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 require- ments 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, oper- ation 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 Mead MarbleNavajo Canyon Aqueduct 'Lake Powell Dam Site - PointedPower Drops Desert MohaveAquedt DarnHu:atapaiHuaIapai Site.iño Creek Aqueduct Powell Aqueduct ColOrado RiverChffioCanal Creek Power D:ropComplexVerde River Iest Clear Lake HavasuGrarute Reef VerdeComplexCreek River Complex 11 Aqueduct PhOenix -' Gronite Reef DamSalt 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 pre- sented, 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/reve- nue 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).