueduct

8Appropriate value from Table 11 x crf. bAppendix B, line 8. CTable 14. dSum of all costs. 44

TABLE 17

LOW INTEREST ANNUAL CASH FLOW-- 'BARE BONES" ROUTES (dollars)

Average Operation Net Total Annual and Power Annual Route Equlvalenta Maintenance CostsC c05td Hualapal 6,140,000 958000b 15,700,000 22,800,000

Mohave 11,930,000 1,908,000 19,210,000 33,040,000 Navajo 13,580,000 1,903,000 19,890,000 35,370,000

Powell 14,110,000 2,017,000 17,220,000 33,350,000 Granite 7,858,000 1,613,000 4,995,000 14,470,000 Reef Aqueduct

aAppropriate value from Table 11 x crf.

bAppendix B, line 9.

CTable 15. dum of all costs. 45

TABLE 18

HIGHER INTEREST ANNUAL CASH FLOW-- COMPLETE ROUTES (dollars)

Average Operation Net Total Annual and Power Annual Route Equivalenta Maintenance CostsC Costsd Hualapal 32,860,000 31657,000b - 6,993,000 29,520,000

Mohave 41,960,000 4,606,000 - 3,483,000 43,080,000 Navajo 60,070,000 5,861,000 -21,440,000 44,490,000

Powell 60,920,000 5,975,000 -24,110,000 42,780,000 Granite 12,560,000 1,613,000 + 4,995,000 19,170,000 Reef Aqueduct

aAppropriate value from Table 11 x crf. bAppendix B, line 8. CTable 14. d5 of all costs. 46

TABLE 19

HIGHER INTEREST ANNUAL CASH FLOW-- "BARE BONES" ROUTES (dollars)

Average Operation Net Total Annual and Power Annual Route Equlvalenta Maintenance costsC c05td Hualapal 9,816,000 9701000b 15,790,000 26,570,000

Mohave 19,070,000 1,920,000 19,210,000 40,200,000 Navajo 21,710,000 1,903,000 18,880,000 42,500,000

Powell 22,560,000 2,017,000 17,330,000 40,910,000

Granite 12,560,000 1,613,000 4,995,000 19,170,000 Reef Aqueduct

8Approiate value from Table 11 x crf. bAppendixDline 9. CTable 15. dSum of all costs. CHAPTER 8

RESULTS OF COST ANALYSIS

Two general systems are compared:1) each route with all design features presented and 2)bare bones' routes with the power generation complexes deleted.Both systems are analyzed using two interest rates and recovery periods:1) a low interest (capital recovery factor = 0.03165), representing 3 percent Interest and a recovery period of 100 years and 2) a higher Interest (crf = 0.05060), representing 4-1/2 percent Interest and a recovery period of 50 years. Results of the analysis using the low Interest rate are presented in Tables 14 and 15.The complete routes are seen to be more economical than the "bare bonesroutes.Since the power features are more than self-supporting with this low interest, they pay back part of the pumping costs and reduce the total annual costs by some amount.For either system, the Granite Reef Aqueduct appears to be the most economical ($14,470,000). The complete Hualapai Routehas higher annual costs ($17, 2 16, 000).All other routes are considerably more expensive. From the point of view of an Arizona-financedproject, a higher Interest rate Is more realistic. Data inTables 15 and 16 are based on this criterion.Results of this analysis are largely the same, savethat the power complexes are infeasibleand would be discarded in favor of

47 48

"bare bones" routes.The Granite Reef Aqueduct remains the most economical route at $19, 170,000; costs of the Hualapai Route are higher at $26,570,000.It would be of interest to Arizona planners to note that the capital Investment for the "bare bones" Hualapal Route is approximately $54 million less than that of the Granite Reef Aqueduct (Table 13). The higher annual costs of the former stem from the greater pumping energy required. The difference in annual variable costs (pumping energy and operation and maintenance charges) between the two routes amounts to approximately $10 million, which corresponds to annual capital recovery (crf = 0.05060) on an Investment of some $200 million.Thus the capital costs of the Granite Reef Aqueduct would have to be some $200 million more than those of the Hualapal Route to offset the difference in annual variable costs. In summary, the Granite Reef Aqueduct appears tobe the most attractive route under the criterion of least net annual costs,with costs of the best Hualapal alternative 20-40 percent more. Allother routes are more expensive than the Hualapaialternative. CHAPTER 9

NON-QUANTIFIABLE BENEFITS AND COSTS

Certain design aspects (benefits and costs) are hard to cast in monetary terms, yet they are of Importance in decision making. Three possible benefits are 1) savings In construction time, 2) reduction of conveyance losses, and 3) expanded recreation facilities. A possible cost Is associated with deterioration In water quality.

Benefits If aqueduct length is a good indication of construction time, then the 'bare bones' Hualapai Route could be put into operation In approximately half the time of any of the other routes.The Bureau of Reclamation estimated a construction time of 7 years for the Granite Reef Aqueduct and its attendant pumping facilities (Bureau of Reclamation,

1964).If any route were chosen which included power generation complexes, then construction of these facilities need not delay the delivery of water.Of course, if either the Hualapal or Navajo Routes were chosen, then operation of the facilities would wait uponthe completion of the respective main-stem dam. The Bureau ofReclamation construction time estimate for Bridge Canyon(Hualapal) Dam is 7 years (Bureau of Reclamation,

49 50 1963), and a similarperiod is a reasonableestimate for completion of Marble Canyon Dam.

The major function of the CentralArizona Project aqueduct system is to deliver Colorado Riverwater into the central Arizona area, and some consideration should begiven to the route with minimum con-

vayance losses.Use of the "bare bones' Hualapai Route wouldrepre- sent a savings of approximately 100,000 acre-feetper year over the Granite Reef Aqueduct, and adoption of the completeHualapal design would result in no increase In losses.The otherbare bones' routes would provide smaller savings, while the complete designswould sig- nificantly Increase the losses (Table 13). The 100,000 acre-foot savings creditable to the 'bare bones" Hualapal Route would then supposedly be available for canalside delivery at $10 per acre-foot for irrigation supply or $38 per acre-foot for municipal and industrial uses (Bureau of ReclamatIon, 1963). Revenues from these deliveries would be $1 million and $3.8 million, respectively. These are tentative values, and thus are not Included in the cost analysis. They are not sufficient of themselves to change the analysis (v.i.). Any facility composed primarily of 'a dam and a ditch" offers scant recreational benefits. However, a chain of lakes along the central Arizona streams would be a valuable asset to the nearby metropolitan areas.Fishing, boating and other water-related sports are popular pastimes, and the Salt River Project lakes enjoy excessively heavy 51 recreational use. The demand for water-basedrecreation sites in the state is large and growing. A 1963 proposal by the U. S. Bureau of Sport

Fisheries and Wildlife and the Arizona Game and FishDepartment called for 50 new fishing lakes, averaging 100acres in size, at a cost of $17.5 million. Water impounded by these lakes would be provided to downstream senior appropriators from Central Arizona Project supplies, delivered by the Granite Reef Aqueduct, through a federal exchange

arrangement (Arizona Interstate Streams Commission, 1967).The Verde River Power complexes of the Hualapal Route would provide 13 new lakes with a total surface area of 32,000 acres, a far larger facility than all 50 fIshing lakes; and one which would be suitable for a wide range of water sports. If this report has seriously proposed spending $17.5 million for these fishing lakes, then perhaps the average annual equivalent (crf 0.03165) on such a figure ($550,000) would be a low first estimate of the benefits accruing to the complete Hualapal Route.This would tend to close the cost gap between the Granite Reef Aqueduct and the Hualapai alternative, although it still falls short of the requisite figure (v. i.) If these non-quantifiable benefits are to change the decision of the planner, they must be accounted worth the difference betweenthe routes in question. Considering the bestlow interest alternative, the recreation benefits accruing to the complete Hualapai Route mustbe worth at least some $2. 75 millionannually.For the higher interest 52 alternative (no dams), the water saving and shorterconstruction time must be accounted worth $7.4 million.In each case, the value quoted Is the difference In total annual costs between the Granite Reef Aqueduct and the appropriate Hualapal design.

Costs It is very hard to place a cost on deterioration in quality of a general water supply, yet this deterioration is a very real result of adoption of any plan which will introduce Colorado River water into the Verde River supply. The City of Phoenix operates an infiltration gallery on the Verde River above Its confluence with the Salt River.In 1958 the facility was producing water with 252 parts per million (ppm) total dissolved solids (TDS) and a hardness of 154 ppm (CaCO3 equivalent) (Agricultural Experl-

ment Station,1963).Colorado River water has been steadily deteriorating in quality, both over time and in a downstream direction, due to evapo- ration losses and return flow from irrigation projects.Considering an

unfavorable current example, an analysis at Hoover Dam In April,1963,

showed736ppm TDS and a hardness of 338 ppm(Agricultural Experiment

Station,1964).The mix water from these two sources would have a TDS

content of600ppm and a hardness of 282 ppm.This mix Is a lower quality municipal water, although it is still considerably betterthan the ground water in the Salt River Valley. Reports on53city wells in Phoenix showed 53 an average of 912 ppm TDS; 54 wells, 342 ppm hardness (Agricultural Experiment Station, 1963).The water from these wells is not softened. The cost of softening the mixed supply by conventional methods might run as high as $75 per million gallons (Steel, 1960). CHAPTER 10

NON-TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Any public engineering project is conceived and built within a cultural and political milieu which may have drastic effects on its design, function, location and even Its very existence. While it is assumed in the balance of the study that these non-technical considerations would not affect the selection and design of a route and facilities, it would now be appropriate to consider how these factors may affect the eventual outcome of the Central Arizona Project as a whole and any alternate diversion routes.

Other Colorado River Water Users The other Colorado River water users, California andthe Upper Basin states, led by Colorado, have an obvious interestIn curtailing further use of the over-appropriated waters of the main stem.Any attempt on the part of Arizona to divertsuch a sizable portion of the flow--i .2 million acre-feet annually--has metwith concerted opposition and quite probably will continue to do so.This opposition has taken the form of delaying tactics In the Congress andthe association of the Central An- zona Project withsuch inflammatory Issues as importationof water from other basins and "dams inthe Grand Canyon," among others. The solution

54 55 to this general obstacle lies far beyond the scope of this work, but the short supply of water In the Colorado River will continue to vex any large scale developments within the basin and be a real danger to the success of the Central Arizona Project.

Preservatlonist Opposition The selection of either the Hualapal or Navajo Routes as a desirable alternative to the Granite Reef Aqueduct will entail the existence of either Hualapai (Bridge Canyon) or Marble Canyon Dams. The opposition of the Sierra Club and other preservationist groups has effectively destroyed any immediate possibility of the construction of either facility. While It is a moot point whether either lies 'in the Grand

Canyon," the hullabaloo raised on just this point seems more thansuf- ficient to remove both from rational consideration. Any decisionto utilize either of the affected routes will also entail an extensive cam- paign to allow the necessary main stem reservoir tobe built. This problem of preservationist opposition to water resources development also has wider ramifications. Not only have powerinstal- lations within the Upper Basin, such asEcho Park Dam, been killed as have Marble Canyon and Hualapai Dams;but there have been some attempts to prevent construCtionof Hooker Dam on the upper Gila-- another part of the Central ArizonaProject--because of its adverse effects on the Gila PrimitiveArea.It is not at all unlikely that preservatioriist 56 sentiment will be an Increasingly potent deterrent toany development in the West.

The remedy for this problem lies In an education program to convince the public at large that:1) the natural splendors of the Grand Canyon are not In danger from the Central Arizona Project facilities and 2) that, in a larger sense, development of water resources does not logically entail exploitation and despoilment; but preservation or non-use of these resources will result in a serious curtailment of economic growth in the arid and semi-arid West.

Advantages to Arizona The complexes of power generation features on the Verde River and West Clear Creek lie largely on National Forest lands, and should

present minimal problems in dam and reservoir site aquisition.The presence of a large number of lakes for recreation development near the Maricopa County population center should be an asset, and help gain support for their construction. While the diversion of water upstream from existing power facilities does not result in any net reduction in energy available (the total regulated head on either of the proposed stream systems greatly exceeds that on the main stem), it does transfer control over that power from the Bureau of Reclamation to the Central Arizona Project operating agency.This obviously redounds to the political-economic advantage of 57 the latter.This fact may well be reflected in the Bureau's choice ofan authorized diversion point. An Arizona-financed Central ArizonaProject may have to resort to the courts to gain access to the waters of the Colorado River at a site other than Lake Havasu. Finally1 the threat of building an Arizona-financed project and diverting water upstream from existing facilitiesmay be an effective lever to gain a federally-financed and constructed Central Arizona Project. CHAPTER 11

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of the preceding calculations, It is possible to make some tentative recommendations for adoption of a most feasible route for delivering Colorado River water to central Arizona. Under any of the conditions considered, the Granite Reef Aque- duct route is the most desirable under the criterion of leastannual cost. The Hualapal Route would cost 20-40 percent more; the other routesstill more. While the Mohave, Navajo and Powell Routes canbe discarded on the basis of this simplifiedstudy, the Hualapai alternative is worthy of further study. The difference In annual costsbetween the Granite Reef Aqueduct and the appropriate Hualapai Route amountsto some $3-lU million.This gap tends to close strongly underconditions of lower construction costs, enhanced recreationbenefits or water savings accruing to the latter, or increasedconstruction or site acquisition costs of the former.There are also the previouslymentioned political advantages accruing to the Hualapaldiversion point. Further design studies arejustified before finally choosing between the Hualapaland Granite Reef Aqueduct alternatives.These

58 59 studies should take special note of the costs of power generation facilities and the dollar value of recreation benefits of the Hualapai Route. APPENDICES

Sample computations are presented for the Hualapal Route. To follow the cost computations, refer to Tables 1, 7, and 8.All data for conveyance losses are presented in the appendix. Values for pumping lift and power head are found in Tables 1 and 13.

Analysis of other routes would follow a similar procedure:1) pick major design features from route maps, 2) compute values for each feature from appropriate tables, and 3) sum values for the design in question. Figures determIned by these calculations are entered In the appropriate tables, rounded to 4 significant figures for values over 1 million; 3, for values less than this.

60 APPENDIX A

CAPITAL COSTS (dollars)

Aqueduct Canal and Conduit 44.5 ml x $1 mllllon4iul 44,500,000 Tunnel 5.5 ml x 5280 ft/mI x $880/ft 25,500,000 Pumping Plants 1800 cfs x 3538 ft x $15 95,600,000 Total Sum, lines 1-3 165,600,000 (entered In Table 10) Chino Creek Canal 46.0 ml x $500,000/mi 23,000,000 (entered In Table 10)

Power Features Chino Creek Power Drop 1800 cfs x 200 ft x $15 5,400,000 (entered in Table 12) Verde River Complex I 5 S&B dams @ $20,497,200 101,486,000 1 F-F dam @ $27,954,500 27,954,500 6 Power Plants @ $8,274,000 49,644,000 Total Sum, lines 7-9 179,084,500 (entered In Table 11) Verde River Complex II 273,271,200 (entered In Table ii)

Totals Complete Route Sum, lines 4-6, 10-11 649,355, 700 (entered in Table 13) "Bare Bones" Route Sum, lines 4-6 194,000,000 (entered in Table 13)

61 APPENDIX B

ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS (dollars)

Aqueduct Canal 39.0 ml x $6,000/mi 234,000 Pumping Plants 5 unIts @ $74,750 373,750 Total Sum, lines 1-2 607,750 (entered in Table 10) China Creek Canal 46.Omlx$6,000/mi 276,000 Power Features China Dreek Power Drop 1 unit@ $74,750 74,750 (entered in Table 12) Verde River Complex I 6 units @ $180,000 1;o8o,000 (entered in Table 11) Verde River Complex II (Bureau of Reclamation, 1945) 1,618,200 (entered in Table ii)

Totals Complete Route Sum, lines 3-7 3,656,700 (entered in Tables 16, 18)

Bare Bones Route Sum, lines 3-5 958, 500 (entered In Tables 17, 19)

62 APPENDIX C

CONVEYANCE LOSSES (acre-feet/year) Criteria are by author unless otherwise noted. Criteria Unit Criteria

Aqueducts 802 acre-feet/mlle/ (Bureau of Reclamation, 1947) year Chino Creek Canal 27,500 acre-feet/ year

Reservoirs West Clear Creek 200 acre/reservoir x 4 feet/year 8,000 acre-feet/ ye ar/re servoir

Verde River Complex I 2340 acre/reservoIr x 4 feet/year 9360 acre-feet/ year/re servoir

Verde River Complex II (Bureau of Reclamation, 1945) 66,000 acre-feet/ year

Stream Channel Verde River 150 acre-feet/ mile/year

West Clear Creek 50 acre-feet/mile/ year

63 64

Computation Aqueduct 39.0 mix 802 ac-ft/mi 31,278 (entered In Table 1)

ChinoCreekCanal 27,500 (entered In Table 1) Verde River Complex I 6 reservoIrs x 9360 ac-ft/reservoir 56,160

Verde River Complex II 66,000 Verde River channel losses (w/o dams) 160 ml x 150 ac-ft/mi/yr 24,000 Totals Complete Route Sum, lines 1-4 180,936 (entered in Table 13) 'Bare Bones" Route Sum, lines 1-2, 5 82 , 778 (entered In Table 13) APPENDIX D

POWER

Power output/demand is estimated on the basis of 80 percent efficiency and no correction for conveyance losses. A conversion factor for water head to kilowatt-hours is developed and used as follows: Pumping power input- 1.536h xio6 Generator power output- 0.9864h io6 where h Is the lift or head in feet. These power values are then multiplied by the appropriate rates for dollar values. Power output and revenues also apply to Mohave Route.

Corn putation

Pumping energy (kwh/yr) 1.536 x i06 x 3538 ft 5,434,368,000 (entered in Table 13) Pumping costs (dollars/yr) 2 line 1 x 3 mils/kwh 16,303,104 (entered in Tables 14, 15)

Power output (kwh/yr) Chino Creek Power Drop 0.9864 xio6x 200 ft 197,280,000 (entered in Table 12) Verde River Complex I 0.9864 xio6 900 ft 887,760,000 (entered in Table ii)

65 66

Verde River Complex II 0.9864 x io6 x 1656 1,633,478,400 (entered in Table ii) Power Revenue (dollars/year) Chino Creek Power Drop line 3 x 3 mils/kwh 591,840 (entered in Table 12) Verde River Complex I lIne 4 x 9 mils/kwh 7,989,840 (entered In Table ii) Verde River Complex II line 5 x 9 mils/kwh 14,701,306 Total Power (kwh/yr)(entered in Table 13) Complete Route Sum, lines 3-5 2,718,518,400 "Bare Bones" Route line 3 197,280,000 Total revenue (dollars/yr) Complete Route Sum, lines 6-8 23,282,986 (entered in Table 14) "Bare Bones" Route line 6 591,840 (entered in Table 15) REFERENCES

Agricultural Experiment Station, 1963, QualIty of Arizona Domestic Waters, Report 217, The University of Arizona, Tucson. 1964, The Quality of Arizona Irrigation Waters, Report 233, The University of Arizona, Tucson. Arizona Academy, 1964, 4th. Arizona Town Hall on Arizona's Water Supply. Arizona Bureau of Mines, 1958, Geoloqic Map of Yavapai Co. 1959, Geologic Map of Mohave Co. 1960, Geologic Map of Coconino Co. Arizona Interstate Streams Commission, 1967, Arizona Water Resources, Phoenix, Arizona. Engineering News-Record, March 18, 1965, "Engineering News-Record Indexes of Cost Trends 1913-65, vol. 174, no. 11, pp. 73-6. March 18, 1965, "How Leading Cost Indexes are Made and What They Measure," vol. 174, no. 11, pp. 88-9. December 21, 1967, "4th. Quarterly Cost Roundup," vol. 179, no. 25, pp. 86-137. Etcheverry, B. A., 1915, Irrigation Practice and Engineering (2vols), McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New York. Fenneman, N. M.., 1931, Physioqraphy of WesternUnited States, McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New York. Grant, E. L., and Ireson, W. G.,Principles of Enqineering Economy, 4th ed., The Ronald Press Co., New York. Hunt, H. W.,"Pumped Storage--a Major Hydro Power Resource," Civil Enqineerinq, vol. 38, no. 3, March 1968, pp. 48-53.

67 68

King, P. B., 1959, The Evolution of NorthAmerica, The Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. Kreiger, M. H., 1965, Geoloqy of the Prescott and Paulden Quadrangles, Arizona, U. S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 467. Maddock, Thomas, Jr., The Behavior of Strai.ht Osen Channels with Movable Beds, U. S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 622-A, in preparation. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, The, 1967, Twenty- ninth Annual Report. Nielson, E. G., Administrator, Arizona Power Authority, personal communication, February 27, 1968. Steel, E. W., 1960, Water Supply and Sewerage, McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New York. U. S. Bureau of Reclamation, 1945, Comparison of Diversion Routes-- Central Arizona Project, Project Planning Report No. 3-8b.4-0. 1947, Report on Central Arizona Project, Project Planning Report No. 3-8b.4-2. 1943, Reclamation Project Data. 1962, Appraisal Report--Central Arizona Project. 1963, Pacific Southwest Water Plan Report, and appendices. 1964, Pacific Southwest Water Plan Report, and appendices. 1967, Summary Report--Central Arizona Project with Federal Prepayment Power Arrangements. U. S. House of Representatives, 89th Congress, 1st Session, 1965, Hearings on H. R. 4671, Serial no. 17, Lower Colorado River Basin Project, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Wilson, E. D., 1962, A Resume of the Geology of Arizona, The Arizona Bureau of Mines, Bulletin 171. Colorado River

Hualapal Dam Site

0 Ts

Qb GEOLOGIC SECTION Peach Sprisgs Os silt ,sond,gravel 0 TS Gb ssnd,gravel,cgl Gb basalt locally includes tufts and agglomerate Tr rhyoliteincludes tuffs asd agglomerate Lgrgranite ond related cryntul line rocks t

LEGEND

Aqueduct Tunnel u1 Siphon Pumping Station and conduitr' Internal Power Drop Proposed Dam Site Existing Dam and Reservoir Reregulating Reservoir Site River or Stream Geological Bouedary and Name -Jg FIGURE5 MOHAVE AND HUALARAI AQUEDUCTS ROUTEMAP Geographic Location W. M. Little5-2-1968 Citp or lowe . Scale Design Feature = Dam Site 01234 MILES owell

Page

Jar

SJg

(-5

-Q Navajo Aqueduct Pk Powell Aqueduct

-SJq

Marble Canyan Darn Site ri Cedar Ridge \\\

Ply

Painted Desert Power Drops

Tuba City

Cameron

cm Tb 0 0 0 0-o

Sc as

Grand Fal Is

ply

Rimmy °Jims

Meteor Crater Fk / 7

Qb7

GEOLOGIC SECTION

55 siLt, sand,qravel Sb basalt, flows tufts agglomerate

JsrSon Rafael Group includes Summeruille Fmn Cow SpringsSs Bluff Sc and CornedFern 5 jg Glen Canyon Group; Includes Navajo Ss, Kayenta Fran, Macnave Fmn and Wingate Se West Clear Creek Complex 5n Chinle Fan 5 mMoerkopi Fran 5 sshirarump Cql Pk Kaibab Ls

LEGEND

Aqueduct - Tunnel

Siphon I I PurnpinStation and conduit o Internal Power Stop m PnopoUd Oem Sitc Eoisting Dam and Reservoir Rnregulating Reservoir site FIGURE 6 NAVAJO AND POWELL AQUEDUCTS ROUTE MAP River or Stream WEST CLEAR CREEK POWER COMPLEX Geoloqirel Boundary and Name Geournljb ivLovation Wr.LITTLE 5-2-1968 City o Town Oesrgn Feefurs - Dam Site

Sccie S I P 3 4

MILES tJ/ China Creek Power Drop

Seligman Camp Verde

W. Clear Creek

Camp Verde Camp Site

China Creek Canal

Malpais Dam Site

Chino Creek

Fossil Dam Site

Petes Cabin Dam Site

Yavagila Dam Site

Verde River Complex It

Tangle Creek Darn Site

Sullivan Lake

Horseshoe Dam

Darn Site B Darn Site C

Cliff Dwellers Dam Site

Darn Site C

Verde River Complex I Bartlett Darn Darn Site E

Dom Site F Verde River Clarkdole

Cottonwood Verde Power Canal i

It River Stewart Mt. Dam Granite Reef Darn

LEGEND

Aqueduct InternalPower Drop Proposed Doer Site Existing Darn and Reservoir River and Stresrn ,__- vvv Geogrvphic Location City or Town FIGURE 7 VERDE RIVER POWER COMPLEXES I AND U Design Feature Darn Site CHINO CREEK CANAL Power Canal W. M. LITTLE Railroad 5-2-1968 Scale: 0 I a 3 4

MILES