Plan 6: New Waddell • Cliff+ Roosevelt+ Reconstructed Stewart
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
What is Plan 6? Chart 8 Plan 6: New Waddell ➔• Cliff+ Roosevelt+ Reconstructed Stewart Mtn. Dam ~ $£a/lf£f't.AC£11£NT . ~ COIU£1fVATIO#/lf.S. ■ l'l.000 CO#TlfOI. □ $U/fCHAlf•£ t:A~r,no l'l.000 CO#TlftH. PLAN 6: (1) New Waddell (2) New or Enlarged Roosevelt (3) Cliff (4) Reconstructed Stewart Mountain Plan 6, selected by Interior Secretary Watt as the CAWCS proposed action, calls for construction of New Waddell, CJiff, and Roosevelt Dams and reconstruction of Stewart Mountain Dam for safety reasons. New Waddell Dam would be constructed on the Agua Fria River, one-quarter mile down stream from the existing Waddell Dam, for regulatory storage purposes and would include a hydropower generation plant. The dam would be connected to the Granite Reef Aqueduct by a four-mile long canal and a pumping plant. Cliff Dam would be constructed on the Verde River between the existing Horseshoe and Bartlett Dams, and a New or En larged Roosevelt Dam would be constructed on the Salt River. Both dams would provide flood control, ad ditional water con servation, and hydropower, and would solve SOD problems. At Roosevelt, dual use of the sediment pool (241,000 acre-feet) could provide increased water supply for an interim period. This space plus the new conservation space at Cliff could be used for conservation to increase the CAP yield. A pumping plant would be required at or near the Granite Reef Diver sion Dam to deliver water to the Salt-Gila Aqueduct. New hydropower generation plants would be constructed at Cliff and Roosevelt. - 1 - Conceptual recreation plans have been developed for each of the structures in this plan. Under Plan 6, the CAP yield would be increased by 143,000 acre-feet per year through regulatory storage at New Wad dell, dual use of the sediment pool at Roosevelt, and new conservation space at Cliff. Dedicated flood control space at Cliff and Roosev~lt would reduce the 200-year flood (275,000 cfs) to 92,000 cfs at the airport and the 100-year event (215,000 cfs) to 55,000 cfs at the airport. Total construction cost of Plan 6 is $746 million and the benefit/cost ratio is 1.33. Costs and benefits of the plan may change with refined operating criteria. 2) Who selected Plan 6? In November 1981, the Secretary of the Interior (Watt) se lected Plan 6 as the agency proposed action. His selection was based on the Plan's strong local support, its functional ability to statutory obligations required by the authorizing legislation, and the fact that the severe impacts to the Fort McDowell Indian community associated with some plans were avoided. 3 ) Who prepared Plan 6? Plan 6 was recommended as the proposed action to the Secre tary of the Interior by the Central Arizona Water Control Study (CAWCS). CAWCS was established in 1978 by the Bureau of Reclamation in conjunction with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as a result of major flooding in central Arizona. 4) What planning process did CAWCS use in arriving at Plan 6? The Central Arizona Water Control Study c6nducted a three stage planning process. Stage 1 - Identified the problems, needs, and issues. ELEMENTS Stage 2 - Shifted from problem identification to SYSTEMS formulation and testing of alternative solutions. Elements from Stage 1 were screened to achieve the best elements. These were then combined into systems which provided flood control and regulatory storage. - 2 - Stage 3 - The Bureau widened the focus of the study to PLANS include safety of Dams (SOD) as a major ob jective. The systems developed during Stage 2 were next analyzed at a greater level of detail and combined into plans. All plans included 1) flood control, 2) regulatory storage, 3) safety of dams. Seven plans were studied by CAWCS based on the following cat egories: performance (ability to meet study objectives), economics, environmental im pacts, social impacts, and public acceptability. 5 ) What did the study determine to be the advantages and disad vantages of Plan 6? ADVANTAGES Significant Increase in CAP Yield High Level of Flood Protection Solves Dam Safety Problems Highest Increase in Power Revenues and Other Economic Benefits · Provides Reliable Water Supply Provides Flexible CAP Operations Significant Increase in Lake Recreation No Impacts to Fort McDowell Indian Community Insignificant Impacts to Endangered Species Strong, Broad-Based Public Support DISADVANTAGES High Cost Adverse Impacts to Riparian Habitat and Cultural Resources 6) What are the estimated costs for Plan 6? ALLOCATION OF THE COSTS OF PLAN 6 IN 1985 DOLLARS $ MILLIONS 1. Cliff Dam $ 385 A. Safety of Dams $ ( 140) B. Flood Control $ (220) C. Conservation Storage $ ( 2 5 ) 2. Roosevelt Dam $ 255 A. Safety of Dams $ ( 9 5 ) B. Flood Control $ ( 143) C. Conservation Storage $ ( 1 7 ) - 3 3. New Waddell $ 460 A. Safety of Dams B. Flood Control c. Conservation Storage $ (460) Totals $ 1,100 A. Safety of Dams (235) B. Flood Control (363) C. Conservation Storage (502) An additional $70 million is necessary for Safety of Dams im provements at Stewart Mountain, Horse Mesa, Mormon Flat and Bartlett Dams. 7. CAWCS studied all plans based on three elements: 1) flood control, 2) regulatory storage, 3) safety of dams. 7.a. What does Plan 6 mean in terms of flood control? FLOOD CONTROL The authority to develop flood control plans and operation criteria by the Corps for CAWCS is provided by the Flood Control Act of 1944-Section 7. The Problem: When rain or snow falls on the land, four dif ferent things can happen: The water can evaporate, or it can soak into the ground, or it can stay on the surface as snow or ice, or it can run over the ground and into streams. Water that runs over the ground and into streams is called runoff. The area or region from which the rainfall or snow melt drains to a stream is called a watershed. Floods occur when water in a stream rises and overflows into normally dry land. The Phoenix area can be viewed as being situated at the narrow end of a large funnel fed by the Salt, Verde, and Agua Fria watersheds. The Salt-Verde watershed drains through Phoenix and includes almost 13,000 square miles above the confluence of the two rivers. Floods occur in the Phoenix area when there is a large volume of runoff in the watersheds of the Salt, Verde, and/ or Agua Fria Rivers. The runoff is caused by several kinds of conditions. For example, warm rains can cause rapid snowmelt in the high country, and this leads to excessive runoff. Rain which falls on soil already wet from an ear lier storm becomes runoff because the soil has reached its capacity to absorb water. The major cause of the 1978, 1979, and 1980 floods was the large amount of precipitation that fell on the watersheds during winter storms. - 4 - Historically, the highest flows in the area's rivers have been produced by winter storms. The "flood of record" on the Salt- Verde system occurred in February 1981 when a peak flow of 300,000 ft3/s was recorded at the Salt-Verde con fluence. Recent peak flows measured at the confluence were 122,000 ft3/s in March 1978, 140,000 ft3/s in December 1978, and 170,000 ft3/s in February 1980. The SRP dams and reservoirs upstream on the Salt and Verde Rivers have reduced peak flows through Phoenix. The SRP system of six dams and reservoirs was constructed primarily for water conservation, but it also provides hydropower and incidental flood control. During some years, the SRP reser voirs are filled to capacity toward the end of the annual runoff season and consequently there is little or no space ion the system for flood control. However, the two reser voirs on the Verde and four on the Salt can reduce peak flows if storage space is available. According to SRP, peak flows in the February storm were reduced by approximately one-third through use of storage space in the upstream reservoirs. The storage space in the SRP system is not evenly divided between the Salt and Verde Rivers. Approximately 85 percent of the 2,063,900 acre-feet of storage in the system is pro vided on the Salt River. As might be expected from this, a disproportionate share of the water from recent floods was emanated from .the Verde River. FLOOD CONTROL DAMS Dams constructed for flood control have space dedicated specifically for storing and controlling flood waters. Large outlets at the bottom of the dam allow controlled releases of incoming flow. Up to a design flow (maximum "acceptable" flow), everything coming into the reservoir goes out -- inflow equals outflow. Inflows over that ac ceptable amount can be stored in space dedicated (kept em pty) for that purpose and released later at a less damaging rate, until the flood storage space is again empty. To il lustrate, if the design flood flow is 80,000 ft3/s, then the outlets at the bottom of the dam would be sized to 80,000 ft3/s. During a flood, inflow would equal outflow up to that point, and from then on, flow would be released steadi ly at 80,000 ft3/s. Inflow greater than 80,000 ft3/s (the peak) would be stored. Water would be released until the water in the flood storage space is gone and the space is again available for the next flood. In the case of Plan 6, Cliff and Roosevelt are designed to control the Standard Project Flood of 295,000 ft3/s to 50,000 ft3/s through Phoenix.