What is Plan 6?

Chart 8 Plan 6: New Waddell ➔• Cliff+ Roosevelt+ Reconstructed Stewart Mtn.

~ $£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 and reconstruction of for safety reasons. would be constructed on the , 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 between the existing Horseshoe and Bartlett Dams, and a New or En­ larged Roosevelt Dam would be constructed on the . 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 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 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 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. When the contribution from the drainage area below the reservoirs is taken into ac­ count, the Cliff/Roosevelt combination results in control­ ling the 100-year flood to 55,000 ft3/s and 200-year flood to 92,000 ft3/s measured at the airport. Flood control

- 5 - space designated at Cliff is 445,000 acre-feet and at Roosevelt, 565,000 acre-feet. This space is kept vacant from December through April. FLOOD CONTROL BENEFITS Economic analyses of the flood control alternatives proposed for the Phoenix area is a major determinant of how much and what kind of flood protection can be provided with federal funds. Each time a major flood occurs, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers evaluates the level and type of damage which resulted. This information is combined with projections of the level of runoff anticipated in the region's rivers from a variety of different storms to produce an estimate of the potential amount of flood damage the Phoenix area can expect over an extended period of time (average annual damages). 11 Damages prevented 11 by a flood control program are con­ sidered 11 benefits, 11 and are related to the cost of providing the program. For example, if the average annual flood damage is $1,000,000 and with a design flow of 80,000 ft3/s damages are limited to $100,000, then, $900,000 of damages have been prevented. Planners must then relate that amount of prevented damage to how much it would cost to provide the protection. If the anticipated benefits (damage prevented) from a particular alternative equals or exceeds that an­ alyzed cost of providing it, the alternative is considered economically justified. Although sometimes superseded by environmental, social, or dam safety considerations, flood control programs must generally be economically justified in order to receive federal funding. Since most major flood control structures -- such as the large dams and/or extensive channel systems being considered for the Phoenix area -- are very expensive and exceed local government's funding ability, the economic analyses being performed as part of the CAWCS will be a major determinant of what is finally built. Not all damages considered in the economic analyses are from physical losses. The cost to the region from traffic delays produced when all but three bridges across the Salt River were closed in December 1980, accounted for over 40 percent of all the losses recorded. Flood control planning can also consider benefits from proposed solutio~s which will allow more intensive or more productive uses of land which has been subject to flooding. In the case of Plan 6, the flood control benefits are $10,580,000 for inundation reduction and $16,460,000 for location benefits.

- 6 - Sufficient flood control space would be provided behind dams on the Salt, Verde, and Agua Fria Rivers to control floods measured near Sky Harbor International Airport on the Salt River and the confluence of the Agua Fria and New Rivers to the following levels: Flood Events Present Plan 6 Salt River 1OO-Year Flood 215,000 cfs 55,000 cfs 2OO-Year Flood 275,000 cfs 92,000 cfs Agua Fria River 1OO-Year Flood 90,000 cfs 13,000 cfs 2OO-Year Flood 120,000 cfs 25,000 cfs

7.b. What does Plan 6 mean in terms of regulatory storage? REGULATORY STORAGE Taking the point of view of the operator of the CAP, the primary and overlying purpose of regulatory storage is that o balancing, or buffering, between the project's water sup­ ply and water user demands. Given a 3OO-mile long aqueduct system and several hundred discretely different water user entities, the need for storage to effectively manage this system is very apparent. (Figure 1) The regulatory storage function in Plan 6 is accomplished by the New Waddell reservoir.

FIGURE 1

CAP REGULATORY STORAGE

WHY? 0 Balance Supply Versus Demand 0 System Reliability 0 Operational Flexibility

WHERE? 0 Between Major Supply and Service Area 0 Plan 6 - Agua Fria River at Lake Pleasant

Storage also enhances the reliability and flexibility of the CAP system. Aqueduct operations can be interrupted by a number of unexpected or unscheduled events. Power outages, pump or motor breakdowns, extreme weather conditions - all of these could take a major pumping plant or canal reach out of service for a time. Direct access to storage can keep parts or all of the water deliveries "up and running" during these abnormal circumstances, making the overall system more reliable and dependable.

- 7 - Operational flexibility is also important and simply means responsiveness to change. Changes can occur abruptly or gradually over a period of years. With New Waddell, CAP operations will be reliable and responsive to change, able to provide water to a large num ­ ber of water users, when and where the water is needed. But who would expect anything less? When we buy a new car we expect it to start when we want it to start. We expect it to stop when we want it to stop. Brakes and a starter are not considered "optional equipment" when we purchase a transportation system - the automobile. But storage in a water supply system - the starter, accelerator, and brakes - that is a different story. We have had to justify the need for storage repeatedly. While reliability and responsiveness are critical aspects of project operation, these do not constitute storage benefits. There are however, some measurable, external benefits from regulatory storage, more tangible than flexible operation or reliable water deliveries. (Figure 2) The most important of the measurable benefits is increased water supply. Storage at Cliff and Roosevelt will increase usable supplies by permanently storing some of the water which historically spilled from the Salt Rive~ Project dams. New Waddell con­ tributes to increased water supplies by allowing better use of the resource available to Arizona from the Colorado River. Having no storage restricts CAP capability to use Colorado River water to a maximum of about 1.6 million acre­ free a year. With New Waddell, CAP can divert up to 2.2 million acre-free when Colorado River supplies are surplus. Taken together, Plan 6 reservoirs should increase water supplies and project deliveries by an average of about 15 percent, about 150,000 acre-free per year. Enlarged and stabilized reservoirs also provide added water­ based recreation opportunity and fish and wildlife resources.

FIGURE 2

CAP REGULATORY STORAGE

HOW MUCH? 0 Up to 660,000 Acre-Feet (CAP Only)

BENEFITS? 0 Increased Supply + 15% 0 Recreation, etc. ° Flood Control ??? 0 Energy Management

- 8 - The Plan will provide 660,000 acre-feet of storage to regu ­ late flows pumped into central Arizona from the Colorado River and 266,000 acre- feet of capacity to conserve addi ­ tional supplies on the Salt and Verde Rivers for the CAP.

7.c. What does Plan 6 mean in terms of safety of dams? DEFINITIONS

0 I.D.F. - Inflow Design Flood Flood event never expected to be exceeded - Salt River - 678,000 cfs Verde River - 764,000 cfs

0 M.C.E. - Maximum Credible Earthquake Earthquake never expected to be exceeded 0 M.P.F. - Maximum probable flood

FLOOD CONTROL OAM MULTI-PURPOSE OAM TYPICAL SRP WATER CONSERVATION OAM I,- --...\ I ..,._..., ' ,------, n::a, o, fl\.00D C0lfffl0I. .!.PACI / Wlu.•n \ -====-- ' \ IDWT'V UCIJIIT OUIIINQ A "-0001 I \ IIIOMIM 5".J.WA'f -.u&I

SN.&.WA'f CIIDT

T~OflWAfUt CONSIJN'ATlOtlllV&a

S.O.D. SAFETY CRITERIA

0 A structure must be able to withstand a maximum event (IDF or MCE) without catastrophic release of its reservoir. SAFETY OF DAMS PROBLEM - HYDROLOGIC The SOD problem with the SRP dams is inadequate storage space and/or spillway and outlet capacity at all the dams to contain and/or pass the revised maximum probable floods without overtopping. Modern technology allows hydrologists and meteorologists to analyze more data than before and there is also a much larger data base of weather records. By using these meth­ ods, a new design storm and the subsequent revised flood

- 9 - flows were derived. Both the Corps and the Bureau conducted separate studies and arrived at very similar figures for maximum probable flood (MPF) flows. The Bureau MPF's will be used for its structures. The MPF is the largest flood that could conceivably occur on a given watershed at a selected point. The Inflow Design Flood (IDf) is the flood which controls the design of a specific dam and related features, it is usually equal to, but is never greater than, the maximum probable flood. Under particular circumstances, such as in sparesely devel­ oped areas where loss of life or widespread property damage from failure is not serious, the IDF may be less than the MPF. In the case of the SRP dams the revised IDF and the revised MPf will be equal. The previously approved IDF for Horseshoe Dam on the Verde River was 237,000 ft3/s and had a 10 day volume of about 945,000 acre-feet. The revised IDF into Horseshoe reservoir is 764,000 ft3/s with a 17 day volume of 2,260,000 acre­ feet. Neither Horseshoe nor Bartlett can accommodate this flow without overtopping. Horseshoe, being an earth dam, is assum~d to fail upon overtopping which would occur at a flow much lower than the IDF. The previously approved IDF for Roosevelt Dam on the Salt River was 214,000 ft3/s and had a maximum 10 day volume of 1,182,000 acre-feet. The maximum spillway release required would be 150,000 ft3/s. The next three downstream dams (Horse Mesa, Mormon Flat, and Stewart Mountain) have spill­ ways capable of passing this flow without overtopping. Ap­ praisal studies conducted in the early 1970 1 s indicated that such releases would cause extensive damages to the spillways at both Roosevelt and Stewart Mountain Dams with the risk of failing Stewart Mountain Dam. The revised IDF for Roosevelt is 678,000 ft3/s with a 17 day volume of 2,550,000 acre-feet. Flood routing studies show the revised IDF would overtop Roosevelt Dam by 15 feet, by 15 feet, by 27 feet, and Stewart Mountain Dam by 14 feet. SAFETY OF DAMS SOLUTION - HYDROLOGIC On the Salt River the proposed solution can be achieved by raising the height of Roosevelt Dam 39 feet which will allow peak releases during the IDF of 92,000 ft3/s. With the intervening flows, maximum releases at Horse Mesa and Mormon Flat would be 119,000 ft3/s and 148,000 ft3/s respectively which is less than the 150,000 ft3/s spillway capacity at each dam. Stewart Mountain would be required to pass

- 10 - 171,000 ft3/s which would require that an additional spill­ way be constructed. However, to pass the summer IDF as routed through the system, Stewart Mountain Dam would be required to pass 210,000 ft3/s. This flood would govern the size and cost of the additional spillway at Stewart Mountain Dam. On the Verde River the proposed solution is the construction of a new dam at the Cliff damsite, located just above the maximum backwater surface of Bartlett Reservoir. The reser­ voir would contain 1,484,000 acre-feet of storage space and would include 143,000 acre-feet of SRP replacement storage of Horseshoe Reservoir which would be eliminated by breach­ ing Horseshoe Dam. The balance of 1,341,000 acre-feet would suppress the IDF. S.O.D. HYDROLOGIC SOLUTION S,O.D. HYDROLOGIC SOLUTION

T • •• •

+ SOD SPACE

+ SOD SPACE

H9R~E MESA 119,000

M9R4MAN FLAT l 8,000

S!;WART MOUNTAIN 210,000

RllTEl IIF FLOdS

The Cliff storage would be sufficient to limit the outflow from Cliff Reservoir to 186,000 ft3/s which when routed through Bartlett Reservoir would not exceed the spillway and outlet capacity of 215,000 ft3/s at Bartlett Dam. No modification would be required at Bartlett Dam. Although

- 11 - the language of the SOD Act does not specifically state the acceptability of the new dam alternatives, Cliff appraisal cost estimates were prepared because Cliff damsite is being considered by CAWCS and the preliminary data were already available from which to make the appraisal cost estimate of $193 million. SAFETY OF DAMS PROBLEM - SEISMIC The maximum credible earthquake (MCE) has been evaluated for the SRP dams by an independent consultant contracted by the Bureau. The results, reviewed and accepted by the Bureau, are tabulated below:

Dam MCE Horse Mesa 6.0 @ 15km or 5. 5 @ 5km Mormon Flat 6.0 @ 14km or 5. 5 @ 5km Roosevelt 5. 5 @ 5km Stewart Mountain 6.0 @ 14km or 5. 5 @ 5km Bartlett 6.0@ 13km or 5. 5 @ 5km Horseshoe 6.25 @ 3.5km Whether all the dams will be able to withstand an MCE has not, as yet, been determined.

SAFETY OF DAMS SOLUTIONS - SEISMIC The stability analysis for Roosevelt Dam indicates the ex­ isting structure is stable under MCE loading. However, a modified Roosevelt Dam raised to the full CAWCS/SOD height may not be stable under MCE conditions. If the analysis indicates that the dam cannot be economically and safely modified, then a new dam would be constructed approximately a quarter of a mile downstream. The new Roosevelt Dam will be designed for MCE conditions. A similar situation exists at Stewart Mountain Dam for MCE conditions. If the analysis of Stewart Mountain Dam indi­ cates that it would not be stable under MCE loadings, a new Stewart Mountain Dam would be constructed immediately down­ stream of the existing dam. Horse Mesa, Mormon Flat, and Bartlett dams will also be an­ alyzed for stability under MCE conditions. Preliminary in­ dications from Bureau experts are that these three dams will only require minor foundation treatments for MCE stability.

- 12 - S.O.D. COSTS

$ Millions Cliff Dam $140 Roosevelt Dam $ 95 New Waddell Total $235* *An additional $70 million is necessary for Safety of Dams improvements at Stewart Mountain, Horse Mesa, Mormon Flat and Bartlett Dams. S.O.D. FUNDING As the operator of the affected dam, the will be the agency called upon to assume responsibility for repayment of that portion of the Plan 6 costs allocated to safety of dams. There are indications that SRP would be willing to advance its current 15 percent repayment obliga ­ tion as up-front funds if assured in turn, of timely con­ struction of Roosevelt and Cliff Dams.

8) Who is looking at funding options for Plan 6? Last November, the Arizona Congressional delegation and Governor Babbitt agreed to ask the Arizona Department of Water Resources to analyze alternative options for the financing of Plan 6, the water conservation, flood control and safety of dams features of the . Wes Steiner, Director of the Arizona Department of Water Resources, on January 23, 1985, presented a range of financ­ ing options to the Congress,onal delegation and the Governor. Although Steiner acknowledged that the number of possible financing options is infinite, his presentation focused on six options. The report presented the six options ranging from zero non-federal financing to 50 percent up-front local financing of Plan 6 and assessed the impact on construction schedules and benefits and costs to Arizonans. The objectives of the up-front financing proposals, the re­ port noted, are to enhance chances that the Congress and the Administration will undertake and complete Plan 6 over new starts and budget deficit objections. to reduce the overall construction schedule for the CAP thereby avoiding delays in projects benefits and increases in costs resulting from in­ flation, and to avoid exceeding the authorized cost ceiling for the CAP.

- 13 - In all options it was assumed that the current rate of federal expenditures for features of the CAP, approximately $170 million per year, would continue as long as necessa.ry to complete the aqueduct and distribution systems and the features of Plan 6. All options assumed full federal funding for the aqueduct and the distribution systems. Completion of those portions of the project are expected to be.completed by 1992. Non ­ federal financing applies only to features of Plan 6. In all options it was assumed that construction costs would escalate at 6 percent per annum due to inflation. The total adjusted estimated construction cost of the CAP, with Plan 6, is $2.933 billion in 1985 dollars. The Con­ gressionally authorized cost ceiling of the project has been calculated at $2.705 billion. The adjusted cost of the CAP exceeds the authorized cost ceiling by approximately $228 million. In options 1, 4, and 5, it was assumed that Con­ gressional reauthorization would not be necessary. In Option 1, the base case against which all other options were compared, all features of Plan 6 would be financed to­ tally by the federal government. Plan 6 would not be com­ pleted until year 2008 and would require almost 2.5 billion federal dollars to complete. In Option 2, it was determined that federal funding of Plan 6 would have to be supplemented by $775 million of non­ federal up-front funding if Plan 6 were to be completed on the earliest possible construction schedule. Plan 6 would be completed in 1996, twelve years earlier than Option 1. The one-and-one-half billion dollar obligation of financing Plan 6 would be almost equally split between federal and non-federal interests. Option 3 investigated the impact of up-front financing just enough expenditures to avoid having to seek reauthorization of the cost ceiling for CAP. It was determined that the necessary $250 million (rounded up from $228 million) of up­ front financing would shorten the construction schedule of Option 1 by seven years. Option 4 looked at the impact of up-front financing 15 per­ cent of the safety of dams costs and 15 percent of all other reimbursable costs of Plan 6. The 15 percent up-front financing for reimbursable costs was modeled after the 15 percent repayment obligation authorized by Congress in the Dam Safety Act. The resulting $130 million of non-federal financing would have a modest impact on construction, ad­ vancing the completion date of Plan 6 by only two years.

- 14 - Option 5 assumed 100 percent federal funding but deleted Cliff Dam. The remaining features of Plan 6 would be com ­ pleted by year 2001. The report observed that most of the flood control benefits on the Salt and Verde River system, including the potential for construction of the Rio Salado Project as currently envisioned, would be lost. Option 6 investigated a level of financial assistance midway between Options 2 and 3 at a level of $500 million. Under this option, Plan 6 would be completed by 1999, nine years earlier than under Option 1 and three years later than under Option 2. The Arizona Congressional delegation and Governor Babbitt have agreed to form a new Executive Committee to review the financing options that were presented.

9 ) Who is on the Executive Committee that is looking at Plan 6? Governor Bruce Babbitt {Chairman) Central Arizona Water Conservation District President George Barr {Vice Chairman) Senate President Stan Turley House Majority Leader Burton Barr Senate Minority Leader Alfredo Gutierrez House Minority Leader Art Hamilton Salt River Project General Manager Jack Pfister Phoenix Mayor Terry Goddard Maricopa County Supervisor George Campbell chief Keith Turley Tucson Mayor Lewis Murphy CAWCD member Stewart Udall {former U.S. Interior Secretary) CAWCD member Rod McMullin {former State Senator, SRP General Manager) CAWCD member Howard Wuertz {Coolidge farmer) CAWCD member Mary Doyle {UA law professor, former EPA lawyer) CAWCD member Jay Rhodes {Mesa lawyer) Former CAP Association President Hank Raymond Southern Arizona Water Resources Association President Dale Pontius

10) What has the Executive Committee done to date? - Minutes for meetings {duplexed) - Newspaper clips

- 15 - Miscellaneous Questions

11) Q. What is the status on Cliff Dam Cliff Dam is currently on hold awaiting further en­ vironmental work. Fish and Wildlife Service will prob­ ably submit a jeopardy opinion with identification of an acceptable mitigation plan. This will take from one to two years. Most people who are knowledgeable of the process are cautiously optimistic that Cliff will pro­ ceed, but there is no guarantee. The Governor indi­ cated that any decision on Cliff Dam will be affected by how bad we want it. (Eagles)

12) Q. Who would operate the Plan 6 dams? SRP would operate Cliff and modified Roosevelt Dams using the operating criteria developed jointly by the Bureau, Corps of Engineers and SRP. New Waddell could initially be operated by the Bureau but ultimately CAWCD would be the operator.

13) Q. As in the past, is not Safety of Dams (SOO) a 100% federal responsibility? Where would the 15% come from? Funding - No, a recent amendment to the Safety of Dams Act made 15% a non-federal responsibility. According to Jack Pfister the 15% would most likely come from raised water rates with the bulk coming from M&I water users because little agriculture would be left. SRP can only use revenue bonds for electric facilities.

14) Q. What is the time frame for delivery of water to Tucson? 1991

- 16 - 15) Q. What is the up - to- date construction schedule based on Bureau of Reclamation capabili t y? 16) Q. Stewart Udall has been very vocal on the Executive Com - mittee on CAP financing. What is his position? It is referred to as the Arizona - Build- Now Plan. Mr. Udall stated that he was proposing an alternative. He stated maximum funding should be provided for New Waddell, that Cliff should be discussed later and that the function of Modified Roosevelt should be changed from primarily flood control to water conservation . He stated that operating the reservoir for flood control allowed too much water to be lost to the state. He would not make major changes in the structure, just emphasize water conservation.

bh8581

- 17 -