John Fleck is winging his way to Lake Mead to observe an historic event expected to occur later today (10/17). As I'm writing this the water level elevation in the reservoir is at 1083.2 ft. As John points out, the lowest level the reservoir has ever seen (except when it was filling after first being constructed) was back in 1956, when it dropped to 1083.19, during what had been the historic drought of record for the river basin.
This is momentous for water geeks like John and I who love to observe the significance of historical events, but probably not so momentous for the average person. The number that should have great significance, especially for anyone who relies on water from the Central Arizona Project, is 1075. That is the elevation at which Arizona's share of Colorado River water will be reduced under the Shortage Sharing provisions adopted by the basin states a few years ago. Many water managers in the Southwest think it's likely the reservoir will reach that level as early as next year.
When the level of 1075 ft is reached, Arizona (specifically the Central Arizona Project) will have it's water delivery reduced by approximately 300,000 acre-feet. That's enough water to irrigate about 50,000 acres of alfalfa in central Arizona, or enough to provide municipal supplies to a city of almost 1.5 million people for a year. Does this mean any cities in Arizona will have to cut back on their water deliveries. No. This means that the amount of excess water being taken by Arizona mostly to recharge aquifers in the central part of the state will be reduced. Some farms will probably have to go back to pumping groundwater, but no municipal or industrial supplies will be affected until reductions become much larger - an unlikely occurrence in my lifetime.
But I can't help but wonder - what is the average Arizonan, who doesn't track these kinds of issues on a regular basis going to think when they hear Arizona's allocation from the Colorado River is being cut because of shortages on the river? Will they drill deeper and learn that the water they use in their home will be unaffected? Will they panic and start extraordinary conservation measures? Or will they look to move somewhere else?
I don't know how much resource managers in Arizona are thinking about these questions or if they have developed strategies to get the right message out to the public, or even thought about what the right message is. Do you tell people not to worry or do you say this a real threat to the continued viability of some communities in this state? I'd like to know if there are answers to these questions, because I don't have them and I think they are needed.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Water Sustainability Policy in Action - Sort of?
Back when I started this blog my main objective was to report on the progress of an ongoing study by the City of Tucson and Pima County (where I live) that was intended to develop policies for a new water resources paradigm in this one little Sun Belt city, built up over the years on the promise of water - of sufficient quantities and suitable quality - to sustain whatever growth might come our way. After two years, 36 public meetings, 14 technical reports, and one comprehensive summary of water/wastewater resources and infrastructure in the region, an amazing collection of city and county staff (prodded on by a 12 member citizen's oversight committee) produced a Phase II report that outlined a menu of 19 community goals with 56 specific recommendations for reaching those goals. It was enormous effort that produced some impressive reports that could very easily have proceeded to sit on a shelf in someone's office.
But the process was designed from the start to prevent that from happening. To the credit of our public officials and staff who work in the city and county departments involved in the study, they were tasked with developing a plan within 6 months for implementing those 19 goals and 56 recommendations. The results of that effort were recently posted to the study website.
Having been involved in this process from the beginning - initially as an observer and concerned citizen, then as a member of the oversight committee during Phase II - I had very high hopes for this implementation document. I have also been frustrated by the failure of this city and most southwest cities to make the connection between water resources planning and land use planning for so very long - leading to horribly planned and potentially unsustainable conurbations in the midst of deserts, completely reliant on imported water supplies that could become unreliable and extremely costly in a climate-and-cheap-power-constrained future.
Coming from that perspective, on my first read, I was pretty disappointed in what I saw. It was mostly a collection of promises to study this, assess the feasibility of that, and a list of things that we were already doing or intended to do before this process even began. On further reflection, I decided this rather tepid implementation approach was due primarily to current budget problems in local governments limiting available resources. I think that has a lot to do with it. But I think it also reflects what is commonly seen as the play-it-safe approach of public employees. Radical ideas are not often rewarded in that setting.
I'm probably being too impatient with what is at heart a very political process, with the potential for some definite winners and losers. But I believe there is good reason for some impatience. We are currently in the midst of a near-standstill in property development around here due to the economy. It's possible we will never get back to the kind of development pressures we were seeing 5 years ago, but I have no doubt that our local economy will pick back up and this region will see more growth in the future. This makes now the ideal time to implement some of the policies that will help guide that renewed growth. Otherwise we will just go back to playing catch-up all the time. We will be trying to implement new policies while growth is occurring, always having to determine which projects those new policies apply to. And some development will be rushed into the approval process to obtain vested development rights - creating the potential for too rapid development with impacts that are very difficult to mitigate.
I don’t have the answer for how the city and county can find the resources for a more complete implementation of the Phase II policies, but I know that waiting until the economy is growing enough to provide them with the fiscal stability to obtain those resources could add greatly to the cost of implementation. We can still get there; it’s just a matter of how hard do we want to work to get there. And what might be lost in the meantime?
But the process was designed from the start to prevent that from happening. To the credit of our public officials and staff who work in the city and county departments involved in the study, they were tasked with developing a plan within 6 months for implementing those 19 goals and 56 recommendations. The results of that effort were recently posted to the study website.
Having been involved in this process from the beginning - initially as an observer and concerned citizen, then as a member of the oversight committee during Phase II - I had very high hopes for this implementation document. I have also been frustrated by the failure of this city and most southwest cities to make the connection between water resources planning and land use planning for so very long - leading to horribly planned and potentially unsustainable conurbations in the midst of deserts, completely reliant on imported water supplies that could become unreliable and extremely costly in a climate-and-cheap-power-constrained future.
Coming from that perspective, on my first read, I was pretty disappointed in what I saw. It was mostly a collection of promises to study this, assess the feasibility of that, and a list of things that we were already doing or intended to do before this process even began. On further reflection, I decided this rather tepid implementation approach was due primarily to current budget problems in local governments limiting available resources. I think that has a lot to do with it. But I think it also reflects what is commonly seen as the play-it-safe approach of public employees. Radical ideas are not often rewarded in that setting.
I'm probably being too impatient with what is at heart a very political process, with the potential for some definite winners and losers. But I believe there is good reason for some impatience. We are currently in the midst of a near-standstill in property development around here due to the economy. It's possible we will never get back to the kind of development pressures we were seeing 5 years ago, but I have no doubt that our local economy will pick back up and this region will see more growth in the future. This makes now the ideal time to implement some of the policies that will help guide that renewed growth. Otherwise we will just go back to playing catch-up all the time. We will be trying to implement new policies while growth is occurring, always having to determine which projects those new policies apply to. And some development will be rushed into the approval process to obtain vested development rights - creating the potential for too rapid development with impacts that are very difficult to mitigate.
I don’t have the answer for how the city and county can find the resources for a more complete implementation of the Phase II policies, but I know that waiting until the economy is growing enough to provide them with the fiscal stability to obtain those resources could add greatly to the cost of implementation. We can still get there; it’s just a matter of how hard do we want to work to get there. And what might be lost in the meantime?
Saturday, October 2, 2010
What is Safe Yield and Does it Actually Matter?
Arizona's Groundwater Management Act (GMA), the landmark legislation passed in 1980 intended to finally get groundwater pumping under control in the state, has a mandate that by 2025 groundwater mining (pumping out more that is replaced) should cease in the most populous parts of the state. The law also defined safe yield as the condition where water pumped out of the aquifer is in balance with water entering the aquifer, whether naturally or artificially. The law mentions artificial recharge specifically, reflecting an understanding that natural recharge to many aquifers in the state is very limited and must be augmented by adding water through specially constructed recharge facilities.
Does this mean that water tables in the state would stabilize when safe yield is reached? Not necessarily, because the safe yield concept applies over large areas, only requiring that there be a balance over those large areas – called Active Management Areas (AMA) – which, in reality, could mean that water levels could be continuing to drop precipitously in one part of an AMA but if that pumpage is offset by recharge in another area it's still kosher under the law. That is the precise situation that is currently occurring in the Tucson AMA (TAMA) and is one of the issues to be addressed by a recently created working group, called the Safe Yield Task Force. These specific problems are known as sub-area management issues.
This problem has been significantly exacerbated by the creation of the Central Arizona Groundwater Replenishment District (CAGRD). Many in the water field know of the CAGRD as the legislative acquiescence to the needs of the property development industry in Arizona – the one sector of state commerce not at the table when the GMA was being crafted. The less cynical view is that the CAGRD became necessary for the state to implement the Assured Water Supply rules that were necessary as part of the GMA – rules that required future development to rely on renewable water supplies (essentially Colorado River water via the Central Arizona Project (CAP)).
The CAGRD is an entity that acquires and recharges (replenishes) renewable water to offset the groundwater pumping of cities, towns, and subdivisions that enroll as members in the district. And because the GMA only requires that water use be in balance on an AMA-wide basis, there is no requirement that this pumpage be offset in a way that mitigates water level drawdown caused by that pumpage – i.e. the replenishment can, and often does, occur many miles away and down-gradient from where the groundwater was pumped.
While I would like to think that this Safe Yield Task Force will be able to tackle these sub-area management issues it's an issue that reaches too far into our local economies and involves several key entities who are probably less than enthusiastic about solving these issues (in the most rational and cost-efficient manner). In a nutshell, resolution involves a combination of infrastructure investment (extending renewable water to up-gradient areas for recharge or direct use) and regulatory restrictions on pumping in the most-affected areas (setting pumping limits and restricting new wells in areas where water declines are greatest and the cost of extending renewable water supplies is prohibitive). Property owners in the sub-areas with water supply problems don't want to be excessively restricted in their use of groundwater – they want taxpayers to subsidize the installation of infrastructure to offset their excessive pumping. Taxpayers don't want to subsidize expensive infrastructure to save the bacon of property developers who continue to insist on building in areas with limited water supplies, so they are ok with imposing restrictions on pumping.
As I'm an ongoing participant in the Task Force I will try to post updates on what is occurring there periodically.
Another issue that deserves a post in the next few days is the Draft Phase II Action Plan recently developed by the city and county staff charged with implementing the recommendations of the Phase II City/County Water Study report. There is currently an open comment period on the Action Plan until 10/7. I haven't decided yet if I will submit comments, but will be going over the Action Plan with the Phase II report this weekend to assess whether I should.
Friday, September 10, 2010
Fun article recently in Inside Tucson Business
I recently ran across this article that happily combined two of my favorite topics – water and downtown redevelopment. Oh what fun. The general premise is that the only thing lacking from our recent downtown redevelopment efforts (which if you're from Tucson, you know have been mostly laughable) is water. Of course – splash it and they will come, right? So what sort of brilliant ideas have these folks come up with to add water to our moribund downtown, thereby creating green shoots of life?
The first guy wants to build a canal running from just south of downtown to a spot about 4 miles north of downtown. It would run east of the freeway that generally follows the path of our currently dry Santa Cruz riverbed – except the riverbed is west of the freeway. According to Mr. Rose, who came up with this idea, it doesn't make sense to just use the existing riverbed to create this man-made river for, among other reasons the fact that it's west of the freeway. I guess the whole idea is that this is meant for downtown, which is east of the freeway. But downtown is only about ½ mile of the route of this canal and he envisions a canal that would run for about 6 miles – some of it through, frankly, some currently butt-ugly parts of town. He's right, though, that putting the water in the river is a bad idea because the channel capacity is needed to convey our infrequent flash floods.
But building a 6 mile canal, 8 feet deep and 25 feet wide just doesn't sound like the right way to go about adding a water attraction to downtown. Let's start by looking at the water involved: the capacity of a canal like he envisions is just over 6.3 million cubic feet – in water terms that requires about 145 acre feet to fill up. But this will be a recirculating system, so in addition to the water in the canal you will have water being pumped from the northern terminus of the ditch back to the south, where it will go into a holding pond before travelling back north. Let's just say conservatively that the whole system will have about 300 acre feet of water in it. Mr. Rose further states that because it's essentially a closed loop system there will be minimal water lost to evaporation – huh? Is this canal going to be covered by some sort of enclosure to maintain a sealed environment? Cause that will bump the cost up considerably right there. No it will be an open canal, as will the holding pond. And because this is southern Arizona it will lose several feet of water to evaporation each year. He's talking about a lot of water for this ditch. And the only way you going to do that is by using reclaimed water – which precludes most human recreation in that water – something I think would be necessary for this to work. You need people fishing, kayaking, swimming – not just walking or riding a bike along the canal, looking at the nice water. Something similar to this (but on a much smaller scale) was proposed and partially built along the west side of the Santa Cruz river back in the late 90s and it was conceived (I believe) to be a part of the redevelopment of the area west of downtown, which is still ongoing. Mr. Rose wants to do something like Riverwalk in downtown San Antonio, but the fact is, this is Tucson, not San Antonio. And what makes the Riverwalk work is not so much the river, but everything along the river. You don't just re-create downtown San Antonio in downtown Tucson – you need to re-create downtown Tucson first.
The second idea I actually kind of like – it's bold, although like the first, not real original. But I like the idea of tearing down and replacing our current convention center, which looks pretty dumpy these days even with the recent upgrades. A large, impressive fountain would be a nice addition to downtown – not something overly garish like the one in Fountain Hills, outside of Phoenix – but something with enough heft to make people say wow when they turn the corner and see it for the first time. It also proposes bringing some much needed development to downtown. The problem is finding investors to actually build something that impressive downtown. Maybe in another 10 to 20 years when some of the smaller development project in downtown have proven its viability, but the only way something like that gets built any sooner is with public money and that's the huge problem we are trying to deal with right now. But this guy has at least put a little more thought into his project than the first guy – even putting together a website.
The last idea really doesn't even belong here. It's not an idea that specifically includes a water element to make it successful. It has a grass element that heavily depends on water to remain attractive. The guy pitching this idea claims it has a dual purpose – recreation fields that would bring people downtown and groundwater recharge. OK, sure having soccer tournaments downtown would bring people down there but what would they bring to downtown? Parents with their kids don't spend a lot of time in clubs or fancy restaurants – they go to IHOP and Applebee's – is that what we want downtown. He says downtown is the best location because of access, I say availability of land is important too, when you're talking about large open fields for sports. Plus when our new convention center, hotel, and multi-use development goes in downtown that land will be much too valuable for soccer fields. But let's talk about his idea that the fields can also serve to recharge the aquifer. The article says this would occur by irrigation water draining off the fields into the river. Why would you want to irrigate the fields so that excess water drains away and enters our rivers? Are you going to be applying fertilizer or pesticide to these fields at any point? Why not just build the fields so that excess water percolates through the soil beneath the fields and recharges the aquifer? Having it drain into the river just provides further opportunity for the water to evaporate or be transpired. Finally, the only reason you would pursue recharge as part of this project would be to earn groundwater storage credits. But at present the statutes governing recharge facilities do not have provisions for recharge from overwatering of soccer fields. At best this would be a managed recharge facility that earns credits for 50% of the water that can be shown to be entering the ground. But I guess you need to provide more than just grass if you want to stick your straw in our limited water supplies for a new project.
In general, a pretty silly article. But I guess when the economy is in the toilet and everyone is out of town for summer vacation, this is what passes for news in a publication like Inside Tucson Business. I think I might propose an idea to install a massive misting system downtown that would cool the entire area by 10 degrees in the summer, making it much more attractive for new development. That might get my name in the papers. And I swear it won't use that much water.
Monday, August 23, 2010
A Short Commercial Break
OK, I never envisioned using this blog as a platform to seek financial support for anyone. But there is a truly wonderful non-profit located here in Tucson, AZ (for which I am a board member) that is in the midst of their summer fund-raising drive and was recently informed by one of their supporters that they would match all donations during the month of August. This non-profit for which I schlep is called Watershed Management Group and I believe strongly in their mission.
But aren't they just involved in work in Tucson - which is not where I live? - you might be asking yourself. And the answer is - no, they do not only work in Tucson or in southern Arizona for that matter. Since the creation of the organization a few years ago they have engaged in work in India and West Africa, as well as training certified water harvesting technicians from throughout the United States and Mexico. They are creating community-based, grassroots momentum to encourage more sustainable use of water in neighborhoods throughout Tucson, Phoenix, and wherever the graduates of their certification program land and begin to teach.
I decided to use my blog on this one occasion to promote their organization because I believe that my readers (however few you may be) are the type of people who would like to support the efforts of a group of dedicated young professionals trying to make a difference in local communities.
If this sounds interesting to you, please take a moment to visit the website and consider making a donation to support them.
But aren't they just involved in work in Tucson - which is not where I live? - you might be asking yourself. And the answer is - no, they do not only work in Tucson or in southern Arizona for that matter. Since the creation of the organization a few years ago they have engaged in work in India and West Africa, as well as training certified water harvesting technicians from throughout the United States and Mexico. They are creating community-based, grassroots momentum to encourage more sustainable use of water in neighborhoods throughout Tucson, Phoenix, and wherever the graduates of their certification program land and begin to teach.
I decided to use my blog on this one occasion to promote their organization because I believe that my readers (however few you may be) are the type of people who would like to support the efforts of a group of dedicated young professionals trying to make a difference in local communities.
If this sounds interesting to you, please take a moment to visit the website and consider making a donation to support them.
Friday, July 30, 2010
some sad news to report
I heard this afternoon that Gregg Houtz, deputy counsel with the Arizona Department of Water Resources, passed away this morning. I only met Gregg on a couple of occasions and saw him speak on a few others. But in those brief encounters I could tell that he was one of the most knowledgeable people around on Arizona water law in general and the rather arcane world of Native American water rights settlements, in particular. He was also passionate about his work, down to earth, and a pleasant guy to be around.
Gregg had been with ADWR for several years and prior to that had worked as a legislative attorney on Capitol Hill. If I come across a complete bio on him from somewhere I'll post it.
The recent difficulties at ADWR with budget problems and staff reductions probably created a lot of stress for people like Gregg. I just hope that wasn't a major contributor to his death. What I do know is that he will really be missed in some circles around this state. My sincere condolences go out to his family.
Gregg had been with ADWR for several years and prior to that had worked as a legislative attorney on Capitol Hill. If I come across a complete bio on him from somewhere I'll post it.
The recent difficulties at ADWR with budget problems and staff reductions probably created a lot of stress for people like Gregg. I just hope that wasn't a major contributor to his death. What I do know is that he will really be missed in some circles around this state. My sincere condolences go out to his family.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
City council decides not to decide
This is a follow-up to my previous post.
The city council first voted unanimously to reconsider their previous vote in favor of annexation (as was expected). Then they heard from a few people in the audience and voted to go into executive session so they could discuss the options with the city attorney. When they came out, they simply voted to give the city attorney 30 days to find an alternative solution to resolving the lawsuit - i.e. find some other land for the pension fund to develop, or more specifically, ask the county to find some other land they could trade with the developer or just buy this parcel outright. OK.
Seems to me that if that option was on the table in the first place the county wouldn't be asking the city to refuse annexation and water service to the developer. And that's pretty much what the county administrator says in the article. So 30 days from now we'll have another round of political theater, except this time the final act will be the council seeking forgiveness because their backs were really against the wall on this one and the only thing they could do was to cut a deal with the developer. But hey - they tried right?
The city council first voted unanimously to reconsider their previous vote in favor of annexation (as was expected). Then they heard from a few people in the audience and voted to go into executive session so they could discuss the options with the city attorney. When they came out, they simply voted to give the city attorney 30 days to find an alternative solution to resolving the lawsuit - i.e. find some other land for the pension fund to develop, or more specifically, ask the county to find some other land they could trade with the developer or just buy this parcel outright. OK.
Seems to me that if that option was on the table in the first place the county wouldn't be asking the city to refuse annexation and water service to the developer. And that's pretty much what the county administrator says in the article. So 30 days from now we'll have another round of political theater, except this time the final act will be the council seeking forgiveness because their backs were really against the wall on this one and the only thing they could do was to cut a deal with the developer. But hey - they tried right?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)