DOCSLIB.ORG

Chapter 3—Arizona's Hydrology, Population and Border with Mexico

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Chapter 3—Arizona's Hydrology, Population and Border with Mexico Chapter 3 ARIZONA’S HYDROLOGY, POPULATION AND BORDER WITH MEXICO DAVID A. DE KOK There is no denying Arizona’s appeal. Hundreds of hopeful new residents enter Arizona everyday. They are drawn by both Arizona’s great natural beauty, as popularized in the pages of Arizona Highways, and its vibrant economy. The cumulative effect of this unrelenting migration has made Arizona the exemplar of the Sun Belt phenomenon. From a half million people just prior to the start of World War II, the state’s population soared ten-fold in just six decades. The post-war boom shows no sign of slowing down. Although this growth has helped fuel a booming economy, it also has taxed the state’s water resources, revealing the possible limits to growth in some parts of the state. The diversity of Arizona’s terrain, climate, flora and fauna is the state’s most striking feature. Despite the state’s enormously varied physical components, there is one unifying element that serves to define Arizona–its climate; except at its highest elevations Arizona is arid. There is a strong relationship between elevation and precipitation, particularly in the western and southern two-thirds of the state (Figure 3.1). Southwestern Arizona is a low-lying desert–a place where evaporation far exceeds rainfall and where water is severely limiting to life most of the time. The abruptly rising central highlands receive far more precipitation and experience lower evaporation. The northeastern third of the state gets much less precipitation than the central highlands due to its slightly lower elevation and its position in the rain shadow to the lee of the highlands which intercept eastward traveling winter storms. The eastern two-thirds of Arizona receives its maximum precipitation from summer monsoon storms, whereas the western third of the state gets most of its rain in the winter. Each 1,000-foot increase in elevation generally is accompanied by an increase of three inches in annual precipitation and a decrease of from three to 21 Draft of 10/06/04 ARIZONA’S HYDROLOGY, POPULATION AND BORDER WITH MEXICO five degrees Fahrenheit in temperature. In reality, the distribution of precipitation is highly irregu- lar and is affected by both the altitude and arrangement of the state’s landforms and their interac- tion with seasonal weather patterns. Precipitation by itself does not always translate into an available water resource. Evapo- ration reduces it, rocks deflect and channel it and porous soils absorb it. This leads to Arizona’s great water paradox–water is most readily available for human use in some of the state’s most arid parts and, conversely, water is more difficult to access in some of the state’s wettest regions. The recent drought has highlighted the precariousness of water resources in parts of the central 22 Draft of 10/06/04 ARIZONA’S HYDROLOGY, POPULATION AND BORDER WITH MEXICO highlands and plateau uplands where water providers in such communities as Payson, Pine, Straw- berry, Williams and Flagstaff have had to scramble to secure new water sources as shallow aqui- fers and reservoirs have run dry. PHYSIOGRAPHY AND HYDROLOGY Arizona can be divided into three physiographic regions: (i) the basin and range low- lands, (ii) the central highlands and (iii) the plateau uplands (Figure 3.2). Appendix G contains a detailed description of the principal streams and major drainages, natural recharge patterns, ground- 23 Draft of 10/06/04 ARIZONA’S HYDROLOGY, POPULATION AND BORDER WITH MEXICO water resources and regional aquifers found in these physiographical regions. Basin and Range Lowlands The basin and range lowlands contain 45 percent of the state’s land area and 89 percent of its population. The lowlands include all of Yuma, La Paz, Pima, Pinal, Santa Cruz and Cochise Counties as well as most of Maricopa County and portions of Mohave, Graham and Greenlee Counties. The basin and range lowlands consist of isolated, northwest trending, uplifted fault block mountain ranges jutting from alluvial sediments that form the broad desert basins. The 24 Draft of 10/06/04 ARIZONA’S HYDROLOGY, POPULATION AND BORDER WITH MEXICO valley floors range in altitude from about 100 feet at Yuma to 4,600 feet near Sierra Vista. The interspersed mountain ranges vary from 1,000 to 6,000 feet above the valleys and reach eleva- tions as great as 10,700 feet above sea level in the Pinaleno Mountains. Annual precipitation in the region generally averages less than ten inches, but ranges from four inches near Yuma to 30 inches along the peaks of the Santa Catalina and Chiricahua Mountains. The basin and range lowlands generate very little runoff over most of their area. Streams in the region are characterized by extreme seasonal variation in flow levels. Ephemeral streams (those which flow only in response to precipitation events in their watersheds) in the low moun- tain ranges and alluvial valleys experience maximum flows in the summer in response to mon- soon storms. Streams in the higher mountain ranges have maximum seasonal runoff in late winter and early spring as accumulated snowpacks melt off. Channel losses have a great effect on alluvial valley streams. Low groundwater tables and sandy, usually dry channels encourage the rapid infiltration of surface flows into the streambed. Channel losses in combination with the region’s high evaporation rates result in streams that have relatively short stretches of surface flow. Only runoff from major storms is usually carried to the lower reaches of the main stream channels, many of which are controlled with dams. While the basin and range has the preponder- ance of surface water use in Arizona (Figure 3.3), the source of that water primarily is outside the physiographical region.1 Even as the basin and range lacks indigenous surface water, it is both the locale of the state’s most easily mined groundwater and the region with the most highly developed groundwa- ter resources, with over 100,000 registered groundwater wells. Figure 3.4 shows in quite general terms areas of Arizona where groundwater wells are likely to be capable of high flow rates, based 1 Figures 3.3 and 3.5 represent intensity as the volume of water used (in acre-inches) in the basin, divided by the area of the basin (in acres). The resulting units are simply inches, which can be thought of as the depth of water that would result if all the water used in the basin were spread uniformly over the entire basin. While such units seem odd at first, they are, of course, used for precipitation. The figures clearly illustrate the spatial variability of usage as well as the fact that groundwater resources are more widely used and available. 25 Draft of 10/06/04 ARIZONA’S HYDROLOGY, POPULATION AND BORDER WITH MEXICO on aquifer characteristics and well records. The figure illustrates the spatial variability of ground- water, providing a useful contrast between the alluvial aquifers of the basin and range and the less productive hardrock areas of the plateau. The intensity of groundwater use is correspondingly high (Figure 3.5). Some of the most distinctive features in the basin and range are artificial, notably irrigated agriculture and urban areas. The dams and diversion structures that regulate and direct the Colo- rado River have transformed the hyper-arid river corridor into a fertile and highly productive agricultural area. There are several large irrigation districts in the Yuma area, along with the 26 Draft of 10/06/04 ARIZONA’S HYDROLOGY, POPULATION AND BORDER WITH MEXICO Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation District stretching to the east. Further north, the Colorado River In- dian Community has large-scale agricultural operations, as does the Fort Mohave Indian Reser- vation near Bullhead City. Likewise, in the central part of the state, the “plumbing” of the Salt River Project (SRP), the growing use of the Central Arizona Project and productive alluvial aquifers have given rise to large-scale irrigated agriculture in Maricopa, Pinal and Pima Counties. Add to that the fields in the Sulphur Springs and San Simon Valleys of southeastern Arizona, and the basin and range region accounts for 89 percent of the approximately 1.3 million agricultural acres in Arizona. 27 Draft of 10/06/04 ARIZONA’S HYDROLOGY, POPULATION AND BORDER WITH MEXICO Central Highlands The central highlands contain 15 percent of the state’s land area and five percent of its population. The highlands are composed of parts of Mohave, Maricopa, Graham, Greenlee, Navajo and Apache Counties, as well as most of Yavapai County and all of Gila County. The highlands were formed by differential movements along complex fault systems resulting in sharp, rugged mountains of extruded volcanic rock. The basins in the central highlands are generally small, shallow and isolated from one another. Sharp, steep elevational differences characterize this region, with altitudes ranging from 1,400 feet at Fort McDowell to 11,500 feet at Mount Baldy. The region’s most salient feature is the 200 mile long Mogollon Rim which forms the boundary between the central highlands and the plateau uplands. This northwesterly trending escarpment ranges in height from 200 feet to over 2,000 feet. Annual precipitation in this region ranges from ten inches near Fort McDowell to 40 inches on top of Mount Baldy. The central highlands are the source for about half of the stream flow originating in Ari- zona. All of the major reservoirs in the state, except for the San Carlos Reservoir on the Gila River and the various Colorado River lakes, receive the bulk of their water supply from streams originating in the central highlands. Most of the areal extent of the Salt and Verde River water- sheds fall within the central highlands.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Cultural Landscape Planning: the Mexicali Valley, Mexico
    The Sustainable City VII, Vol. 1 457 Cultural landscape planning: the Mexicali Valley, Mexico R. I. Rojas-Caldelas1, C. A. Pena-Salmon1 & J. Ley-Garcia2 1Faculty of Architecture and Design, Autonomous University of Baja California, Mexicali, México 2Institute of Research in Social Sciences, Autonomous University of Baja California, Mexicali, México Abstract Initiating around the eighties, the academic training of landscape architects in Mexico is quite recent compared with the tradition in Europe and the U.S. Also new, is the development of landscape research conducted mainly by geographers, urban planners and other professionals trained in natural sciences, whose work is primarily oriented to land use management for urban development and conservation of natural resources or cultural heritage purposes. However, the issue of the cultural landscape in Mexico has been little explored and lacks any integrated and multidisciplinary methodology to bring together social, cultural and natural processes for study. Therefore, this work focuses on the presentation of an appropriate methodology to address the issue of the evolving cultural landscape of the Valley of Mexicali. This work has been developed into three stages: characterization, multiple assessment of landscape and integration of strategies for their management. Thus progress will be presented for the characterization of physical units, landscape components through pictures, visual and spatial patterns of landscape that structure the region and its settlements. As a partial result it was found that multi-valued zones visually and spatially exist in the Mexicali Valley, as well as activities that give character and differentiate it from other agricultural areas of Baja California. Keywords: cultural landscape, landscape assessment methodologies, visual and spatial assessment, sustainable landscape planning.
    [Show full text]
  • I2628 Pamphlet
    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR TO ACCOMPANY MAP I–2628 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Version 1.0 GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE LITTLEFIELD 30' × 60' QUADRANGLE, MOHAVE COUNTY, NORTHWESTERN ARIZONA By George H. Billingsley and Jeremiah B. Workman INTRODUCTION 10 km north of the north-central part of the map and are the largest settlements near the map area. This map is one result of the U.S. Geological Survey’s Interstate Highway 15 and U.S. Highway 91 provide intent to provide geologic map coverage and a better under- access to the northwest corner of the map area, and Arizona standing of the transition in regional geology between the State Highway 389 provides access to the northeast corner. Basin and Range and Colorado Plateaus in southeastern Ne- Access to the rest of the map area is by dirt roads maintained vada, southwestern Utah, and northwestern Arizona. Infor- by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Arizona Strip Dis- mation gained from this regional study provides a better trict, St. George, Utah. The area is largely managed by the understanding of the tectonic and magmatic evolution of an U.S. Bureau of Land Management, the Arizona Strip Dis- area of extreme contrasts in late Mesozoic-early Tertiary trict, which includes sections of land controlled by the State compression, Cenozoic magmatism, and Cenozoic extension. of Arizona. There are several isolated sections of privately This map is a synthesis of 32 new geologic maps encom- owned lands, mainly near the communities of Littlefield, passing the Littlefield 30' x 60' quadrangle, Arizona. Geo- Beaver Dam, and Colorado City.
    [Show full text]
  • Imperial Irrigation Decision Support System Summary Report
    Draft Imperial Irrigation Decision Support System Summary Report Prepared for Imperial Irrigation District December 2001 2525 Airpark Drive Redding, California In Association with: Keller-Bliesner Engineering Davids Engineering Colorado State University Allen Engineering Contents Section Page 1.0 Introduction.........................................................................................................................1-1 IID Irrigation and Drainage Systems................................................................................1-1 Water Transfer Basics..........................................................................................................1-4 Imperial Irrigation Decision Support System..................................................................1-5 IID System Representation....................................................................................1-5 IIDSS Purpose .........................................................................................................1-5 Peer Review..........................................................................................................................1-6 2.0 Design of the Imperial Irrigation Decision Support System.....................................2-1 Irrigation System Overview...............................................................................................2-1 Delivery System......................................................................................................2-3 On-farm System......................................................................................................2-3
    [Show full text]
  • Utah Geological Association Publication 30.Pub
    Utah Geological Association Publication 30 - Pacific Section American Association of Petroleum Geologists Publication GB78 239 CENOZOIC EVOLUTION OF THE NORTHERN COLORADO RIVER EXTEN- SIONAL CORRIDOR, SOUTHERN NEVADA AND NORTHWEST ARIZONA JAMES E. FAULDS1, DANIEL L. FEUERBACH2*, CALVIN F. MILLER3, 4 AND EUGENE I. SMITH 1Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology, University of Nevada, Mail Stop 178, Reno, NV 89557 2Department of Geology, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242 *Now at Exxon Mobil Development Company, 16825 Northchase Drive, Houston, TX 77060 3Department of Geology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37235 4Department of Geoscience, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV 89154 ABSTRACT The northern Colorado River extensional corridor is a 70- to 100-km-wide region of moderately to highly extended crust along the eastern margin of the Basin and Range province in southern Nevada and northwestern Arizona. It has occupied a criti- cal structural position in the western Cordillera since Mesozoic time. In the Cretaceous through early Tertiary, it stood just east and north of major fold and thrust belts and also marked the northern end of a broad, gently (~15o) north-plunging uplift (Kingman arch) that extended southeastward through much of central Arizona. Mesozoic and Paleozoic strata were stripped from the arch by northeast-flowing streams. Peraluminous 65 to 73 Ma granites were emplaced at depths of at least 10 km and exposed in the core of the arch by earliest Miocene time. Calc-alkaline magmatism swept northward through the northern Colorado River extensional corridor during early to middle Miocene time, beginning at ~22 Ma in the south and ~12 Ma in the north.
    [Show full text]
  • Grand Wash Cliffs G-E-M Resources Area (GRA No. AZ-02) Covers Approximately 200,000 Acres (811 Sq Km) and Includes the Following Wilderness Study Areas (WSA)
    GRAND WASH CLIFFS G-E-M Denver, CO 80225.QO4 f RESOURCES AREA (GRA NO. AZ-02) TECHNICAL REPORT (WSAs AZ 020-014 and 020-015) Contract YA-553-RFP2-1054 Prepared By Great Basin GEM Joint Venture 251 Ralston Street Reno, Nevada 89503 For Bureau of Land Management Denver Service Center Building 50, Mailroom Denver Federal Center Denver, Colorado 80225 Final Report April 22, 1983 . TABLE OF CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 I INTRODUCTION 3 II. GEOLOGY 10 1. PHYSIOGRAPHY 1° 2 ROCK UNITS 10 3 STRUCTURAL GEOLOGY AND TECTONICS H 4. PALEONTOLOGY 12 5 HISTORICAL GEOLOGY 12 III ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES 14 A. METALLIC MINERAL RESOURCES 14 1 Known Mineral Deposits 14 2. Known Prospects, Mineral Occurrences and Mineralized Areas • • 14 3 Mining Claims • 15 4. Mineral Deposit Types 15 5 • Mineral Economics 16 B NONMETALLIC MINERAL RESOURCES 17 1 Known Mineral Deposits 17 2. Known Prospects, Mineral Occurrences and Mineralized Areas 17 3. Mining Claims, Leases and Material Sites 17 4. Mineral Deposit Types 17 5 • Mineral Economics ••• 17 . .. .. Table of Contents cont Page C. ENERGY RESOURCES 18 Uranium and Thorium Resources 18 1. Known Mineral Deposits • 18 2. Known Prospects, Mineral Occurrences and Mineralized Areas 18 3 Mining Claims • 18 4. Mineral Deposit Types 18 5 Mineral Economics 18 Oil and Gas Resources 19 Geothermal Resources 20 D. OTHER GEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 20 E. STRATEGIC AND CRITICAL MINERALS AND METALS 21 IV. LAND CLASSIFICATION FOR G-E-M RESOURCES POTENTIAL ... 22 1 LOCATABLE RESOURCES 23 a. Metallic Minerals 23 b. Uranium and Thorium 24 c. Nonmetallic Minerals • 25 2 LEASABLE RESOURCES 26 a.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Wilderness Recommendation
    Final Wilderness Recommendation 2010 Update Grand Canyon National Park Arizona National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior NOTE: This document is a draft update to the park’s 1980 Final Wilderness Recommendation submitted to the Department of Interior in September 1980. The 1980 recommendation has never been forwarded to the president and Congress for legislative action. The 2010 draft update is to reconcile facts on the ground and incorporate modern mapping tools (Geographical Information Systems), but it does not alter the substance of the original recommendation. In 1993, the park also completed an update that served as a resource for the 2010 draft update. The official wilderness recommendation map remains the map #113-40, 047B, submitted to the Department of Interior in 1980. FINAL WILDERNESS RECOMMENDATION 2010 Update GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK ARIZONA THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE RECOMMENDS THAT WILDERNESS OF 1,143,918 ACRES WITHIN GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK, ARIZONA, AS DESCRIBED IN THIS DOCUMENT, BE DESIGNATED BY AN ACT OF CONGRESS. OF THIS TOTAL, 1,117,457 ACRES ARE RECOMMENDED FOR IMMEDIATE DESIGNATION, AND 26,461 ACRES ARE RECOMMENDED FOR DESIGNATION AS POTENTIAL WILDERNESS PENDING RESOLUTION OF BOUNDARY AND MOTORIZED RIVER ISSUES. 2 Table of Contents I. Requirement for Study 4 II. Wilderness Recommendation 4 III. Wilderness Summary 4 IV. Description of the Wilderness Units 5 Unit 1: Grand Wash Cliffs 5 Unit 2: Western Park 5 (a) Havasupai Traditional Use Lands 6 (b) Sanup Plateau 7 (c) Uinkaret Mountains 7 (d) Toroweap Valley 8 (e) Kanab Plateau 8 - Tuckup Point 8 - SB Point 8 (f) North Rim 8 (g) Esplanade 9 (h) Tonto Platform 9 (i) Inner Canyon 9 (j) South Rim (west of Hermits Rest) 9 (k) Recommended Potential wilderness 9 - Colorado River 9 - Curtis-Lee Tracts 9 (l) Non-wilderness 9 - Great Thumb 9 - North Rim Primitive Roads 10 - Kanab Plateau Primitive Roads 10 Unit 3: Eastern Park 10 (a) Potential Wilderness 11 - Private Lands 11 - Colorado River 12 (b) Non-wilderness: North Rim Paved Roads 12 Unit 4: The Navajo Indian Properties 12 VI.
    [Show full text]
  • New and Alamo River Wetlands Master Plan Revised Final Report May 21, 2007
    NEW AND ALAMO RIVER WETLANDS MASTER PLAN REVISED FINAL REPORT MAY 21, 2007 Prepared for: Wildlife Conservation Board Salton Sea Authority Sacramento, CA La Quinta, CA Prepared by: Tetra Tech, Inc. Wetlands Management Services Lafayette, CA Chelsea, MI New and Alamo River Wetlands Master Plan Revised Final Report May 21, 2007 Prepared for: Wildlife Conservation Board Salton Sea Authority 1807 13th Street, Suite 103 78-401 Highway 111, Suite T Sacramento, CA 95814 La Quinta, CA 92253 Prepared by: Tetra Tech, Inc. Wetlands Management Services 3746 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Suite 300 6995 Westbourne Dr. Lafayette, CA 94549 Chelsea, MI 48118 New and Alamo River Wetland Master Plan, Final Report Table of Contents Executive Summary .................................................................................................... ES-1 1. Introduction.......................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Summary of Prior Work............................................................................................................1-1 1.2 Organization of Master Plan Report .......................................................................................1-6 2. Historical Water Quality Data in the Alamo and New River Basins..........2-1 2.1 New and Alamo River Flow......................................................................................................2-1 2.2 Water Quality – New River......................................................................................................2-5
    [Show full text]
  • Selenium Roy A
    Nutrient Dynamics in the Salton Basin-­ Implications from Calcium, Uranium, Molybdenum, and Selenium Roy A. Schroeder, U. S. Geological Survey, San Diego, California and Willian H. Orem, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia H31B-02 ABSTRACT: The Salton Sea has been accumulating chemical constituents delivered by its tributary streams for nearly 100 years because it has no outlet. The buildup of chemicals that are highly soluble and unreactive, such as chloride, has resulted in the development of a quasi- marine lake. In contrast, chemicals that react to form insoluble phases ultimately enter the sediment that accumulates on the floor of the Sea. Solubility properties are especially relevant for two important contaminants, selenium and nitrogen. The selenium is contained in Colorado River water used for irrigation, and nitrogen is derived mostly from chemical fertilizer in agricultural runoff. Both are delivered to the Salton Sea as highly soluble oxyanions by the Alamo and New Rivers, which are relatively high in dissolved oxygen at their outlets to the Salton Sea, but are removed as reduced species in anoxic sediment on the Sea’s floor. Without this removal mechanism, selenium concentration would presently be about 400 micrograms per liter and nitrogen would be about 100 milligrams per liter in the Salton Sea’s water, rather than the observed concentrations of only about 1 microgram per liter and 5 milligrams per liter, respectively. Ironically, anoxic conditions responsible for producing the noxious odors and low oxygen conditions that lead to periodic dieoffs of large numbers of fish in the Salton Sea have prevented aqueous selenium and nitrogen from reaching levels that could indeed pose an extreme environmental hazard.
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Goals and Objectives
    Appendix C Biological Goals and Objectives Draft DRECP and EIR/EIS APPENDIX C. BIOLOGICAL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES C BIOLOGICAL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES C.1 Process for Developing the Biological Goals and Objectives This section outlines the process for drafting the Biological Goals and Objectives (BGOs) and describes how they inform the conservation strategy for the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP or Plan). The conceptual model shown in Exhibit C-1 illustrates the structure of the BGOs used during the planning process. This conceptual model articulates how Plan-wide BGOs and other information (e.g., stressors) contribute to the development of Conservation and Management Actions (CMAs) associated with Covered Activities, which are monitored for effectiveness and adapted as necessary to meet the DRECP Step-Down Biological Objectives. Terms used in Exhibit C-1 are defined in Section C.1.1. Exhibit C-1 Conceptual Model for BGOs Development Appendix C C-1 August 2014 Draft DRECP and EIR/EIS APPENDIX C. BIOLOGICAL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The BGOs follow the three-tiered approach based on the concepts of scale: landscape, natural community, and species. The following broad biological goals established in the DRECP Planning Agreement guided the development of the BGOs: Provide for the long-term conservation and management of Covered Species within the Plan Area. Preserve, restore, and enhance natural communities and ecosystems that support Covered Species within the Plan Area. The following provides the approach to developing the BGOs. Section C.2 provides the landscape, natural community, and Covered Species BGOs. Specific mapping information used to develop the BGOs is provided in Section C.3.
    [Show full text]
  • Flow of the Colorado River and Other Western Boundary Streams and Related Data
    WESTERN WATER BULLETIN 1994 RECENL.iJ Flow of SEpgg 2m® The Colorado RiveyBwc .and other Western Boundary Streams and INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY AND WATER COMMISSION UNITED STATES AND MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF STATE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1994 INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY AND WATER COMMISSION UNITED STATES AND MEXICO UNITED STATES SECTION MEXICAN SECTION JOHN M . BERNAL J. ARTURO HERRERA SOLIS .Commissioner Commissioner El Paso, Texas Cd. Juarez, Chihuahua ALTON L . GOFF CECILIO LOMELI LOPEZ Chief Area Subdirector Yuma, Arizona Hydro Office Mexicali, Baja California WESTERN WATER BULLETIN 1994 Flow of The Colorado River and other Western Boundary Streams and Related Data COLORADO RIVER TIJUANA RIVER SANTA CRUZ RIVER SAN PEDRO RIVER WHITE WATER DRAW 1994 2 WESTERN BOUNDARY WATER BULLETIN - 1994 - INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY AND WATER COMMISSION CONTENTS Foreword and Acknowledgments 4 General Hydrologic Conditions for 1994 6 Map of Western Boundary - Douglas, Arizona to Pacific Ocean 44 I - COLORADO RIVER - IMPERIAL DAM TO GULF OF CALIFORNIA Map of Lower Colorado River, United States and Mexico . Following Page 84 QUANTITY OF WATER Stream-Flow and Stage Records Tributary - Reservation Main Drain No . 4 (California Drain) 8 Yuma Main Canal Wasteway to Colorado River at Yuma, Arizona 9 Colorado River below Yuna Main Canal Wasteway at Yuma, Arizona - Discharges 10 below Yuma Main Canal Wasteway at Yuma, Arizona - Stages 11 Tributary - Yuma Mesa Outlet Drain to Colorado River near Yuma, Arizona 12 Drain No . 8-8 (Araz Drain) 13 Pilot Knob Power Plant and Wasteway
    [Show full text]
  • Dissolved Pesticides in the Alamo River and the Salton Sea, California, 1996–97
    Dissolved Pesticides in the Alamo River and the Salton Sea, California, 1996–97 Open-File Report 02-232 Prepared in cooperation with the CALIFORNIA STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dissolved Pesticides in the Alamo River and the Salton Sea, California, 1996–97 By Kathryn L. Crepeau, Kathryn M. Kuivila, and Brian Bergamaschi Prepared in cooperation with the CALIFORNIA STATE WATER RESOUCRES CONTROL BOARD Sacramento, California 2002 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GALE A. NORTON, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Charles G. Groat, Director Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. For additional information write to: Copies of this report can be purchased from: U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Placer Hall, Suite 2012 Information Services 6000 J Street Building 810 Sacramento, CA 95819-6129 Box 25286, Federal Center http://ca.water.usgs.gov Denver, CO 80225-0286 CONTENTS Abstract ................................................................................................................................................................ 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................... 1 Sample Collection, Processing, and Analysis ...................................................................................................... 3 Sampling Results.................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Information Database and Local Outreach Program for the Restoration of the Hardy River Wetlands, Lower Colorado River Delta, Baja California and Sonora, Mexico
    Final Report to: North American Wetland Conservation Council Instituto Nacional de Ecología - SEMARNAP ITESM Campus Guaymas University of Arizona Environmental Defense Fund Pronatura Sonora Oregon State University Information Database and Local Outreach Program for the Restoration of the Hardy River Wetlands, Lower Colorado River Delta, Baja California and Sonora, Mexico Prepared by: Carlos Valdés-Casillas, Osvel Hinojosa-Huerta, Manuel Muñoz-Viveros, Francisco Zamora-Arroyo, Yamilett Carrillo-Guerrero, Selene Delgado-García, and María López-Camacho. Instituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey (ITESM) - Campus Guaymas Centro de Conservación y Aprovechamiento de los Recursos Naturales (CECARENA) Unidad de Información Biogeográfica (UIB) Edward P. Glenn, Jaqueline García, James Riley, and Donald Baumgartner University of Arizona Environmental Research Laboratory Mark Briggs The Sonoran Institute Christopher T. Lee California State University-Dominguez Hills Department of Earth Sciences Elene Chavarría-Correa Pronatura Sonora Chelsea Congdom and Daniel Luecke Environmental Defense Fund August 1998 Acknowledgements The Information Database and Local Outreach Program for the Restoration of the Hardy River Wetlands in the Lower Colorado River Delta, Baja California and Sonora, Mexico was accomplished under the generous funding of the North America Wetlands Conservation Council, ITESM Campus Guaymas, University of Arizona, Pronatura Sonora, Environmental Defense Fund, and Oregon State University. Support and assistance provided by many individuals within federal and state agencies, local governments, and non-governmental organizations on both sides of the border were highly determinant in accomplishing this first approach of restoring these wetlands. The federal agencies that supported the project are: · Secretaría del Medio Ambiente, Recursos Naturales y Pesca, SEMARNAP. (Mexican Ministry of Environment, Natural Resources, and Fisheries).
    [Show full text]