Colorado River Commission & 7-States Meeting Inside Info: Arizona

Home Browse Search

one says 'Ouch!' 300 miles away." IMPEDIMENTS: Information, money, values Arizona lawmakers secured future water supplies for five mostly urban areas, including Phoenix and Tucson, with the 1980 Groundwater Manage- ment Act. But most of those laws do not apply to the rest of the state, where the population has since doubled to more than 1 million. The state doesn't even have accu- rate information about water re- sources in many areas and lacks the money and staff to perform engineer- ing studies in more than a dozen major water basins. That complicates at- tempts to manage water because no one knows how much there is to start. Developing this information is a priority of Gov. Janet Napolitano's new "virtual water university," a re- search initiative that will pool the ex- pertise of the state's three major uni- versities. "We need to have the information available in communities so the water - resource managers can adequately manage the water," said Alan Ste- phens, Napolitano's chief of staff. Although the groundwater act has worked in the cities, leaders from ru- ral areas don't want it extended state- wide in its current form. They point out that a major reason the act has been effective in places such as met- ropolitan Phoenix and Tucson is that these areas can tap surface water to help preserve groundwater. There is no rural equivalent of the Central Arizona Project, which deliv- ers Colorado River water to Phoenix and Tucson, or Salt River Project's system of six reservoirs. This lack of access to surface water is a major rea- son the Groundwater Management Act has been a failure in the Prescott area, one of the few rural places in- cluded in the act. (See the related story, "Prescott: "Proof that one size of urban regulation doesn't fit all," on the next page.) There are also specific parts of the 1980 act that wouldn't work in rural areas. For example, one rule limits the projected depth of a well's level be- yond 100 years to 1,200 feet. This isn't a problem in low - elevation urban areas such as Phoenix and Tucson, where most wells are only 100 to 200 feet. But in Flagstaff, Williams, Pay- son and other high - country communi- ties, wells routinely exceed 1,500 feet in depth when they are first drilled. The chief hurdle to passing a version of the Groundwater Management Act that could meet the needs of rural areas is not the mechanics; it's values. Most of the sweeping proposals, from a state- wide water budget to drought planning, have met with resistance at the Legisla- ture and at the county and municipal levels, where distrust of any initiative that might infringe on the rights of pri- vate- property owners or increase gov- ernment regulation runs strong. One of the most basic changes many, water - supply managers at utilities and government agencies believe would help is asking owners of private domes- tic wells to report how much water they pump. Currently, owners of these "ex- empt" wells don't have to provide this information to the state. That means no one knows how much water is being tak- en from a basin or a watershed. But it's been a hard sell. "There's always a concern in rural areas that government is going to get in- formation and use it against them," said Herb Guenther, director of the state's Department of Water Resources. "It be- comes a property rights issue. There's a great level of distrust of regulation." BASIC REFORM: Requiring a 100 -year supply Conservation Stretch existing water supplies by than cities. Payson, for example, prices basic using less. Reusing water Stretch existing water supplies by landscaping. Prescott Valley prohibits using treated wastewater, or gray new golf courses from using potable water. Regulation Let the government impose rules on 7 -mile pipeline to irrigate a new golf water use, growth, zoning and new course with treated wastewater. development. For example, the state Almost everywhere. Many cities al- could change the law so cities and ready use effluent to irrigate golf counties in unregulated areas could courses or public landscaping. Some, including Tusayan, expanded that idea deny a subdivision based on water to include rainwater harvesting. supply and builders could not sell homes on sites that the state has Everywhere. The state could impose some rules throughout Arizona or at ruled lack adequate water. L Everywhere. Most rural communities already limit water use more strictly Limited only by the willingness of towns and cities to ask residents to conserve. The drought forced . than cities. Payson, for example, prices basic some cities, such as Flagstaff, to reassess conserva- tion But as supplies tighten, many cities still water so that it's affordable for needs but expensive for elaborate programs. have room to encourage more conservation by limit - landscaping. Prescott Valley prohibits ing outdoor use and adding incentives for using less. new golf courses from using potable water. It forced a developer to build a 7 -mile pipeline to irrigate a new golf course with treated wastewater. Almost everywhere. Many cities al- Limited only by how much wastewater is produced ready use effluent to irrigate golf and how much towns can afford to reuse the water. courses or public landscaping. Some, including Tusayan, expanded that idea Building pipelines to carry effluent to golf courses or other locations can be expensive. Rainwater harvest - to include rainwater harvesting. ing is doable on an individual home basis, as is some limited gray -water use. Incentives could help with both. Everywhere. The state could impose some rules throughout Arizona or at Limited unless local views change. Cities and coun- ties complain about the spread of "wildcat subdivi- least could grant local leaders the au- sons;' projects built outside zoning laws, but have not thority to impose limits. pushed hard for reforms. Real estate interests oppose new rules. Local leaders resist regulations on growth " or groundwater use as bad for their economy. The Legislature has rejected recent attempts to add con- sumer protections, such as stopping subdivisions that lack adequate water. i �F J Mark Henle/The Arizona Republic Retired engineer John Breninger shows maps of the Pine area in northern Gila County, where he has lived for about 12 years. He believes drilling deeper wells could help ease local water shortages. Many state and local officials agree that making the 100 -year water - supply rule mandatory would give rural com- munities a tool to manage water and growth. In a 1999 review of the Water Re- sources Department, the state auditor general characterized the weaker law as a consumer - protection issue and said home buyers in rural areas lack the safeguards provided in urban areas. The audit recommended extending water - supply requirements statewide or, at the very least, requiring develop- ers to attach the findings of water -sup- ply reviews to a property's title. Under existing law, a landowner doesn't have to disclose the condition of a parcel's water supply once the property has been sold once. Without those basic changes, the au- dit predicted that water - supply prob- lems could become pervasive as the population grows and that widespread shortages could occur within 40 years. "We need somewhere along the line to connect land development with wa- ter availability," said Rep. Tom O'Halle- ran, R- Sedona. "Any attempt to manage water without taking growth into ac- count is meaningless." Linking growth to water availability is rare outside the groundwater man- agement areas. Incorporated towns and cities can impose rules using zon- ing laws, but counties and small towns that rely on private water companies can't deny subdivisions based solely on water availability. That has led to the spread of "wildcat subdivisions," or "lot splits," where landowners avoid stricter zoning laws by subdividing property into five or fewer parcels. (Under state law, those rules apply only to land split into six or more parcels.) These subdivisions con- tribute to an unmonitored drain on groundwater and leave homeowners with little, if any, protection. In a 2003 survey conducted by the governor's drought task force, a major- ity of county leaders said better control over lot splits would help them manage water better. Yet proposals to tighten rules have failed repeatedly in the Leg- islature, mainly because they have run afoul of property rights concerns. That survey also said that the few growth or water - management Pro- posals that made it through the law- making process, such as the Growing Smarter bill, generally focused on find- ing water to accommodate growth rather than helping manage growth by linking it to existing water resources. "A lot of people are in denial," said Muriel Haverland, new president of the Citizens Water Advocacy Group, a grass -roots organization in Yavapai County. "They ask, 'Are we going to run out of water in our lifetime ?' No, but do we want Prescott to become a ghost town someday ?" ISOLATED PROGRESS: Towns do what they can Some incorporated communities have developed their own rules and have had success. Payson and Prescott Valley, for exam- ple, require developers of any new proj- ect to provide the water supply. (See the 'related story, "Payson: Limiting growth, water use while grabbing nearby supplies," on the next page.) In Prescott Valley, the builder of a master - planned community constructed a 7 -mile pipe- line to deliver treated wastewater to a new golf course, which can't be irri- gated with groundwater. "Our residents have said new growth should pay for new growth," Prescott Valley Town Manager Larry Tarkowski said. "Our water resource determines our growth." Mohave County has used its zoning laws to control the spread of wildcat subdivisions. The county raised mini- Everywhere. ini mum lot sizes to as large as 40 acres in some areas, which makes it more diffi- cult to split lots into sites without seek- ing review by planning officials. The state is encouraging that sort of local approach. The Department of Wa- ter Resources helps fund 17 regional partnerships thatblanket the state from Kingman to Benson. Some of those part- nerships have achieved successes, nota- bly one along the troubled San Pedro River and another on the Coconino Pla- teau, which includes Flagstaff. For example, the Upper San Pedro Partnership, a coalition of 21 agencies and organizations, has produced annual water- conservation plans to help bal ance the demands of a growing region with natural- resource issues. It is studying how much water the SanPe needs to sustain its natural habitat an whether alternate sources of wate might help protect the river. Communities also banded to form th Northern Arizona Municipal Wate Users Association, which will lobby la makers and work on issues such as fin ing alternatives to groundwater. Powell up to Flagstaff and surrounc communities. Such apipeline would billions of dollars, and local leaders cede they can't do it without federal That might be possible if the plat cludes a water settlement with the vajo and Hopi tribes, which have 1 tioned for Colorado River water. communities could negotiate a de; bring their water as far as the rese tion's edge through a federally fur pipeline and then build an extensic move the water the rest of the way That idea illustrates one of the st est obstacles to helping rural coma ties: geography. The areas that i need water are uphill from the areas have water to spare, a situation that test the Western adage that "water, uphill to money." Moving water too far from whe started, from one basin to another, i gal under a law originally supporte rural lawmakers, who feared a rai their supplies by the cities. Some leaders now wonder if they should to relax the ban. New water projects also must pas vironmental reviews. Conservatio have convinced courts that overpi ing in southern Arizona has harmer San Pedro River, and they are ma the same case for the Verde River. T groups say people should learn he better balance the demand forwate: the need to leave it where it is. Getting lawmakers to address t issues will take persistent public i sure, but that is less likely given thi ing of the drought. Winter snow ani bought most areas a comfortable sl and summer. Fewer water short are expected, and most commut have reported rising well levels I areas like Flagstaff and Willi healthy reservoirs. That worries proponents of ref who fear interest in rural water is will wane with the drought. The Legislature passed two bi the recent session that could aid communities: One would increase ing for the thinly staffed program view the adequacy of water supple developments but would not gi - more teeth. The other would ere commission to closely examine i also supplies and demand in rural area dro Others were killed, includin€ d that would have required a 100 r water supply before a subdiv could be built in rural areas. An' e would have mandated that all N r providers create a drought plan w- Barbara Hall doesn't think d- people give water enough thougl til they're forced to, such as whe faucets run dry as they do most DEVELOPING SUPPLIES: Who will foot the bill? Finding more water is a critical piece of any reform package. Most communi- ties outside the urban areas rely almost entirely on groundwater, a finite and of- ten unpredictable resource. Some areas are looking at importing surface water. But many proposals face formidable ob- stacles, including their steep cost. The most ambitious is a plan to bring water from the Colorado River at Lake mers m Pme, where she fives. She was concerned enough th, ran for a seat on the Pine -Strata Water Improvement District found herself elected chairwom has opened her eyes. "I visited my daughter in the N was watching her wash strawbe letting the water run the whole and all I could think was, 'Look al she's wasting,' " Hall said. 'T don't think about water enou€ cause they haven't gone withou