Practical Guidance - Arizona Land and Water Trust

Section 3
Practical Guidance
Best Practices to Protect Water Supplies and Environmental Flow
This section provides practical advice for
incorporating water rights into each stage of a
conservation agreement. Ideally, a successful
conservation agreement is the result of a
partnership between a willing landowner and
a conservation organization or government
agency. The project generally has four stages: due
diligence, valuation and appraisal, drafting, and
stewardship.
Some of this material is adapted from water
rights handbooks in several other western states,
but it has been adapted to Arizona’s unique
hydrologic, legal, and administrative framework.
Due Diligence
Water rights are complex, and different types
of water rights provide different opportunities
for landowners and riparian protection. Real
property due diligence is an informationgathering process meant to ensure that the parties
to the conservation agreement fully understand
the property subject to the agreement. Proper
due diligence provides a thorough evaluation in
order to gain a complete understanding of all
of the interests and obligations involved in an
agreement.
The due diligence overview presented here
is intended as a comprehensive summary of the
potential processes and investigations that could
be used. All of the steps and elements listed
may not be necessary in every agreement or
transaction. For example, a fee-simple acquisition
of a piece of property with appurtenant
water rights might not require as extensive a
consideration of the hydrologic impacts of
regional water use as might a contractual water
agreement because the latter would require
ongoing management and scientific monitoring.
At a minimum, an inventory of water rights and
claims should be created early in the process to
help guide discussions and negotiations.
It is frequently said that real property is like
a bundle of sticks. Each “stick” in the bundle
represents a different right associated with
ownership, such as the right to exclude others,
the right to develop or build on the land, the
right to extract minerals, and, sometimes, the
right to pump groundwater from under the
land. Every parcel has its own unique bundle of
rights, and the particular bundle determines the
conservation and development opportunities on
the land.
Water rights due diligence is necessary to
assess a water right’s priority, extent, reliability,
and validity. A water right is also like a bundle of
sticks. Those sticks overlap, in many ways, with
the key characteristics of water rights discussed in
Section 1: the right to transfer the use, the right
to pump a specific quantity at a specific time of
year, the right to use the water for a particular
Opposite:
Rancho Seco (Photo:
Trilby DuPont,
Arizona Land and
Water Trust)
Left:
Dennis Moroney on
the 47 Ranch (Photo:
Arizona Land and Water
Trust)
41
beneficial use, and so on. Once the parties have
completed their due diligence, they should all be
more capable of gauging the match between the
landowner’s potential benefits and incentives, the
relevant conservation values, and the landowner
or water user’s other particular interests.
There is another benefit to completing due
diligence. A distinction is frequently made
between “paper water” and “wet water.” “Paper
water” refers to water for which there is a claim or
a filing with ADWR or another type of recorded
document, but there may not actually be any
water physically available to fulfill the claim.
“Wet water” means real water that is physically
available from a particular source and can be
put to use. Comprehensive due diligence can
help ensure that the water rights in question are
more than just paper rights lacking an associated
physical water supply. In Arizona and across most
of the west, there is more paper water than there
is wet water to support it.
In Arizona, legal and hydrological
uncertainties about water rights require distinct
approaches to due diligence that vary according
to the type of water right in question.
Although due diligence for water rights can
depend upon site-specific factors, in general,
the information-gathering process involves the
following seven elements:
• Define conservation values and link them with
landowner incentives,
• Inventory water rights,
• Compile ownership records,
Left:
Herding Cattle on
the Babacomari
Ranch (Photo Frank
McChesney, Babacomari
Ranch)
Right:
Six Bar Ranch: Edgar
Canyon (Photo: Josh
Schacter)
42
• Characterize water use: quantity, time, and
place,
• Review administrative and court filings,
• Evaluate impacts of adjoining users, and
• Summarize findings.
Define Conservation Values and Link Them
with Landowner Incentives – A wide variety of
conservation values depend upon a reliable water
supply. Culturally, conservation agreements
address agricultural sustainability, farm and
ranch protection, and historical preservation. Ecologically, conservation agreements may
seek to ensure water rights are managed to
support floodplain function, fish and wildlife
habitats, and riparian vegetation. Conservation
agreements may also benefit the public directly
through increased scenic views and access to
recreational opportunities, such as hiking,
hunting, or fishing, where appropriate. Due
diligence processes will examine whether the
water rights are valid, reliable, and available at
the appropriate time and place to serve these
conservation values. Once appropriate and
agreed-upon conservation values have been
targeted, the protection of these values should
be linked with benefits and incentives for the
landowner using the tools discussed in Section 2.
Inventory Water Rights – As soon as a willing
landowner of a property with high-priority
conservation values is identified, the due
diligence process commences with an inventory
of the water rights tied to that property. The
inventory should collect basic information
on the type, quantity, and location of water
rights on a property. This inventory relies
on records from a mix of sources, including landowner files, the Arizona Department of
Water Resources database, the county recorder,
and the superior court with jurisdiction over
the general adjudication. At the ADWR
website (www.azwater.gov), electronic water
rights files are searchable by the identification
number, legal description, irrigation district,
or other information. Groundwater permits,
well registrations, and surface water claims
files are distinguished by a two-digit prefix in
the database. (See the table “Inventory of Water
Rights Types by Prefix” for these prefixes.)
Records for surface water claims are critical
because some of the high-priority, reliable surface
water rights remain legally uncertain and subject
to the adjudications. Despite this uncertainty,
senior surface water rights hold significant
conservation benefits, as they are, at the very least,
more stable and certain than later-established
claims to water within the same river, stream, or
system. At a minimum, information on water
rights claims in the pending adjudications can
be found in a comprehensive state directory
managed by ADWR.52 Inventories of these rights
depend on number 39 filings in the ADWR
database, landowner files, county recorder files
(for rights established before the 1919 Water
Code), and the ADWR hydrographic surveys
prepared in 1991.
Inventory of Water Rights Types by Prefix
Prefix
33
36
38
39
55
56
57
58
61
Type of Right
Application to Appropriate
Statement of Claim
Stock Pond Claim
Statement of Claimant Adjudication
Files
Well Registry
Water Providers (Groundwater)
Irrigation Districts (Groundwater)
Grandfathered Rights (Groundwater)
Individual Users (Groundwater)
Compile Ownership Records – Since water
rights might have been transferred, retired, or
forfeited over time, the water rights that will
be affected by any conservation agreement
should be confirmed. The goal is to develop
a comprehensive chain of title to water rights.
A property deed may contain explicit title to
water rights, but then again, it may not. It is not
uncommon for a deed to remain silent as to the
water rights associated with a particular property
and to seemingly transfer nothing more than title
to the property itself. In Arizona, water rights
must be transferred by deed. This is especially
true in the case of groundwater rights. However,
property deeds have not always been very precise
about the associated water rights that they intend
to transfer. It may be necessary to look elsewhere
to confirm the ownership of a water right. Other
evidence of ownership might be found in ADWR
records, irrigation district records, affidavits of
43
water use, visual inspection of the property, or aerial
photographs. Ownership records will vary between
groundwater and surface water rights systems.
Place. Surface water rights must be exercised
process, documentation of historic and ongoing
water use on the property can be very valuable.
Ownership records should be combined with
other forms of evidence of historic water use.
Deeds and other records in a property’s chain of
title may have continued to attempt to convey
ongoing use and not to rely solely on records in
the chain of title.
examine existing or historic water use impacts
to determine whether water has been reliably
available in the past. Second, examine trends
in water use to forecast future reliability. Are
exempt wells proliferating in the area? Is there a
high-priority right downstream that may override
your water right in the adjudication? Has surface
water become more scarce or have groundwater
the more certain you will be about the long-term
viability of the water resources on the subject
property.
Summarize Findings. A comprehensive due
diligence process will generate a detailed and
composite portrait of the extent, reliability, and
validity of the water rights on a landowner’s
Review Administrative and Court
Filings. Formal water rights records exist in
research provides a baseline against which the
conservation agreement can be guided from
may also be available from the appropriate clerk
of the Arizona Superior Court.
Evaluate Impacts of Adjoining Users.
reliability of groundwater or surface water rights
Small Pond under
Baboquivari Peak
(Photo: David Putnam)
Right:
Salt River Canyon
(Photo: Kelly E.
Mott Lacroix, Arizona
Department of Water
Resources)
* Adapted from Colby,
Bonnie G. "Alternative Approaches to
Valuing Water Rights",
Appraisal Journal 57
(1989):180-196.
44
communities. To fully assess the reliability of
a water right, one should examine the water
rights, priority dates, and impacts of adjacent
upstream and downstream water users. First,
will be referenced and signed along with the
underlying conservation agreement. All parties
to the agreement should maintain a copy of the
baseline report so that it is readily accessible to
the successors in interest of any of the parties or
to individuals assigned with the maintenance and
stewardship of the water resources.
Valuation and Appraisal*
question is whether the water right should be
valued separately from the land. In many cases,
it is difficult or impractical to sever water rights
from the land in order to identify their value.
The highest and best use for the water right
might already be in practice on the land. For
example, water used to irrigate a parcel far from a
municipal area without any means of transporting
that water might not practicably be valued
separately from the irrigated parcel. However, if
the water rights can be transferred, an appraisal
might gauge the value of the water as a severable
property interest according to the right’s highest
and best use.
Several factors make water rights markets
more difficult than land markets to evaluate. The
value of water is a function of location and time.
If a water right is located too far from the demand
for the water or is not available during the season
when it is most needed, its value might decrease.
Appraising water rights is difficult because
(a) water rights vary significantly enough to
prevent clear comparisons in value, and (b)
water rights trading is dependent on a market,
a clear valuation, and pricing information.
Professional appraisers and applied economists
have developed techniques to estimate
water rights values for emerging market
activity in land and water acquisitions. In a
conservation agreement that includes water
rights, a professional appraiser with experience
valuing water rights is recommended, and
conservation buyers and landowners should
provide specific guidelines to the appraiser to
ensure the use of accepted valuation methods
and information sources.
Appraisers will select and apply one or more of
the following approaches when evaluating water
rights:
prices in prospective transfers. Water rights are
different from land markets because many areas
lack active markets, but the comparable-sales
approach functions well in areas with a track
record of water rights transfers. Appraisers,
irrigation districts, ADWR, and county
recorders all may have information about water
rights sales that could be used as the basis for a
comparative valuation. Water rights sales data
includes the type, place, term, and price of the
sale. In Arizona, few types of water rights or
jurisdictions have established active markets.
Clear comparable sales information is possible
only for Type 2 groundwater rights in AMAs or
certain types of contracts for stored water and
groundwater credits.
Income Capitalization
If comparable sales are not available, an incomebased approach may be applied. Income
capitalization bases the value of the water right
on its contribution to the productivity of the
land. In short, this method appraises water rights
according to the value added to the property from
the application of water to its authorized purpose.
For example, a comparison of the income
expected from leasing non-irrigated land with the
income from leasing irrigated land in the same
or a similar location might be used to estimate
the value of the water right’s contribution to the
productivity of the land. These returns on the
investment of water are calculated by anticipating
income from goods and services produced
through a property’s water use activities and
subtracting the other variable costs of production,
such as fertilizer, that are associated with the
• Comparable sales,
• Income capitalization approach,
• Replacement cost.
Comparable Sales
Real estate markets assign value by using
comparable sites and properties as references for
45
water use activities. Other real estate benefits
and values may accrue for surrounding property
owners by keeping the water attached to the
land, such as aesthetic values, viewsheds, or more
reliable water supplies. These benefits are then
capitalized into a lump sum in present value terms
to evaluate the stream of benefits from the water
right over the life of the conservation agreement
or in perpetuity.
all parties have a clear road map for water use
on the property for the life of the agreement. A
dedicated section of the conservation agreement
identifies which water rights are affected and how
these water rights are to be managed or put to
use. A special exhibit identifies the water rights
on the property and specifies which water uses
are allowed, required, or prohibited. Each exhibit
should include:
Replacement Cost
•
•
•
•
•
The least common method for water rights
valuation is based on the cost of replacing the
water rights from an alternate source. The
replacement cost method is most appropriate in
a context that has multiple water sources, such
as groundwater rights and surface water rights
from imported Colorado River supplies. If the
existing groundwater or surface water rights can
be replaced by an off-property source, the value
of the rights is captured by the cost of replacing
the on-property water source with the next most
expensive off-property source. In Arizona, this
form of source switching occurs in the context of
the Central Arizona Project, where groundwater
pumpers are encouraged to shift to renewable
Colorado River supplies.
Drafting: Specificity and Exhibits
Conservation agreements may restrict, obligate,
or otherwise encumber water rights on a property
to achieve the intended conservation benefits
for landowners. These agreements require
special attention to the water rights to ensure
Left:
Cajon Bonito on El
Coronado Ranch (Photo:
Cuenca Los Ojos, www.
cuencalosojos.org)
Right:
San Pedro River (Photo:
Arizona Land and Water
Trust)
46
Inventory of water rights,
Reserved rights,
Required water uses,
Restrictions, and
Monitoring plan.
The inventory of water rights is an outgrowth
of the due diligence process. The exhibit should
provide a comprehensive list of the water rights
on the property and describe how they are
affected by the agreement. If all water rights are
affected by the agreement in the same manner,
it might be possible to define the water rights
through a blanket inclusion of all water rights
within the boundaries of the land. To limit
ambiguity, however, it is advisable to include an
explicit inventory of the rights along with details
about the rights, including an identification
number (file number, contract or certificate
number, etc.), source, quantity, priority (date of
appropriation), time of use, place of use, point of
diversion or well location, and type of right.
Reserved rights refer to the water rights
retained for use on the property. It has become
common practice to reserve rights for the
landowners of a conservation property to
continue irrigation, ranching, or other uses
compatible with conservation values protected
through the conservation agreement. Contract
language should include a clause to identify the
water rights reserved for such uses and to clarify
the permitted uses.
A conservation agreement may require that
conservation buyers or ranchers actively continue
to use a water right for its authorized purpose to
prevent the water right from being forfeited due
to non-use. For surface water claims in particular,
the beneficial use doctrine requires surface
water to be used at least once every five years.
Because surface water claims may be included in
a conservation agreement to provide temporary
relief for riparian habitat, contracts should be
structured to conform to the legal requirements
for maintaining water rights in Arizona.
Restricted water uses may involve temporary
or seasonal changes in water use patterns to
support both habitat and agricultural use on
the property. Conservation agreements should
identify restrictions for each individual water
right.
Stewardship
A conservation agreement will ideally also
provide for a mechanism to monitor water
use according to the terms stipulated in the
agreement. A monitoring plan is very often
required by the conservation buyer or third party
funding source of the project.
Effective stewardship programs ensure that
conservation benefits endure over the long term.
Stewardship, in this context, refers to an openended process in which the conservation manager
works with the landowner to uphold the terms
of the conservation agreement and preserve
the affected water resources along with the
productive capacity of the lands. Water rights stewardship is an important
component of conservation projects that
address riparian values. Stewarding water
rights involves measuring and reporting water
use and surrounding habitat and agricultural
response at least every year using the initial
inventory and due diligence report as a baseline
of water use. The conservation agreement will
include an exhibit with a list of water rights and
associated restrictions or obligations. Together,
the due diligence baseline and water rights
inventory exhibit offer a blueprint for water use
measurement and reporting on the property. At
a minimum, an annual report of water use should
draw on landowner records, metering records,
and at least one field inspection during the
season of use. Within an AMA, annual water use
reporting is already required by ADWR.
Stewardship plans involve several special
measures for water rights:
• Due diligence baseline inventory,
• Water use reporting, and
• Adjacent water use monitoring.
The due diligence inventory described above
and in the appendices establish a baseline
for entering into a conservation agreement.
However, it also provides a benchmark for future
management activities to protect water rights,
dependent conservation benefits, and farming
and ranching practices.
Over time, landowner and conservation
benefits will be affected by the water use
practices upstream and downstream. Monitoring
of adjacent water uses can provide critical
information about threats to and opportunities
for stewarding conservation lands dependent on
reliable water supplies. ■
Water Tank on the
Sands Ranch (Photo:
Arizona Land and
Water Trust)
47
Scaling Up: Landowners,
Communities, and Watersheds
While no one solution will fit every situation,
a growing portfolio of tools can help to match
the needs of private landowners with voluntary
stewardship solutions. A combination of tools
will often be necessary to implement a strategy
that integrates multiple related values with
planning and science. Complex hydrologic
conditions require careful assessment to identify
the appropriate tool or combination of tools
that fit the physical context and achieve the
desired balance of conservation benefits and
landowner objectives. Successful projects will
involve partnerships with willing landowners
involved in land protection projects that include
compensation to landowners for temporary
water-use agreements.
In the future, some landowners may be
interested in participating in mitigation
opportunities to balance rural and urban
water uses. Landowners may be provided with
opportunities in the mitigation and offset
requirements many mining and development
companies face. Conservation banks or
mitigation programs can provide an integrated
Rancho Seco (Photo:
Carrow Cattle
Company)
4848
solution on a regional scale when mitigation is
required to offset the negative impacts of ongoing
industry or new development. For example, the
December 2007 water resource amendments to
the Pima County Comprehensive Plan require
some development proposals to fully offset
new water demand in isolated basins and in
proximity to groundwater-dependent ecosystems.
Mitigation requirements might be addressed
in single-project conservation agreements
involving the tools described here. The benefit
of a mitigation bank is that it offers a hub of
coordinated resources, a pricing system, and a
protocol to provide development proponents
efficient and equitable access to mitigation
credits. As innovative, win-win conservation
tools are refined through pilot efforts, mitigation
programs or banks can help to scale up from the
landowner to the community to the watershed
level. A successful mitigation banking program
that works in concert with willing landowner
partners can assure the ongoing protection of
healthy working rivers and landscapes.
In the arid Southwest, water—whether rights,
management, or use—is never an easy topic to
discuss. Today we are faced with a challenge
that can be met only if we can come together to
work towards our common goal: the protection
of our quality of life in Arizona. Ranchers and
farmers support our distinctive culture through
land and water stewardship that enhances the
natural environment, water supplies, and selfsufficiency of southern Arizona. Partnerships with
willing landowners will begin this process and the
benefits will be felt by their families, neighbors,
and communities. Over time, the partnerships and
dialogue we begin today will allow us to reach our
goals for a healthy watershed sustained by desert
rivers flowing beside working landscapes. Through
diverse partnerships we can ensure that the future
of Arizona’s water is planned for and managed to
protect our rich agricultural and riparian heritage.
End Notes
1. Arizona Public Service Co. v. Long, 160 Ariz. 429, 773
P.2d 988 (1989).
2. Neal v. Hunt, 112 Ariz. 307, 541 P.2d 559 (1975);
Paloma v. Jenkins, 194 Ariz. 133, 978 P.2d 110 (App.
1998).
3. A.R.S. § 45-141(A).
4. Gillespie Land v. Buckeye Irr. Co., 75 Ariz 377, 257 P.2d
393 (1953).
5. A.R.S. § 45-401(B).
6. D. L. Galloway, et al., “Sensing the ups and downs of
Las Vegas: InSAR reveals structural control of land
subsidence and aquifer-system deformation,” Geology, v.
27, no. 6, 483–486 (1999).
7. A.R.S. §§ 45-105; 45-141 to 276; 45-401 to 702 (2003
& Supp. 2007); http://www.azwater.gov. Retrieved on
2009-07-06.
8. In re the General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water
in the Gila River Source and System, 198 Ariz. 330, 9
P.3d 1069 (2000).
9. A.R.S. § 45-256.
10. A.R.S. § 45-101(9); A.R.S § 45-141(A).
11. The state of Montana assumes 1.0 acre-foot per
year for a family of five. See Water Rights Bureau,
State of Montana, “Form No. 627 R8/03 Notice of
Water Right.” (April 13, 2004) http://dnrc.mt.gov/
wrd/water_rts/wr_general_info/wrforms/627.pdf.
Retrieved on 2008-01-30.
12. Santa Fe, New Mexico rate averages 0.25 acre-feet per
year per household. See Planning Division, Planning
& Land Use Department, City of Santa Fe, New
Mexico. “Water Use in Santa Fe: A survey of residential
and commercial water use in the Santa Fe urban
area.” (February 2001) http://www.santafenm.gov/
DocumentView.asp?DID=1427. Retrieved on 200801-30; An acre-foot equals about 326,000 gallons,
about as much as two four-member households use
annually. See Tim Ellis, “GV Council Opposes Water
Pipeline Offer,” Arizona Daily Star, 2007-08-16.
13. A.R.S. § 45-151(A).
14. A.R.S. § 45-141(B).
15. A.R.S. § 45-151(A).
16. Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Water Res., 118 P.3d
1110 (App. Div. 1, 2005).
49
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
50
A.R.S. § 45-141(C).
A.R.S. § 45-184.
A.R.S § 45-254(F).
A.R.S. §§ 45-156(B); 45-172(A)(2).
A.R.S. §§ 45-141 et seq.
A.R.S. § 45-254(F).
A.R.S. § 45-101(5).
Bonnie G. Colby and Katharine L. Jacobs,
Arizona Water Policy: Management
Innovations in an Urbanizing, Arid Region,
Resources for the Future Press, Washington,
D.C. (2006).
A.R.S. § 45-101 et seq.; Ariz. Admin. Code
R12-15-701 et seq.
Neal v. Hunt, 112 Ariz. 307, 541 P.2d 559
(1975).
A.R.S. §45-544; A.R.S. § 45-453; A.R.S. §§
45-541 to 559.
A.R.S. § 45-401 et seq.
A.R.S. §§ 45-561(12); 45-562.
A.R.S. §45-562(B).
A.R.S. § 45-411.04(A).
A.R.S. § 45-562(C).
A.R.S. § 45-462.
A.R.S. § 45-465.
A.R.S. §§ 45-463; 45-473.
A.R.S. §§ 45-464; 45-474.
Ariz. Admin. Code R12-15-723.
A.R.S. § 45-454.
A.R.S. §§ 45-491 to 493.
A.R.S. § 45-511 et seq.
A.R.S. § 45-411.04(B).
Adapted from Leenhouts, Stromberg,
and Scott, Hydrologic Requirements of and
Consumptive Ground-Water Use by Riparian
Vegetation along the San Pedro River, Arizona,
(USGS 2006), chapter C, page 97. http://
pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2005/5163/pdf/SIR20055163.pdf. Retrieved on 2009-08-07.
A.R.S. § 45-151; Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Ariz.
Dep’t of Water Res., 118 P.3d 1110 (App. Div.
1, 2005).
Arizona Department of Water Resources, A
Guide to Filing Applications for Instream Flow
Water Rights in Arizona, (December 2001).
A.R.S. §45-172.
A.R.S. §45-172(A).
47. Salt River Project, Roosevelt Habitat
Conservation Plan 2003 Annual Report,
(February 1, 2004). http://www.fws.
gov/southwest/es/Arizona/Documents/
HCPs/Roosevelt_HCP/Reports/2003_
AnnualReport.pdf. Retrieved on 2009-09-09.
48. USFWS, Record of Decision: Roosevelt Habitat
Conservation Plan, (2003) http://www.fws.
gov/southwest/es/arizona/Documents/
HCPs/Roosevelt_HCP/ROD_RHCP.PDF.
Retrieved on 2009-08-04.
49. Ariz. Admin. Code R12-15-723.
50. Laurel McSherry, et al. “From Knowledge
to Action: Lessons and Planning Strategies
from Studies of the Upper San Pedro Basin,”
Landscape Urban Plan, 74(2), 81–101,
(2006); Rosalind H. Bark and Katharine L.
Jacobs, “Indian Water Rights Settlements and
Water Management Innovations: The Role of
the Arizona Water Settlements Act,” Water
Resources Research, vol. 45, (2009).
51. Grass-banking is a relatively new practice
where property owners lease land to ranchers
at a discount in exchange for ranchers to carry
out conservation-related projects on their
pastures. The agreement enables ranchers
to stay in business by providing their cattle
with fresh sources of grass and their heavily
grazed land with a much needed rest. At the
same time, it gives the landowners – usually
groups with an interest in conservation – an
opportunity to preserve more land than
they’d normally be able to. http://science.
howstuffworks.com/grassbanking.htm.
Retrieved on 2009-12-19.
52. A.R.S. § 45-254.
Appendices
51
APPENDIX 1:
Water Rights Due Diligence Checklist
Step 1: Define the Potential Landowner Benefits and Property Values
…… Define goals: what mutual benefits can be achieved through a partnership or agreement?
…… Identify the property: Where is the property located? On or near a river? In a shallow or confined
aquifer system? In an AMA or INA?
…… Walk the property and identify perennial streams and springs, areas of wetland vegetation, signs of
ephemeral flows, and dependant riparian habitats, native fish, or other conservation benefits.
…… Review water level information from nearby wells and riparian community status on watercourses
within the system to determine potential to support increased riparian or wetland values.
Step 2: Inventory the Water Rights on the Land
…… Obtain list of water rights currently in use on the property.
{{ This list can be compiled from landowner records, ADWR records, Hydrographic Survey
Reports (HSR), and county recorder documents.
…… Ensure compliance with state water rights reporting and registration requirements.
…… Compile list of all other water-related records, permits, credits, and other relevant documents.
…… Classify water rights by type, priority date, location, and use.
…… Obtain well information. Depth? Water quality? Date constructed? Power source?
…… Review the original water rights claims and all supporting materials. Review all subsequently filed
documents on the ADWR website.
…… Obtain maps, aerial photos, or other documents referenced in the filings to support the claim.
{{ Aerial photography can be especially helpful to prove the extent of historic irrigation.
Step 3: Confirm Ownership and Actual Historic Use on Subject Property
…… Verify that irrigated land claims in the Statement of Claimant are supported by the survey map and
aerial photographs. Confirm that the legal description fully overlaps with the irrigated acreage on
the maps and photographs.
…… Review deeds in chain of title to confirm if any water rights have been reserved or severed from the
land.
…… Review any water or well sales or leases appurtenant to the property.
…… If the water rights are represented by shares in a ditch company or irrigation district, check with the
ditch company or irrigation district to confirm the status of the shares.
Step 4: Determine the Reliability of the Rights
…… Examine neighboring water claims and regional water outlook.
{{ Review plat maps for neighboring landowners or municipalities.
{{ Meet with local jurisdictions to review planned developments or recently entitled projects.
{{ Check HSR and ADWR filings for any large or high-priority water claims that could draw
down the aquifer or affect your claims in times of shortage.
52
{{ Review all nearby substantial claims to the river or high-capacity pumpers on the same aquifer.
…… Research further evidence of past land and water use to firm up any claims.
{{ Local historical societies, water users’ associations, and Cattlemen’s associations frequently have
records on early homesteading and ongoing land and water use.
…… Locate and note any wells located especially near flowing surface waters.
Step 5: Identify Surface Water Rights
…… Identify the claimed source of the surface water. Ensure that there is wet water to support the
paper water.
…… Identify the location of the point of diversion on the surface water filings. Does it match the actual
location discovered during the site visit?
…… Review topographical maps and compare the elevation of the point of diversion to the claimed
places of use. Is there a pump if the place of use is uphill from the point of diversion?
…… Determine quantity of actual consumptive use of water claimed for a beneficial use.
…… Meet with the landowner to determine seasonal water availability. When is there wet water
available to support the claim?
Step 6: Groundwater – Active Management Area
…… Determine the types of groundwater rights associated with the property. Irrigation Grandfathered
Rights? Type 1? Type 2?
…… List the well or wells with which each grandfathered right is associated.
…… Verify capacity, quantity, and use of all wells.
…… Verify annual report history.
Step 7: Groundwater – Rural Areas
…… Compare well registration and Notice of Intent to Drill. Do they match up?
…… If the well is properly registered, do the location, quantity, and use on the registration match what
was found during the site visit?
Step 8: Draft
…… Incorporate all affected water rights into the agreement.
…… Attach and reference a comprehensive water rights exhibit with restrictions and requirements
related to each right.
…… Include a water management and stewardship plan in the agreement.
53
APPENDIX 2:
Water Rights Stewardship Checklist
Step 1: Confirm the Ownership of All Water Rights and Claims
…… Review ADWR records to ensure all administrative documentation has been completed.
…… Discuss annual reporting requirements with other parties to the agreement.
{{ Make sure the party who is reporting annual use to ADWR is the party to whom ADWR will
be mailing any relevant records or notices.
Step 2: Meet with Stewardship Partners Each Year
…… Ensure landowners, water users, and their partners keep detailed records of water storage and use.
{{ Records should indicate the type and place of use and the reliability of source during different
times of the year.
…… Plan to share water use records with partners at least once per year to plan for the coming year.
Step 3: Monitor Physical, Hydrologic, and Ecologic Status of River, Riparian Corridor, or
Associated Lands
…… Install necessary physical monitoring instruments, such as flow gauges, or prepare a monitoring
plan if one has not already been completed.
…… Visit the site to determine whether the protected reach is recovering as expected and compare
status to baseline documentation.
{{ Does the surface flow match the expected rate? Considering climate? Seasonality of flow?
{{ Has the riparian corridor recovered as expected?
Step 4: Monitor Status of Pastures, Tanks, Wells, Ditches, Head Gates, and Associated Land Uses
…… Check whether pastures or irrigated lands continue to support the expected number of cattle or
crops
…… Find out whether agricultural productivity has been affected by partnerships or agreements.
Step 5: Ensure that Surface Water Rights or Claims Are Protected from Forfeiture
…… Put the water to the beneficial use for which the right or claim has been established at least once
every five years.
54
APPENDIX 3: Arizona Water Budgets
2006 Average Annual Arizona Water
2006
Average
Water
Demand
by Annual
Sector* Arizona
(in acre-feet)
Demand by Sector* (in acre-feet)
2005 Average Annual Santa Cruz AMA
Water Demand by Sector (in acre-feet)
Industrial:
Industrial:
7%
7%
Municipal:
Municipal:
25%
25%
Municipal:
15%
Riparian:
46%
Agricultural:
Agricultural:
68%
68%
Industrial:
21%
Agricultural:
18%
Municipal: 1,600,000
Municipal: 1,600,000
Agricultural: 4,400,000
Agricultural: 4,400,000
Industrial: 450,000
Industrial: 450,000
8,100
Agricultural: 10,300
* Colorado River on-river diversions are 2.046 Maf (Million acre-feet) of which 0.75 Maf is
returned
to River
the system
for diversions
other use. are
Demand
does (Million
not include
CAP long-term
storage
and
* Colorado
on-river
2.046 Maf
acre-feet)
of which 0.75
Maf
is
system
0.3use.
MafDemand
) or environmental
demands
the Colorado
returnedlosses
to the(approximately
system for other
does not include
CAPon
long-term
storageRiver
and
(approximately
0.02
Maf
)
system losses (approximately 0.3 Maf ) or environmental demands on the Colorado River
(approximately 0.02 Maf )
2006 Average Annual Tucson AMA
Water Demand by Sector (in acre-feet)
Indian:
Riparian System:
3%
1%
Agricultural:
25%
Municipal:
Industrial:
11,700
Riparian:
25,800
*Each AMA is managed based upon differing goals and locally appropriate considerations.
The Tucson AMA, for example, takes Indian uses into consideration when formulating its
water budget. In contrast, there are no Indian Reservations within the Santa Cruz AMA to be
considered. The Santa Cruz AMA is also unique in that all water supplies are managed
conjunctively. Thus, for planning purposes, the Santa Cruz AMA does not distinguish
between surface water, groundwater, and effluent, though they retain their legal distinctions in
use and practice.
Each AMA is managed based upon different
goals and locally appropriate considerations.
The Tucson AMA, for example, takes Indian
uses into consideration when formulating its
water budget. In contrast, there are no Indian
reservations within the Santa Cruz AMA to
be considered. The Santa Cruz AMA is also
unique in that all water supplies are managed
conjunctively. Thus, for planning purposes, the
Santa Cruz AMA does not distinguish between
surface water, groundwater, and effluent.
Municipal:
55%
Industrial:
15%
Municipal:
191,941
Industrial:
52,980
Agricultural:
87,755
Indian:
11,678
Riparian:
3,700
Data Source: ADWR
55
APPENDIX 4:
Arizona Stream Adjudications Map
VIRGIN RIVER
ol
ora
do Ri
v
e
r
C
NAVAJO
COLORADO RIVER
APACHE
LITTLE
COLORADO
COCONINO
MOHAVE
LITTLE COLORADO
RIVER WATERSHED
Li t
tle
C
ol
VERDE
BILL
WILLIAMS
Ve r d
e
R
ve
r
AGUA
FRIA
Bil l Wi lli am s R ive r
ad
o
Riv
er
LOWER
UPPER
LITTLE
LITTLE
COLORADO
COLORADO
SILVER
CREEK
i
YAVAPAI
or
LA PAZ
Sa
MARICOPA
iv
lt R
er
UPPER SALT
GILA
GILA RIVER WATERSHED
Gi
YUMA
la
Ri v
LOWER GILA
UPPER GILA
er
PINAL
nt
a
C
z
R
±
0 12.5 25
50
75
Miles
River
SANTA CRUZ
Watershed Boundaries
County Boundaries
er
UPPER
SANTA CRUZ
LEGEND
Major Rivers
iv
ro
PIMA
Pe d
ru
GRAHAM
SAN
PEDRO
San
Sa
SAN SIMON
GREENLEE
WILLCOX
PLAYA
COCHISE
WHITEWATER
DRAW RIO
YAQUI
Data Sources: ADWR
Map Date: October 2009
Thousands of claimants and water users are joined in two ongoing general stream adjudications in Arizona. The
Gila River and Little Colorado River adjudications were initiated in the 1970s and continue today.
56
APPENDIX 5: Active Management Areas
and Irrigation Non-Expansion Areas Map
NAVAJO
APACHE
COCONINO
MOHAVE
JOSEPH CITY
PRESCOTT
YAVAPAI
LA PAZ
HARQUAHALAMARICOPA
GILA
PHOENIX
GREENLEE
YUMA
PINAL
GRAHAM
PINAL
PIMA
LEGEND
TUCSON
COCHISE
AMAs
INAs
Cities
Counties
±
0
10 20
40
60
Miles
Data Sources: ADWR, USGS
Map Date: October 2009
SANTA CRUZ
SANTA CRUZ
DOUGLAS
The 1980 Arizona Groundwater Code led to the creation of five Active Management Areas and three Irrigation
Non-Expansion Areas. Groundwater is managed and regulated differently within the AMAs and INAs than it is
elsewhere in the state.
57
APPENDIX 6: Status of Instream Flow
Applications in Arizona Map
Colorado
City
ol
ora
do R
iv
e
r
C
Page
NAVAJO
APACHE
COCONINO
MOHAVE
Li t
Flagstaff
Ve r d
Prescott
R
ol
or
ad
o
Ri v
er
i
r
YAVAPAI
e
C
ve
Lake
Havasu
City
tle
Taylor
Payson
Bi ll W ill iam s R ive r
Parker
LA PAZ
MARICOPA
lt
Sa
Phoenix
Gi
la
Riv
er
GILA
GREENLEE
Ri v
er
YUMA
PINAL
GRAHAM
Safford
Eloy
Yuma
C Marana
ru
z
R
iv
er
Tucson
River
Tucson
Certificate Issued
Stream Channels
Cienega Creek
(ISF held by Pima County)
SANTA CRUZ
Protected Lands*
County Boundaries
012 4 6
Miles
COCHISE
Benson
FOCUS AREA
Cities
ro
PIMA
a
Pe d
LEGEND
Application Pending
nt
San
Sa
±
Nogales
0 12.5 25
Benson
50
Sierra
Vista
75
Miles
Douglas
Data Sources: ADWR, USGS, TNC
Map Date: October 2009
Arizona recognizes the flow necessary to maintain instream fish, wildlife, and recreation values to be a beneficial use.
Instream flow water rights have been issued across the state and many more applications are currently pending.
* Protected lands include: National Parks and Monuments, Local and State Parks, Pima County Conservation Areas, Bureau of Land Management National Conservation
Areas, Bureau of Land Management Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, United States Fish and Wildlife Service National Wildlife Refuges, Bureau of Land Management
Wilderness Areas, Malpai Borderlands Group and The Nature Conservancy conservation easements.
58
APPENDIX 7: Contacts
ARIZONA
LAND
WATER
AND
TRUST
3127 N. Cherry Avenue, Tucson, AZ 85719
Phone: 520.577.8564 Fax: 520.577.8574
www.alwt.org
Arizona Department of
Water Resources
3550 N. Central Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Phone: (602) 771-8500
Long Distance within Arizona: (800) 352-8488
Fax: (602) 771-8678
Tucson AMA
400 W. Congress, Suite 518
Tucson, AZ 85701
Phone: (520) 770-3800
Phoenix AMA
3550 North Central Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Phone: (602) 771-8585
Pinal AMA
1729 N. Trekell Road, Suite 105
Casa Grande, AZ 85222
Phone: (520) 836-4857
Prescott AMA
2200 E Hillsdale Road
Prescott, AZ 86301
Phone: (928) 778-7202
Santa Cruz AMA
857 W. Bell Road, Suite 3
Nogales, AZ 85621
Phone: (520) 761-1814
Arizona Water Protection Fund
c/o: Department of Water Resources
Attn: Rodney Held
500 North Third St.
Phoenix, AZ 85004
Phone: (602) 771-8525
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
230 N. First Avenue, Suite 509
Phoenix, AZ 85003-1733
Phone: (602) 280-8801
Tucson Field Office
3241 N. Romero Rd.
Tucson, AZ 85705
Phone: (520) 292-2999
Willcox Field Office
656 N. Bisbee Avenue
Willcox, AZ 85643
Phone: (520) 384-2229
Cell: (520) 471-1894 or (520) 904-8357
Douglas Field Office
6940 N. Air Terminal Blvd.
Douglas, AZ 85607-6221
Phone: (520) 364-2001
Cell: (520) 483-0601
59
Arizona Association of
Conservation Districts
Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality
230 North First Avenue, Suite 500
Phoenix, AZ 85003-1733
Phone: (602) 280-8803
Fax: (602) 280-8779
Phoenix Main Office
1110 W. Washington St.
Phoenix, AZ 85007
Phone: (602) 771-2300
Toll free: (800) 234-5677
Arizona Cooperative Extension
The University of Arizona
Forbes 301, P.O. Box 210036
Tucson, AZ 85721-0036
Phone: (520) 621-7205
Arizona Game and Fish
Department
Main Office - Phoenix
5000 W. Carefree Highway
Phoenix, AZ 85086-5000
Phone: (602) 942-3000
Region V - Tucson
555 N. Greasewood Rd.
Tucson, AZ 85745
Phone: (520) 628-5376
60
Northern Regional Office
1801 W. Route 66, Suite 117
Flagstaff, AZ 86001
Phone: (928) 779-0313
Toll free: (877) 602-3675
Southern Regional Office
400 W. Congress, Suite 433
Tucson, AZ 85701
Phone: (520) 628-6733
Toll free: (888) 271-9302