This item was digitized as part of the Million Books Project led by Carnegie Mellon University and supported by grants from the National Science Foundation (NSF). Cornell University coordinated the participation of land-grant and agricultural libraries in providing historical agricultural information for the digitization project; the University of Arizona Libraries, the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, and the Office of Arid Lands Studies collaborated in the selection and provision of material for the digitization project.

No description available.

General water rights adjudications are now taking place in Arizona. The Gila River and Little Colorado River adjudications are among the largest court proceedings ever undertaken in the United States, involving more than 78,000 water rights claims scattered over 50,000,000 acres of land. The cost of individually proving such a number of individual claims in a formal trial setting would be enormous — often greater than the water's economic worth. Also, the time required to complete such a proceeding would take decades. Consequently, alternative procedures are needed to streamline the investigations and forestall a potentially serious water resource management problem. There are an estimated 22,800 stockwatering ponds (stockponds or stocktanks) in the Gila River Basin alone, and each potentially could be tried as an individual case. If small claims such as those for stockwatering could be considered de minimis in their impact on other higher priority uses, they might be adjudicated as one class of use, thereby fore-stalling a case-by-case trial of each individual water right claim. However, a major obstacle in granting special treatment to small claims lies in demonstrating to litigants that certain small water uses do not, in fact, have a discernible impact on other downstream water right holders. This study was undertaken to quantify the actual losses to a river system from stockwatering ponds, and to compare those losses to other naturally occurring impacts on the hydrologic system. Employing a watershed model, portions of the Walnut Gulch Experimental Watershed at Tombstone, Arizona, an area located within the San Pedro watershed, were analyzed. Storm runoff was simulated with and without the presence of stockponds. Different storm events and storage conditions were modeled in order to measure the impact of stockpond storage under a wide range of field circumstances. This study demonstrated that the hydrologic effects of stockwatering ponds are de minimis with respect to their impact on other water users many tens or hundreds of miles downstream on the river system. Stockpond numbers, capacities, volume/surface area relationships, quantification methods, and effective retention are also evaluated. Statutes in other states are reviewed for their approach to handling stockwatering uses.

This item was digitized as part of the Million Books Project led by Carnegie Mellon University and supported by grants from the National Science Foundation (NSF). Cornell University coordinated the participation of land-grant and agricultural libraries in providing historical agricultural information for the digitization project; the University of Arizona Libraries, the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, and the Office of Arid Lands Studies collaborated in the selection and provision of material for the digitization project.

Prepared for the U.S. Water Resources Scientific Information Center./ Bibliography: p. 141-220.

Arizona is presently in the midst of a general adjudication for the Gila River system -- the watershed which comprises the southern two- thirds of the state. The purpose of the adjudication is to prioritize all water claims in the river system: both state -established and federally reserved rights. Arizona adheres to a bifurcated (or divided) system of water law which only recognizes a component of ground water -- called subflow -- to be appropriable. Wells which pump non-appropriable water -- called tributary flow -- are not to be included in the adjudication. The problem is that federal laws do not recognize this artificial bifurcation. The challenge lies in identifying a subflow zone which satisfies the hydrologic fiction of existing state precedents and the hydrologic reality of federal statutes. At the core of the problem lies the fate of Arizona's perennial stream water and the fulfillment of federally reserved tribal water rights. Thus, larger questions loom: can Arizona law reconcile its glutinous past with a water -scarce future, will the adjudication ever reach a finality, and even if it does, will it be a finality that all sides can live with?