Population Working Group Population Projections 2010, 2035, 2060, 2110 December 10, 2010

“There are known knowns…there are known unknowns…But there are also unknown unknowns…things we don’t know we don’t know.” 2 Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld

October 15 October 26 Sent (10/27 /10) to County Planning Departments soliciting input November 9 November 22 3

Various levels of geography Based on published projections and existing data Adjusted for economic downturn Three scenarios; Low, Mid, High Disaggregated to geographies using political boundaries and basin boundaries Some data was not included but is very important for consideration in the WRDC process (“bin”) 4

State County Basin County-Basin portions Basin-County portions CCD, CDP, MPA, Incorporated Area 5

6

7

8

DES Projections from 2006 MAG Projections by MPA Projections by Incorporated Area for Gila, Pima and Pinal Counties US Census Bureau, “Methodology and Assumptions for the Population Projections of the United States: 1999 to

DES Webpage 10

11 US Census Projection to 2100

Original DES state projection reduced for the economic downturn US Census projections to 2100 used to extend state projections to 2110 US Census projection scenarios used to develop three State scenarios 12

Likely Outcomes Bracketed Between High and Low Series Projections 13

Each original data source extended to 2110 using proportional relationships County proportion of state CCD, MPA or Incorporated Area proportion of County CDP proportion of CCD For years 2056 – 2110, the 2055 proportion held constant Produced projections down to the CDP, CCD Remainder, MPA, Incorporated Area and Balance of County in each year, for each scenario from 2010 through 2110 EXAMPLE: County A proportion of State in year X multiplied by State projection in year X = County A population for that year. 14

Political boundaries disaggregated into groundwater basins using GIS La Paz, Pima and Pinal Counties provided feedback Data reviewed to ensure that portions added up to 100% 15

16

ACCESS database created Original projection data Proportion of each political boundary and basin Queries allow ease of data extraction County Basin County-basin portions Basin-county portions 17

MethodLowMidHighLowMidHighLowMidHighLowMidHigh County Apache73,63974,08274,72077,76291,244112,58574,527105,989164,55467,050146,545317,215 Cochise137,468138,296139,487157,221184,479227,628153,129217,775338,106137,766301,103651,777 Coconino133,157133,959135,113145,554170,790210,737141,773201,624313,031127,549278,773603,439 Gila54,37654,70455,17558,15268,23484,19456,27480,030124,25050,627110,652239,521 Graham35,24435,45635,76237,20443,65453,86535,38750,32578,13331,83669,582150,619 Greenlee7,7277,7747,8416,8107,9919,8606,5299,28514,4155,87412,83827,789 La Paz21,30421,43221,61723,42627,48833,91722,12931,47148,86119,90943,51494,191 Maricopa3,969,9603,993,8654,028,2725,342,7346,269,0327,735,3465,535,2057,871,94212,221,6064,979,84410,884,05423,559,919 Mohave208,449209,705211,511282,536331,521409,062291,616414,724643,881262,358573,4141,241,227 Navajo115,945116,643117,648139,718163,942202,288138,683197,230306,210124,769272,698590,289 Pima1,007,8961,013,9651,022,7001,223,8281,436,0091,771,8891,236,7441,758,8462,730,7021,112,6582,431,8505,264,048 Pinal343,194345,261348,235781,243916,6911,131,103989,8141,407,6732,185,487890,5041,946,3044,213,022 Santa Cruz47,26447,54847,95860,46170,94387,53761,29187,166135,33055,142120,519260,879 Yavapai227,487228,856230,829302,274354,682437,641302,375430,025667,637272,037594,5691,287,021 Yuma205,971207,211208,996270,308317,173391,359272,760387,908602,248245,394536,3371,160,969 STATE6,589,0806,628,7576,685,8638,909,23010,453,87012,899,0099,318,23613,252,01320,574,4518,383,31418,322,75139,661,922 Projections by County and Scenario 18

projections not model based New demographic model projections for Arizona available in 2012 Regional assessment studies were not incorporated US Census counts may be underreporting Indian Tribe populations Development on State Lands adds layer of complexity Not all County Planning departments had time to offer input WRDC projections may not match other local and regional studies 19

NAMEAFFILIATIONNAMEAFFILIATION Jason BaranAMWUARobert KirkNavajo Nation Phil BashawAZ Farm BureauJim KlinkerAZ Farm Bureau Perri BenemelisAZ Dept of Water ResourcesJohn LeeperNavajo Nation Patrick BrayAZ Cattle Feeders’ AssociationMichael LibertiCity of Tucson Tom BuschatzkeCity of PhoenixColleen McVeyLa Paz County Jorge CanacaAZ Game and FishAdam MillerCity of Phoenix Luana CapponiState LandSharon MorrisAZ Dept of Water Resources Jim ChangAZ Dept of CommerceJohn MunderlohTown of Prescott Valley Karen CollinsSRPShawn MurrayCity of Mesa Rebecca DavidsonSRPPam NagelAZ Dept of Water Resources Kevin DavidsonMohave CountyKaren NallyLaw Offices of K Nally Norm DeWeaverInter-Tribal Council of AZSteve OlsonAMWUA Santiago GarciaBureau of ReclamationDavid PlaneUniversity of AZ Maureen GeorgeLaw Offices of M GeorgeJohn RasmussenYavapai County Angela GottoCentral AZ Association of GovtsSteve RossiCity of Phoenix Laura GrignanoAZ Dept of Water ResourcesBill SchoolingAZ Dept of Commerce Thomas HomanGila CountyJerry StableyPinal County John HuntDepartment of AgricultureDean TrammelTucson Water David IwanskiCity of GoodyearDianne YunkerAZ Dept of Water Resources Jeff JohnsonTown of Taylor 20

“…in the Inferno of Dante’s Divine Comedy, there is a special place in the Eighth Circle of Hell reserved for those who presume to peer too far into the future. Their punishment, for all eternity, is to have their heads permanently pivoted 180 degrees to the rear…” 21 Michael S. Teitelbaum, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, United Nations

“Final” report and description of methodology will be forthcoming 22