Arizona Water Resource Mar-Apr 2005

Home Browse Search

2 Arizona Water Resource March -April 2005 Interbasin... continued from page 1 ing up to the passage of the GTA. Water farming was an issue in Arizona water affairs in the late 1980s. Land purchased in rural basins for its appurtenant water was called a "water farm" or "water ranch." With the land purchased, the water then could be used for purposes other than agriculture; e.g., it could be piped to urban ar- eas which was in fact the planned destination for most of the water expected to be obtained from water farms. Water farming provoked controversy. On one side of the issue were various municipalities within Active Management Areas. With their groundwater pumping restricted by the 1980 Groundwater Management Act, municipalities sought additional water supplies to support growing populations. They viewed water farming as a means to transfer the state's limited water supplies to areas of great- est need, from an economically lower -to higher- valued use; in other words, from rural to urban areas. Many in agricultural areas, however, considered water farm- ing a problem, not an opportunity. They believed that agricultural areas would be pillaged of their vital water resources. Short -and long -range economic costs to such areas could result. Although some landowners might make money by selling their land, the loss of farm income due to retired farmlands could affect existing busi- nesses in the area. Further, abandoned farmland could be an envi- ronmental liability: thus passage of the GTA. The statute provided a few exceptions to the prohibition of in- terbasin water transfers. For example, an exception was granted for certain agreements that were in effect before passage of the GTA; e.g. agreements in the Big Chino Subbasin and the Harquahala Ir- rigation Non - expansion Area. Also, in response to several years of drought, amendments to the GTA provide for short -term trucking of groundwater between basin boundaries, if a permit is obtained from the Arizona Department of Water Resources. Transfers Gain Appeal Restricting transfers seemed like a good idea back then, but the GTA is now being questioned by those who were presumed to benefit most from the law. What has changed? What has caused some rural officials now to regard water transfers more positively, as a possible strategy to acquire additional water supplies for their communities? Greatly contributing to the changed attitude is the growing realization that water supplies in various rural areas are not adequate to meet community needs. Several developments prompt- ed this realization. In the 1990s, the growth rate in rural areas of the state exceed- ed all projections. In search of a life style change, many people were drawn to the attractive natural settings of rural areas. Some new- comers came to the area to build second residences and retirement homes. To accommodate this growth rural areas needed sufficient water supplies. Also in the late 1990s drought conditions were increasingly be- coming a worry, further taxing available water resources and raising concerns about future supplies. Rural officials were thus confronted with the question: What options are available for acquiring new and additional water supplies? With CAP water not readily available to rural areas, options for acquiring new water resources are limited. Interbasin water transfers might be an option if legal complications could be resolved. Current discussions are concerned with rural interest in inter- basin transfers of groundwater. No one is apparently interested in turning back the clock and promoting interbasin transfers from non -AMA to AMAs. Reception for Bonnie G. Colby, co- author of "Negotiating Tribal Water Rights" AMay 10 reception will be held at the University of Arizo- na's Water Resources Research Center for Bonnie Colby to cel- ebrate publication of her new book. Colby, along with John E. Thurston and Sarah Britton, wrote "Negotiating Tribal Water Rights, Fulfilling Promises in the Arid West" The book offers an introduction to the ongoing challenges tribal claims present to western water management. Hosting the reception are the WRRC and the UA Center for Sustainability of Arid and semi - Arid Hydrology and Riparian Areas. For more information click Announcements on the WRRC web page: http://ag.arizona.edu/azwater/ Muted Message Although rural communities are recognizing the potential value of interbasin transfers — one official said "it would be an incredibly useful tool to have in rural Arizona communities' war chest" — they are raising the issue cautiously. Neither at the proposal stage nor at the point of formal discussions, interbasin transfer is not an issue that is officially on the table. A state water official described what- ever conversations are occurring on the topic as "sort of a buzz." There is a reason for this: officials are being cautious about advocating for transfers because the full consequences of allowing interbasin water transfers among rural areas is not known. Consider the political implications of the following questions: Who would benefit from allowing interbasin transfer of water? What areas or communities would serve as areas of origin for water transfers? What would be the likely effect of water transfers on such areas? In other words, winners and losers are likely; community leaders don't want to be blamed for an unexpected and unpopular outcome. Not helping the situation is the dearth of information about hydrological and geological conditions in some rural areas of the state. Rural areas of the state have received less support than AMAs for managing their water resources. For example, since 1984, well operators who pump over 35 gallons per minute from a well within an AMA are required to keep records of their pumpage and report amounts to ADWR. Pumpage information outside of AMAs is gen- erally lacking because metering is not required. With a lack of such basic information as the amount of water within an aquifer and its rate of depletion, rural officials are not likely able to make informed decisions about groundwater transfers. More will be likely to be heard in the future about interbasin transfers in rural areas of the state. As rural communities individu- ally and collectively work out their water future they may find that the interbasin transfer of groundwater, a concept they once found objectionable, could very much work to their advantage. &