Thursday night, 9/17, is the final meeting for the "new information" part of Phase II of the City of Tucson/Pima County Water and Wastewater Study Oversight Committee scope of work. There are three new white papers posted on the study website - here. I think this meeting will easily go the full 4 hours. Because in addition to the new material there will be discussion of the planning for the Phase II report writing.
The new papers are focused on 1) potential new water supplies for the region, 2) availability of water for the environment, and 3) water quality issues associated (primarily) with emerging contaminants. I've been able to read the new water supplies paper - it's only about 30 pages. The other two are 40 and 50 pages. As I have been discovering since being ensconced on the committee*, the papers - while exhibiting a great deal of diligence on the part of city and county staff, under short timelines, and tight budgets - really don't break any new ground. This study should be about breaking with convention and finding new, creative solutions to our water problems. But it just seems to be about educating people about how complex water policy is and how difficult that makes it to implement real solutions to these problems.
Uh oh. I think I may have just given myself a new job. Better get busy on those last 2 papers.
* I was reading the papers before being appointed but not as critically as I have since then. In Phase I, I pretty much waited for the draft report to be submitted before sharpening my pencil and dissecting the findings. This time it's much more critical because we will be making policy recommendations to local leaders and setting the tone for future phases of the study (planned as a truly regional dialogue on these issues). Plus the report writing is going to occur pretty quickly and the committee will have more input on the writing process than I believe they did in Phase I.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Monday, September 7, 2009
Arizona's new Blue Ribbon Panel on Water Sustainability
We already have an effort underway to locate and secure additional water supplies for the Central Arizona Project service area (where the vast majority of Arizona's population resides) - called the ADD Water process. Now the state is jumping into the water sustainability discussion with a splashy (clever, eh?) announcement [pdf; press release from the Arizona Department of Water Resources website (ADWR)] regarding a special "blue ribbon panel on water sustainability" that was announced just over a week ago.
I first heard about it at a water planning conference put on by the Arizona Investment Council the end of August, where all three of the blue-ribbon-bearers were speakers. The Arizona Investment Council was a new organization to me. They are a think-tankish, policy outfit that probably does a bit of lobbying as well, with a focus on utility regulation and infrastructure investment. If you have a lot of free time on your hands and are really interested in infrastructure they have a report on their website called "Infrastructure Needs and Funding Alternatives for Arizona: 2008-2032" (it can be found by clicking on a link on the left side of their homepage), that goes into, at times, mind-numbing detail on how much we need to invest in our water, wastewater, energy, and transportation infrastructure in this state over the next 20-odd years. Trust me, it's a very large number, and probably fairly accurate but reflects a mindset that we must have bullet-proof, gold-plated infrastructure to compete for jobs and outside investment in the future.
Much of the conference was directed by what's in this report and there were some interesting talks, but nothing real earth-shaking.
Back to the water sustainability panel - hard to predict what will come out of this but based on the press-release it appears to be focused on water recycling, which probably means they will explore legislative and regulatory changes that need to be made to expand uses of reclaimed water and ways to convince people that reclaim is a safe, viable option for augmenting potable water supplies. The make-up of the panel indicates a desire to leverage areas of expertise and authority over the companies, municipalities and districts that manage water, wastewater, and probably other utilities as well - considering the whole energy-water nexus that's all in vogue these days.
Can't wait to see how the panel gets fleshed-out and provided with further direction - oh ... and will the legislature fund the activities of the panel next year? ADWR, ADEQ, and most other state agencies have had their budgets slashed in the past year to deal with rapidly declining state tax revenues - to the point where some people are saying it could take years for ADWR to recover to the level of competency it was at just a few years ago. I guess that will be the real determinant of whether this panel will produce anything worthwhile.
I first heard about it at a water planning conference put on by the Arizona Investment Council the end of August, where all three of the blue-ribbon-bearers were speakers. The Arizona Investment Council was a new organization to me. They are a think-tankish, policy outfit that probably does a bit of lobbying as well, with a focus on utility regulation and infrastructure investment. If you have a lot of free time on your hands and are really interested in infrastructure they have a report on their website called "Infrastructure Needs and Funding Alternatives for Arizona: 2008-2032" (it can be found by clicking on a link on the left side of their homepage), that goes into, at times, mind-numbing detail on how much we need to invest in our water, wastewater, energy, and transportation infrastructure in this state over the next 20-odd years. Trust me, it's a very large number, and probably fairly accurate but reflects a mindset that we must have bullet-proof, gold-plated infrastructure to compete for jobs and outside investment in the future.
Much of the conference was directed by what's in this report and there were some interesting talks, but nothing real earth-shaking.
Back to the water sustainability panel - hard to predict what will come out of this but based on the press-release it appears to be focused on water recycling, which probably means they will explore legislative and regulatory changes that need to be made to expand uses of reclaimed water and ways to convince people that reclaim is a safe, viable option for augmenting potable water supplies. The make-up of the panel indicates a desire to leverage areas of expertise and authority over the companies, municipalities and districts that manage water, wastewater, and probably other utilities as well - considering the whole energy-water nexus that's all in vogue these days.
Can't wait to see how the panel gets fleshed-out and provided with further direction - oh ... and will the legislature fund the activities of the panel next year? ADWR, ADEQ, and most other state agencies have had their budgets slashed in the past year to deal with rapidly declining state tax revenues - to the point where some people are saying it could take years for ADWR to recover to the level of competency it was at just a few years ago. I guess that will be the real determinant of whether this panel will produce anything worthwhile.
What's up with the City/County Water Study Committee?
The last meeting (Aug. 20) had some pretty interesting discussion occurring because of a late addition to the agenda. A local outfit called the Tucson Regional Water Coalition (TRWC) sent the committee a report titled "Water as an Economic Resource" (pdf document). Sounds pretty innocuous, right? And for the most part it was. But I should start by explaining what the Tucson Regional Water Coalition is. It was created last year by the Southern Arizona Leadership Council (SALC), a local organization of business and development heavy-hitters. This fact obviously did not sit well with some of the committee members who will never trust anything coming from those quarters.
But, despite it's detractors, the paper did elicit some good discussion of the merits of, and justification for, regarding water as an economic good in some aspects of water policy. What I thought was particularly good was the discussion by a panel of "experts" brought in by the creators of the paper to discuss it's merits. By and large they were not too impressed with it, although at least one of them did review it and make suggestions to a draft version of it. While they generally agreed with the overall tone of the paper, I thought they felt some of the assertions made were a bit too strong. The recommendations at the end of the paper, in particular, may have overstated the case a bit. Such as: "Establish policy declaring economic efficiency as the central criterion in water management decisions." While it should be a consideration, I don't see how you can justify making it the "central criterion."
I was also disappointed in the examples they chose to use for applying economic principles to analysis of water policy. After opening the paper with a pretty good discussion of how to consider all costs associated with a policy in your decision-making process, they completely failed to do that in their examples. I viewed the examples as a pretty blatant way of demonstrating that conservation and environmental uses of water don't stack up in terms of economic efficiency the same as acquisition of additional water supplies and application of all water to serve growth.
The authors could have done a better job of presenting the value of economic principles in a way that would further the central focus of the study - balancing growth and the environment in ways that provide long-term benefit to our communities. And some of the committee members could have done a better job of seeing the paper for what it was (at least arguably) intending to accomplish - remind us that economics are part of good policy.
As for the primary focus of that meeting - evaluating the cost of growth - representatives of our water and sewer utilities did an admirable job of demonstrating how they have changed their financing and billing structures over the years to shift the costs of new services (growth) onto those customers, rather than sharing the cost among all customers. It's still not perfect, but that is mostly because of failings in state law that restrict the ability of local jurisdictions to recover some costs through impact fees. But even so - the costs of water and sewer will be going up in this area for the foreseeable future because of regulatory requirements and other needs associated with aging infrastructure. Glad to see they're planning ahead.
But, despite it's detractors, the paper did elicit some good discussion of the merits of, and justification for, regarding water as an economic good in some aspects of water policy. What I thought was particularly good was the discussion by a panel of "experts" brought in by the creators of the paper to discuss it's merits. By and large they were not too impressed with it, although at least one of them did review it and make suggestions to a draft version of it. While they generally agreed with the overall tone of the paper, I thought they felt some of the assertions made were a bit too strong. The recommendations at the end of the paper, in particular, may have overstated the case a bit. Such as: "Establish policy declaring economic efficiency as the central criterion in water management decisions." While it should be a consideration, I don't see how you can justify making it the "central criterion."
I was also disappointed in the examples they chose to use for applying economic principles to analysis of water policy. After opening the paper with a pretty good discussion of how to consider all costs associated with a policy in your decision-making process, they completely failed to do that in their examples. I viewed the examples as a pretty blatant way of demonstrating that conservation and environmental uses of water don't stack up in terms of economic efficiency the same as acquisition of additional water supplies and application of all water to serve growth.
The authors could have done a better job of presenting the value of economic principles in a way that would further the central focus of the study - balancing growth and the environment in ways that provide long-term benefit to our communities. And some of the committee members could have done a better job of seeing the paper for what it was (at least arguably) intending to accomplish - remind us that economics are part of good policy.
As for the primary focus of that meeting - evaluating the cost of growth - representatives of our water and sewer utilities did an admirable job of demonstrating how they have changed their financing and billing structures over the years to shift the costs of new services (growth) onto those customers, rather than sharing the cost among all customers. It's still not perfect, but that is mostly because of failings in state law that restrict the ability of local jurisdictions to recover some costs through impact fees. But even so - the costs of water and sewer will be going up in this area for the foreseeable future because of regulatory requirements and other needs associated with aging infrastructure. Glad to see they're planning ahead.
Follow-up on Imagine H2O Prize
If you follow this blog you may have noticed my recent post on a prize being offered this fall for visionary entrepreneurial ideas in water conservation being offered by Imagine H2O.
Last week I received another email from them asking me to make note of the fact that the competition is now open - as of Sept. 1. Here are a few excerpts from the press release they sent me:
Check out their website if you want to learn more about the competition. One thing I might note is that the press release indicated a total prize amount of $70k, which is $20k more than they originally told me.
Last week I received another email from them asking me to make note of the fact that the competition is now open - as of Sept. 1. Here are a few excerpts from the press release they sent me:
The competition offers prizes of $70,000 in cash and in‐kind services, which will be awarded to the business plans that promise the greatest breakthroughs in the efficient use and supply of water.
The Imagine H2O Prize is designed to encourage entrepreneurs, investors, inventors and academics around the world to address water challenges. This inaugural business plan competition focuses on solutions to improve water efficiency in agriculture, commercial, industrial or residential applications, such as water demand reduction, improved water use, water recycling and/or reuse.
Entries will be accepted from around the world beginning September 1 through November 16, 2009. Winners will be announced at a showcase event in early 2010. The annual competition will feature a different water‐related prize topic each year.
Check out their website if you want to learn more about the competition. One thing I might note is that the press release indicated a total prize amount of $70k, which is $20k more than they originally told me.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
upcoming meeting of the City/County Water Study Committee
The next committee meeting is this Thurs., Aug. 20, at the Tucson Ass'n of Realtors on Tucson Blvd. just north of Grant Rd. (this is where I will be that evening instead of at the Imagine H2O event in San Fran).
The agenda is posted on the study website as well as the technical paper up for discussion this week - covering the "Cost of Growth". It's all about what our water and sewer utilities are doing to separate operation and maintenance costs (associated with their existing infrastructure) from costs of expanding their systems (building new infrastructure to accommodate growth). People around here have been clamoring that "growth needs to pay for itself!" And I generally agree. You don't want existing water customers paying the cost of acquiring new water supplies or for conservation measures that are intended to provide enough water for the people who might move here in the next 20 years. But as with most things, what seems like a simple proposition on its face is far more complicated when you get into the nitty-gritty. It should make for an interesting discussion. I'll post more after the meeting.
The agenda is posted on the study website as well as the technical paper up for discussion this week - covering the "Cost of Growth". It's all about what our water and sewer utilities are doing to separate operation and maintenance costs (associated with their existing infrastructure) from costs of expanding their systems (building new infrastructure to accommodate growth). People around here have been clamoring that "growth needs to pay for itself!" And I generally agree. You don't want existing water customers paying the cost of acquiring new water supplies or for conservation measures that are intended to provide enough water for the people who might move here in the next 20 years. But as with most things, what seems like a simple proposition on its face is far more complicated when you get into the nitty-gritty. It should make for an interesting discussion. I'll post more after the meeting.
A chance to profit from your water conservation ideas
I received an email this week from someone representing Imagine H2O, a "San Francisco based not-for-profit organization committed to enabling water entrepreneurship." They are organizing an event in San Francisco later this week (yeah I probably won't make it either) to launch a new initiative to promote entrepreneurial ideas in water conservation, or as they described it to me:
Here's some more info on the contest they are sponsoring:
I was provided with two names and contact info if you are interested in learning more than can be gleaned from the websites:
Jared Dunnmon, jdunnmon@gmail.com, or
Director of Operations Aaron Schwartz, as@imagineh2o.org
If you think you have a great idea for fostering water conservation and efficiency this could be your big break. Certainly seems worth looking into.
... on Thursday August 20th we are hosting what we hope will be a uniquely productive evening for identifying water customers’ needs, brainstorming ideas and building teams in anticipation of the upcoming launch of the inaugural Imagine H2O Prize. More information on this event can be found at the event website (http://waterefficiency.eventbrite.com).
Imagine H2O hopes to positively affect the world’s water problems by forming a dynamic environment for water entrepreneurship. You can view our media page at (www.imagineh2o.org/media) for more information on the organization ...
Here's some more info on the contest they are sponsoring:
The topic for the 2009-10 competition is Water Efficiency. Competitors will provide solutions that reduce the demand or use of water in either agriculture, commercial and industrial, or residential applications. This could be done via demand response, recycling, reuse, or through any other smart management ideas. Total prizes given in 2009-10 will be $50,000. Winners will receive cash, in-depth business incubation including introductions to financiers, potential beta customers and go-to-market partners, and reduced-rate or free office space.
I was provided with two names and contact info if you are interested in learning more than can be gleaned from the websites:
Jared Dunnmon, jdunnmon@gmail.com, or
Director of Operations Aaron Schwartz, as@imagineh2o.org
If you think you have a great idea for fostering water conservation and efficiency this could be your big break. Certainly seems worth looking into.
Sunday, August 9, 2009
overdue - some discussion of the link between water and growth from the Joint City/County Water Study
Finally found some time to post on this. The committee discussed the report "Integrating Land Use Planning with Water Resources and Infrastructure Technical Paper" that can be downloaded here. My comments to the committee on the paper are also available on the study website, but I'll briefly discuss them here as well.
My two main points of discussion on the paper were in regards to the concerns expressed over operation of the Central Arizona Groundwater Replenishment District (CAGRD) and their discussion of the Interim Water Service Policy established by the city manager in late 2007.
On the CAGRD, there has been extensive discussion recently about the physical disconnect between the replenishment activities of the District (whereby they recharge renewable water supplies to offset pumping by water utilities or subdivisions that are enrolled in the district) and the actual groundwater pumping that leads to the replenishment obligation. The point I wanted to make is that, in the way the CAGRD was created it was not really meant to replace pumped water in an aquifer with recharged, renewable water. As with much of the Arizona Groundwater Management Act (GMA), it was a water accounting system designed to ensure that accounts remain in balance within each Active Management Area (AMA). Without going into whether this was a good or bad thing, it is what our legislators decided to do to accommodate population growth and further development within AMAs. The problem we have encountered with it is not that the pumping is occurring far away from the recharge, but that the program has been much more popular than many originally envisioned, so the quantities of water being pumped have become pretty large, resulting in considerable water level drawdown in some locations. Here's what I said in my comments to the committee:
While doing more to use recharge for mitigation of pumping effects is a good idea in theory, I think it's pretty difficult to implement in practice.
As for the "interim water service policy" my opinions on this have been explored in the blog in the past (see this post). I really have a problem with this being referred to as a policy:
I also reiterated my earlier statement that one of the criteria for agreeing to serve a new development should be a requirement that the effluent from that development be available to the city to augment our reclaimed water supplies.
The future linkage between water supplies and growth is a critically important issue for the future of Tucson and other cities like it that have seen their available water supplies stretched almost to the physical limits by rapid growth in the recent past. There should be more exciting discussion on this issue when the committee tries to reach agreement on this portion of the Phase II report.
My two main points of discussion on the paper were in regards to the concerns expressed over operation of the Central Arizona Groundwater Replenishment District (CAGRD) and their discussion of the Interim Water Service Policy established by the city manager in late 2007.
On the CAGRD, there has been extensive discussion recently about the physical disconnect between the replenishment activities of the District (whereby they recharge renewable water supplies to offset pumping by water utilities or subdivisions that are enrolled in the district) and the actual groundwater pumping that leads to the replenishment obligation. The point I wanted to make is that, in the way the CAGRD was created it was not really meant to replace pumped water in an aquifer with recharged, renewable water. As with much of the Arizona Groundwater Management Act (GMA), it was a water accounting system designed to ensure that accounts remain in balance within each Active Management Area (AMA). Without going into whether this was a good or bad thing, it is what our legislators decided to do to accommodate population growth and further development within AMAs. The problem we have encountered with it is not that the pumping is occurring far away from the recharge, but that the program has been much more popular than many originally envisioned, so the quantities of water being pumped have become pretty large, resulting in considerable water level drawdown in some locations. Here's what I said in my comments to the committee:
Due to constraints on land availability, complexity of hydrogeology, and cost considerations in implementing recharge that directly mitigates effects of pumping it will prove to be very difficult in practice.
... seeking to routinely and effectively mitigate pumping effects by suitable location of recharge will result in many situations where it would simply make more sense to utilize the renewable supplies for the new development, rather than enroll in the CAGRD, because the renewable supply will be brought close enough to make its use economical vs. the cost of recharge. If such policies were strongly pursued the need for the CAGRD would be virtually eliminated, but at considerable cost.
While doing more to use recharge for mitigation of pumping effects is a good idea in theory, I think it's pretty difficult to implement in practice.
As for the "interim water service policy" my opinions on this have been explored in the blog in the past (see this post). I really have a problem with this being referred to as a policy:
I believe it is overly optimistic to refer to this as a “policy” when in reality it is more of an acknowledgment that no policy has ever existed. The former city manager acknowledged as much in an interview published in the Daily Star last October. Until there is an actual policy to evaluate requests for extending water service to new development the City is entirely at the whim of outside forces that will determine how water is supplied to new developments outside of the obligated service area.
I also reiterated my earlier statement that one of the criteria for agreeing to serve a new development should be a requirement that the effluent from that development be available to the city to augment our reclaimed water supplies.
The future linkage between water supplies and growth is a critically important issue for the future of Tucson and other cities like it that have seen their available water supplies stretched almost to the physical limits by rapid growth in the recent past. There should be more exciting discussion on this issue when the committee tries to reach agreement on this portion of the Phase II report.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)