Apache Junction secures 4,741 acre-feet Verdie River allocation, supports 4,000 homes by 2034

Apache Junction Water District Locks in Verdie River Dam Allocation Amid Colorado River Uncertainty

The Apache Junction Water District board met on February 17th, 2026, to hear a critical update on the Bartlett Dam feasibility study—a multi-year, multi-billion-dollar water infrastructure project that hinges on the district's ability to maintain a secure long-term allocation despite competition from larger Arizona cities and federal intervention. The director's report revealed that a coalition of 10–11 smaller cities, led by Apache Junction, successfully defeated a rival faction of eight larger cities in negotiations over how to divide the dam's water supply after the federal government unexpectedly demanded 50% of the project's capacity. The smaller cities prevailed, maintaining their original 4,741 acre-feet allocation—equivalent to approximately 1,500 acre-feet annually and sufficient to serve roughly 4,000 new homes. Concurrently, the board learned that upper and lower Colorado River basin states failed to reach consensus on water reallocation by a February 13th deadline, leaving the federal government to determine future water distribution under a framework dating to the 1920s Colorado River Compact.

Timeline

• Director's presentation (Mike): Updated board on Verdie River/Bartlett Dam feasibility study launched in 2023; federal request for 50% of dam water prompted reallocation negotiations among SRP partner cities; smaller-cities coalition voted 10–11 to 8 to maintain original water allocation methodology.

• Water allocation outcome: Apache Junction's allocation confirmed at 4,741 acre-feet total (1,500 acre-feet annually); federal government contribution estimated at $500 million against total project cost of $3.4 billion; feasibility study on track through mid-2027; design phase to follow; congressional approval targeted for 2029; dam completion projected 2034.

• Federal government posture: Remains a partner and funding source despite initial heavy-handed 50% demand; board pressed on whether federal requirement for 50% reflected genuine need or arbitrary appetite; director clarified federal government is not opposed but requiring environmental review and economic justification.

• Colorado River interstate dispute: Lower basin states reached internal agreement; upper basin states could not; February 13th deadline passed without resolution; issue now federal government responsibility; Arizona faces disproportionate burden if other states continue overuse; California retains senior water rights and faces no restrictions.

• Concurrent infrastructure: $2 million Ironwood well drilling project (north of Ray) to commence within two months; final water treatment plant buildout ($30–40 million) underway with developer partnership; Booster 2 expansion/upgrade ($4–8 million) requiring additional budget allocation for following year.

• Budget: December 16th, 2025 special meeting minutes approved unanimously (7–0); final $180,000 payment for original feasibility study to be made next year.

Key Speeches

"Roughly in 2023, SRP put out a request to us of how many acre feet of water that we would like as be part of this dam. Uh we went big and bold at that point in time and asked for 50,000 acre feet. Um and then we went through a process with the subcommittee with SRP and we informed you guys a lot of that. Um after our meeting, we came out that uh after we separated out between all the cities, we're roughly looking at 7,413 ac." — Mike (Director)

"The federal government now came in roughly in November finally give us what they required. Well, lo and behold, they want 50% of the actual water in the dam now. So, it went back to the subcommittee to say, 'Hey, you know, how much do you guys how much how are we going to reallocate this out?'" — Mike (Director)

"Uh, 10 other cities voted with us. Just keep with our original way we separated out the allocation of water. Eight other cities did not. Well, the eight other cities were the big boys. The Ammois, the big Phoenix, everybody else that wanted to change because it helped them receive more water. Well, we actually got the little guys together and actually won something finally." — Mike (Director)

"Uh because this is damning up another waterway and then it has to show that there's not only an economic reason behind it, but environmentally doesn't impact too many things and then they are also pro a partner in this. I believe currently they're at about a half a million dollars that they will be providing as part of this project. Possibly could even provide more as we get through some of that as we build the dam that may reduce some of our costs." — Mike (Director), responding to Chip Wilson question on why congressional approval is required

"The lower states were able to get together and come up with uh their solution. The upper basin states could not come up with a solution that matched ours. Uh so now it's back in the federal government's hands and they will determine on how they reallocate the RI Colorado River. So we're going back to the old packs from 1920s." — Chip Wilson, on Colorado River interstate dispute

Project Details

• Project name: Verdie River Sedimentation Mitigation Study / Bartlett Dam Project

• Lead entities: SRP (Salt River Project); Apache Junction Water District; coalition of 10–11 smaller Arizona cities (including Apache Junction) versus 8 larger cities (including Phoenix and Ahwatukee)

• Key personnel: Ryan Draper (Water Administrator, Water District Adviser) — led negotiations for smaller cities' coalition

• Location: Verdie River (specific coordinates not provided in transcript)

• Original allocation request (2023): 50,000 acre-feet (SRP's initial call for participation)

• First negotiated allocation (2023–2025): 7,413 acre-feet across all participating cities

• Federal government demand (November 2025): 50% of dam water

• Current allocation (February 2026): 4,741 acre-feet total for Apache Junction's share of the smaller-cities allocation; equivalent to approximately 1,500 acre-feet annually (available only every third year)

• Projected capacity to serve: Approximately 4,000 new homes (based on approximately three homes per acre-foot)

• Project timeline:

  • Feasibility study: 2023–mid-2027 (on schedule)
  • Design phase: Mid-2027 onward
  • Congressional approval: Targeted 2029
  • Dam completion: 2034

• Total estimated project cost: $3.4 billion

• Federal government contribution: Approximately $500 million (subject to increase as environmental and design phases proceed)

• District's current financial commitment: Roughly $500,000 spent to date; final payment of $180,000 scheduled for following year (completing original feasibility-study funding)

Opposition & Controversy

Eight larger Arizona cities opposed maintaining the smaller cities' original water allocation methodology:

• Cities opposing (primary concern): Phoenix, Ahwatukee, and six others totaling eight larger municipalities

• Their argument: The 50% federal government demand necessitated a complete reallocation of the water supply; smaller cities' original allocation formulas no longer worked under the new constraints and should be recalculated to provide larger cities with greater access

• Outcome: The smaller-cities coalition (10–11 cities) outvoted them in the SRP subcommittee and reaffirmed the original allocation based on each city's quantified need rather than wants

• Underlying tension: Director Mike characterized the larger cities' position as self-interested ("helped them receive more water"), while the smaller cities' strategy was to ensure that even marginal partners would receive some allocation sufficient to keep them invested in the project's regional benefits

Support

The smaller cities' coalition (10–11 municipalities including Apache Junction) prevailed:

• Coalition argument: Original allocation methodology (based on stated need rather than want) should be preserved; smaller allocations to marginal partners keep those cities engaged and preserve regional benefits of the project; cutting out smaller partners would fragment the coalition's political and practical leverage

• Federal government posture: While demanding 50% of water, federal government remains a committed funding partner ($500 million) and is not opposed to the project; federal requirement for congressional approval and environmental/economic justification is standard procedure for major water infrastructure, not hostile intervention

Vote Breakdown

• Allocation vote (smaller cities vs. larger cities in SRP subcommittee): 10–11 to 8 (smaller cities prevailed; allocation maintained at 4,741 acre-feet for Apache Junction's share)

• December 16th, 2025 special meeting minutes approval: 7–0 (unanimously passed)

• Individual vote breakdown not stated in transcript for the allocation vote. The director reported that the coalition of smaller cities voted as a bloc and succeeded 10–11 to 8; this vote occurred in the SRP subcommittee, not the Apache Junction Water District board itself. The board's explicit formal action on the allocation issue is not recorded in this transcript.

Outcome & Next Steps

The Apache Junction Water District confirmed continuation of the Verdie River/Bartlett Dam feasibility study under the negotiated allocation of 4,741 acre-feet (1,500 annually). The smaller-cities coalition's victory means Apache Junction's water supply expansion for future growth remains on track. The project is currently on schedule through mid-2027 for feasibility studies, with design to follow, congressional approval targeted for 2029, and dam completion projected for 2034.

The federal government's role has shifted from optional partner to arbiter: after the upper and lower Colorado River basin states failed to reach consensus on water reallocation by the February 13th deadline, the federal government is now tasked with determining how the seven Colorado River states will allocate water under a framework reverting to the 1920s Colorado River Compact. This outcome introduces uncertainty for Apache Junction and Arizona generally, as the federal government's eventual ruling could affect the state's overall water security and, indirectly, the viability of projects like the Verdie River dam.

The board will receive updates as new information emerges from SRP and federal government sources. The final $180,000 payment for the original feasibility study will be budgeted for the following fiscal year.

Concurrent Infrastructure Projects

The director's report included updates on three additional water infrastructure initiatives:

1. Ironwood Well Drilling ($2 million): Located north of Ray, this new well is scheduled to commence drilling within the next two months. The board anticipated that the community will see a well rig on-site as the project progresses.

2. Water Treatment Plant Final Buildout ($30–40 million): The district is partnering with a developer to complete the final construction phase of the water treatment plant, designed to support the district's production capacity needs. No timeline or developer name was specified in the transcript.

3. Booster 2 Expansion and Upgrade ($4–8 million): The district is simultaneously expanding and upgrading the Booster 2 facility. The board previously approved approximately $2 million for this project; additional budget allocation will be requested for the following year to complete the work.

Controversies & Context

The Federal Government's 50% Demand

In November 2025, the federal government unexpectedly demanded that 50% of the Verdie River dam's water be allocated to federal uses or other priorities, a dramatic reversal from the 2023–2025 negotiation process that had produced a stable allocation framework. The director characterized this as a shift from articulated federal needs to a blanket percentage demand. Chip Wilson asked why the federal demand should be accepted, Director Mike responded by explaining the federal approval process: congressional authorization requires demonstrating both economic justification and minimal environmental impact. The federal government is contributing approximately $500 million toward the $3.4 billion project cost, giving it leverage and legitimacy as a partner. However, the director noted that the district pushed back, asking the federal government to substantiate its 50% claim with documented need rather than accepting an arbitrary percentage. This ongoing negotiation remains unresolved and is "internal information at this time," according to Mike.

The Colorado River Interstate Dispute

The board's discussion revealed a broader crisis in interstate water allocation. The lower basin states (California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona) reached an internal agreement on water reallocation, but the upper basin states (Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico, Utah) could not arrive at a matching proposal. With the February 13th deadline missed, the issue has reverted to the federal government, which will determine how to allocate Colorado River water under the 1920s Colorado River Compact—a framework that predates modern water demands and climate change impacts.

Chip Wilson expressed concern that this outcome places a disproportionate burden on Arizona because California retains senior water rights under the 1922 compact and faces no restrictions, while Arizona, as a later entrant, must bear the burden of cutbacks if overuse continues. The director acknowledged that the seven-state Colorado River system faces a tragedy-of-the-commons scenario: if states continue overusing, "there won't be any water for anybody in the end." The federal government's ultimate decision could materially affect Apache Junction's long-term water security, particularly if Arizona's overall Colorado River allocation is reduced.

Political Leverage of the Smaller Cities

The director's framing of the allocation vote as a victory for "the little guys" reveals the political and practical tension in multi-city water infrastructure projects. Larger cities with higher growth projections and political clout (Phoenix, Ahwatukee) sought to recalculate allocations in their favor under the pretext of the federal government's new 50% demand. The smaller cities, including Apache Junction, recognized that accepting a complete reallocation would disadvantage them and risk fragmenting the coalition. By maintaining the original allocation methodology based on need, the smaller cities ensured that even marginal partners would receive something—a strategy that preserved regional unity and may have strengthened the coalition's negotiating position with the federal government and SRP.

Duration

• This item (Verdie River dam and Colorado River update): Approximately 15–20 minutes (transcript estimate)

• Total meeting: Approximately 25–30 minutes (brief meeting with no public comment and limited discussion)

Other Notable Items

Minutes Approval: The board unanimously approved the December 16th, 2025 special meeting minutes (7–0). No substantive issues were raised.

Treasurer's Report: Mentioned but no details provided in the transcript; meeting adjourned immediately following the director's report.