Way back in 2010 the Arizona state legislature, responding to widespread concerns that the state would run out of water in the future, created a study commission called the Water Resources Development Commission (WRDC). They set to work studying current and projected water demands, available water supplies, and the institutions in place that try to match up the two sides of the equation.
Showing posts with label state government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label state government. Show all posts
Saturday, April 13, 2013
Friday, March 8, 2013
Some overdue follow-up
I've neglected to follow through on my promise to provide an update to the Arizona Dept. of Water Resources (ADWR) Non-Indian Agricultural (NIA) water re-allocation process, that I have previously discussed here and here. Sure I waited until almost the last minute but I am keeping my promise. ADWR did release their final process (pdf) for carrying out the water allocation last month, as they promised and they are having a meeting next week (3/12) to go over the rules with potential applicants. I won't be at the meeting because I don't represent any potential applicants - Indian tribes are specifically excluded from receiving an allocation of this water - but I hope to keep track of how this program progresses. The final process is not dramatically different from what they originally proposed. Without having parsed the final document closely the only real difference I can come up with is that they shifted some of the water to the second phase of allocation. Apparently there was some concern that the full amount they proposed to give away next year might not actually be contracted for under the set of qualifications they proposed. Maybe there will be some movement toward market allocation of water by the time the second phase starts up in 2021. Maybe.
The other item at ADWR I have been following is their proposal to modify certain aspects of the recharge program, which I previously discussed here. This proposal was floated by the department as a possible idea to include in the upcoming 4th Management Plans (4MP) for the Active Management Areas (AMAs). There has been pretty widespread acknowledgment for more than a decade that certain aspects of the regulatory regime that governs use of groundwater in the AMAs probably still permits too much groundwater pumping in certain areas to protect the overall health of the state's aquifers. ADWR thought they might try to address this by making some changes to the recharge program that would encourage water users to do their recharging and recovery of that recharged water in closer proximity. My point has been that the problem is not the proximity (or lack thereof) of recharging and recovery activities. The problem is that the rules simply allow too much pumping, sometimes in places where we might like to see a lot less pumping. I think something along these lines will show up in the 4MP, but it will just be a recommendation to study the issue further. This will result in a stakeholder process to look at possible solutions. I actually thought the current Safe Yield Task Force was supposed to be looking at this issue but maybe too many people involved are aware that the real solution is not a path they want to go down. We'll see.
The other item at ADWR I have been following is their proposal to modify certain aspects of the recharge program, which I previously discussed here. This proposal was floated by the department as a possible idea to include in the upcoming 4th Management Plans (4MP) for the Active Management Areas (AMAs). There has been pretty widespread acknowledgment for more than a decade that certain aspects of the regulatory regime that governs use of groundwater in the AMAs probably still permits too much groundwater pumping in certain areas to protect the overall health of the state's aquifers. ADWR thought they might try to address this by making some changes to the recharge program that would encourage water users to do their recharging and recovery of that recharged water in closer proximity. My point has been that the problem is not the proximity (or lack thereof) of recharging and recovery activities. The problem is that the rules simply allow too much pumping, sometimes in places where we might like to see a lot less pumping. I think something along these lines will show up in the 4MP, but it will just be a recommendation to study the issue further. This will result in a stakeholder process to look at possible solutions. I actually thought the current Safe Yield Task Force was supposed to be looking at this issue but maybe too many people involved are aware that the real solution is not a path they want to go down. We'll see.
Wednesday, January 2, 2013
Enhancing the Management of Arizona's Aquifers - an Alternate Proposal to ADWR
Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) recently floated a proposal to change the formula is uses to grant groundwater credits to entities that artificially recharge renewable water into aquifers as a way to permit additional groundwater pumping. The state recharge program is a somewhat complicated scheme that I can't explain in detail right here, but you can get lots of other information at ADWR's website here. This proposal is being made as part of the 4th Management Plan process - a once-a-decade planning exercise that is intended to get Arizona's Active Management Areas to Safe Yield by 2025.
The gist of the proposal is that it would reward entities that locate their recharging activities closer to where they are actually pumping out groundwater. A worthwhile endeavor to be sure.
The gist of the proposal is that it would reward entities that locate their recharging activities closer to where they are actually pumping out groundwater. A worthwhile endeavor to be sure.
Saturday, December 15, 2012
Update on ADWR NIA Reallocation Process
Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) has posted the comments received on their proposed process for reallocation of the 96,000 acre-feet of Non-Indian Ag (NIA) water in the CAP system. Several of the comments echo my points (with additional elaboration) on some of the failings of the proposed process. Unfortunately, no one else suggested that a market mechanism for allocation would be appropriate. Of course all the other comments were from actual stakeholders who might want to be granted rights to some of this water. I acknowledge that a market is probably not in their self-interest. I think it's not inconceivable, though, that some of the industrial users (mining companies) might be willing to get behind the idea, as they would be likely to come out ahead of many of the municipal users - at least in the short-term. But in strict dollar terms they are probably better off with an administrative allocation process.
The one idea that no one seemed to get behind was the proposal by CAP to impose a reliability charge with this water to establish a fund that would attempt to firm up this somewhat unreliable supply. That was certain to be a tough sell. Seems like most users would rather deal with supply reliability issues on their own. I'll try to update again when ADWR posts the responses to the comments received, but it will likely take a while.
The one idea that no one seemed to get behind was the proposal by CAP to impose a reliability charge with this water to establish a fund that would attempt to firm up this somewhat unreliable supply. That was certain to be a tough sell. Seems like most users would rather deal with supply reliability issues on their own. I'll try to update again when ADWR posts the responses to the comments received, but it will likely take a while.
Saturday, August 11, 2012
Here It Is!
If you remember waaaay back in April, I posted about a new law that had just been passed by the Arizona legislature that would make it very difficult to establish in-stream flow rights in Arizona. At that point the bill was on its way to the governor's desk, where it would shortly be signed into law.
Well on Aug. 3 that new law went into effect and pretty soon Arizona Dept. of Water Resources had posted their guidance on implementing the law and a link to download the new in-stream flow application form. They can be found here.
Now you might think this would be pretty much a tempest in a teapot, after all the opportunities to appropriate surface water in Arizona are effectively pretty limited at present. And experience has shown that the most effective means of protecting in-stream flows around here are by having the most senior rights on the downstream end of the river system (see SRP).
But what this means is that our state government does not believe in the value of maintaining environmental flows in rivers (case in point) and wishes to protect existing "uses" of water from the threat of "non-users" or should I say "non-economic-benefit-providing users". And by economic benefit I of course mean the kind of economic benefits that flow to highly favored entities among our state legislature.
Well on Aug. 3 that new law went into effect and pretty soon Arizona Dept. of Water Resources had posted their guidance on implementing the law and a link to download the new in-stream flow application form. They can be found here.
Now you might think this would be pretty much a tempest in a teapot, after all the opportunities to appropriate surface water in Arizona are effectively pretty limited at present. And experience has shown that the most effective means of protecting in-stream flows around here are by having the most senior rights on the downstream end of the river system (see SRP).
But what this means is that our state government does not believe in the value of maintaining environmental flows in rivers (case in point) and wishes to protect existing "uses" of water from the threat of "non-users" or should I say "non-economic-benefit-providing users". And by economic benefit I of course mean the kind of economic benefits that flow to highly favored entities among our state legislature.
Friday, December 2, 2011
C'mon, the Arizona legislature never acts without thinking things through first
A quick follow-up on my earlier post about funding the Arizona Dept. of Water Resources (ADWR). Seems some people in our fine legislature here in Arizona came to the realization that a tax imposed to cover general services of a state agency is probably not accurately described as a user fee. The Phoenix paper reports that they might reconsider the bill passed last year that allows ADWR to make up the money they used to receive as a general fund appropriation by taxing municipalities in the state on a per capita basis. It's not an idea entirely without merit, but the way it was implemented just reeked of a hastily devised plan to patch a hole in the state budget. What I find really amusing is that the political mind finds it preferable to admit that they didn't really know what a bill they voted for meant than to admit that they previously supported a complete piece of garbage.
Saturday, September 10, 2011
New Funding Source for the Arizona Department of Water Resources
Back in April I posted about a piece of legislation passed up in Phoenix that would allow the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) to replace the funding they used to get as a general fund appropriation by taxing all Arizona cities, based on their population. ADWR finalized the rulemaking (specially exempted from the governor's moratorium on new regulations, that seems to be a moratorium in name only) last month and set the fees for each of the cities in the state. The authorizing legislation allows ADWR to use the fee to collect up to $7 million each year, but they gave the cities a break by only going for just over $6.25 million this year. Obviously Tucson and Phoenix, as the two biggest cities, will be covering a big chunk of the fees - $650k and $1.8 million, respectively. This municipality fee is meant to cover roughly half of ADWR's budget - the rest coming from fees on permits, permit reviews, and other services the agency provides. But in the current economic climate I suspect that is probably most of what the agency will be operating on for the coming year.
The big question that has been bugging me is - how are most cities planning to pay for this new fee? There are many cities that have public water utilities that will permit them to pass the fee along in their water rates. Tucson has a utility, but about 30% of that utility's customers live outside the city limits, so it doesn't seem fair to do that here. There are also many cities that don't have their own water utilities - usually they have private water utilities. That requires some cities to just cover this fee out of their general fund. But budgets are pretty squeezed for everyone these days. Then there are all the people who live in unincorporated areas. They will pay nothing, presumably, but still derive some value from the services that ADWR provides.
Bisbee, a city of 5,500 people in far southeast Arizona has a private water utility and their city manager sounds none too happy about having to pay an additional 7 grand to the state to keep the doors open at ADWR. I wonder how much value Bisbee receives from the work that ADWR does? Or how much value the city of Tucson receives for their share of the money. Admittedly, you might say that funding the agency the old way probably resulted in many parts of the state receiving more from ADWR than they were paying for, so maybe this method makes more sense. But I have a feeling the only place that will be getting what they pay for under this system is gonna be the Phoenix metro area. Although, that has arguably been the case since ADWR closed down all their offices outside of Phoenix last year.
It's just that the services different parts of the state require from a state water management agency vary based on the hydrologic issues that area is dealing with and those services are usually not directly related to population, although population is a factor - but in my opinion it's more about population growth than absolute population. Maybe that gets covered by the fees for services part of ADWRs budget, hard to say. But I remain astonished that things looked so grim for ADWR that the cities agreed to fund their activities in this way.
Oh and one other thing. If you look at the bottom of page 2 of the notice of proposed rulemaking there is a sentence that says: "Monies in the fund are subject to legislative appropriation". That means the legislature can sweep the fund in future years if they need to top off their budgets, just like they have been doing for the last 3 years. They have had their wrists slapped by courts on a couple of occasions recently - including their sweep of money from Las Vegas that was intended to buy excess Colorado River water for banking in Arizona. In that case the court said the fund sweep was unconstitutional, but they refused to order the legislature to give the money back. Real nice.
The big question that has been bugging me is - how are most cities planning to pay for this new fee? There are many cities that have public water utilities that will permit them to pass the fee along in their water rates. Tucson has a utility, but about 30% of that utility's customers live outside the city limits, so it doesn't seem fair to do that here. There are also many cities that don't have their own water utilities - usually they have private water utilities. That requires some cities to just cover this fee out of their general fund. But budgets are pretty squeezed for everyone these days. Then there are all the people who live in unincorporated areas. They will pay nothing, presumably, but still derive some value from the services that ADWR provides.
Bisbee, a city of 5,500 people in far southeast Arizona has a private water utility and their city manager sounds none too happy about having to pay an additional 7 grand to the state to keep the doors open at ADWR. I wonder how much value Bisbee receives from the work that ADWR does? Or how much value the city of Tucson receives for their share of the money. Admittedly, you might say that funding the agency the old way probably resulted in many parts of the state receiving more from ADWR than they were paying for, so maybe this method makes more sense. But I have a feeling the only place that will be getting what they pay for under this system is gonna be the Phoenix metro area. Although, that has arguably been the case since ADWR closed down all their offices outside of Phoenix last year.
It's just that the services different parts of the state require from a state water management agency vary based on the hydrologic issues that area is dealing with and those services are usually not directly related to population, although population is a factor - but in my opinion it's more about population growth than absolute population. Maybe that gets covered by the fees for services part of ADWRs budget, hard to say. But I remain astonished that things looked so grim for ADWR that the cities agreed to fund their activities in this way.
Oh and one other thing. If you look at the bottom of page 2 of the notice of proposed rulemaking there is a sentence that says: "Monies in the fund are subject to legislative appropriation". That means the legislature can sweep the fund in future years if they need to top off their budgets, just like they have been doing for the last 3 years. They have had their wrists slapped by courts on a couple of occasions recently - including their sweep of money from Las Vegas that was intended to buy excess Colorado River water for banking in Arizona. In that case the court said the fund sweep was unconstitutional, but they refused to order the legislature to give the money back. Real nice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)