Posted by admin on May 3, 2012 under AZWPU Editorials |
How much difference does one very wet or dry year make? In terms of planning for future shortages, not much.
We know that variability is a constant in the West’s hydrologic cycle; the high highs and low lows we experience relegate runoff averages to mere statistical abstractions. The last 2 years, for example, have been a roller coaster in the Colorado River Basin: following last year’s near-record-high flows, the winter of 2011–2012 has been one of the driest on record.
Compare Reclamation’s April 1 runoff forecasts for 2011 and 2012. In early 2011, snowpack was approaching 300 percent in some parts of the Upper Basin and runoff predictions were 120 percent of normal. By the end of summer, actual runoff was close to 140 percent of average, surpassing these predictions. By the end of 2011, water levels in Lakes Mead and Powell had both risen about 50 feet from the lowest points in the previous year.
Just a year later, the situation is very different. Snow water content is now about 40 percent of average in the Upper Basin. Reclamation is predicting that April–July runoff will be less than 50 percent of average and that much of last year’s gains in Lake Powell will be gone by December. After this year’s runoff trickles in, the levels in both Lakes Mead and Powell in April 2013 are projected to be only about 15 feet higher than the lowest elevations of 2011.
So how do these extremes affect shortage planning? Apparently, not much. After the prolonged drought of 2000–2010, one extremely wet year only pushed shortage predictions back by a few years. In 2011, CAP was preparing for shortages as early as 2013; in a recent interview with the Arizona Daily Star, Tom McCann, CAP’s Assistant General Manager of Operations, Planning, and Engineering, predicted 2017 or 2018 as the earliest chance for shortage.
Given Reclamation’s latest projections, one very wet or very dry year has limited impact on reservoir levels in a system as large as the Colorado. It takes a long time to deplete and refill these reservoirs. Although the high runoff of 2010–2011 gave us a few extra years, Arizona will still need to continue planning efforts for recovery and other shortage-related projects.
Juliet M. McKenna, MS, PG | Taylor D. Shipman, MS | Michele Robertson, PG
Posted by admin on April 2, 2012 under AZWPU Editorials |
Why would anyone want to inhibit the development of instream flow rights in Arizona? The answer is more complex than it may seem.
Instream flow rights serve as the mechanism by which an entity can help preserve water flowing in streams for the “beneficial use” of fish and other wildlife. Arizona has seen a significant uptick in instream flow right applications in recent years, both from government agencies and from environmental groups seeking to reserve as much surface water for species and habitat as possible. Most Arizonans probably recognize the value in protecting our relatively fragile desert ecosystems. Furthermore, newly established instream flow rights automatically become the most junior rights under the prior appropriation system — so, in theory, they should not affect senior right holders.
These benefits notwithstanding, a bill currently moving through the Arizona legislature (SB 1236) seems to take aim at instream flow rights. The bill would require applicants to not only submit 5 years of continuous stream flow data for the reach in question but also to more thoroughly characterize the beneficial use associated with leaving the water in the stream. The cost and technical difficulties of collecting continuous data for 5 years and documenting ecosystem benefits pose a significant hurdle to anyone looking to establish an instream flow right. In fact, this requirement could effectively kill future instream flow right applications, and it would explicitly reject pending applications that don’t meet the new criteria.
The motivation for preventing the growth of instream flow rights appears to stem from the fact that they have become, in practice, more powerful than they appear on paper. Contrary to the deference that these junior rights must theoretically pay to senior rights is the “no-harm” rule for transferring surface water rights. This rule requires the applicant to consider the potential impacts of a proposed transfer on both junior and senior rights alike. Therefore, new instream flow rights establish a standing in the watershed that can be used to oppose the severance and transfer of existing surface water rights — even if those rights are the most senior in the system. In other words, the proliferation of instream flow rights threatens the ability of existing surface water right holders to manage their rights and could potentially effectively “lock” existing rights to their current place and purpose of use indefinitely.
The desire to avoid this threat is understandable; one of the most basic principles in Western water is that senior rights should not have to defer to junior rights. Nonetheless, targeting instream flow applications to protect this doctrine addresses only one symptom of a deeper issue. The real problem is not instream flow rights themselves, but their misuse to effectively freeze all senior rights. Preserving desert ecosystems is important; however, the potential for relative newcomers to effectively reduce the value of more senior water rights is a complex legal problem with far-reaching implications. As such, legislation dealing directly with this root issue should not be expected anytime soon.
Juliet M. McKenna, MS, PG | Taylor D. Shipman, MS | Michele Robertson, PG
Posted by admin on March 8, 2012 under AZWPU Editorials |
What is water worth? To answer this question, we need to consider how water use impacts economic returns.
Water supports many economic activities in Arizona: growing food, processing ore, maintaining fairways, manufacturing microchips, and cooling power plants, to name a few. Each of these applications requires a different amount of water to produce $1 of revenue. Moreover, each has a unique input-output function that describes how changes in water supply—from a trickle to a deluge—affect productivity. Without an intimate understanding of how water is used for a given process, it can be very difficult to evaluate its impact on economic output.
One simple way to compare the value of water across multiple sectors would is to divide the total economic output, or gross product, by the total water use for each sector. The chart below shows this for a few key sectors of the Arizona economy, based on data from ADWR and the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.
Average Gross Revenues per Acre-Foot of Water Used
Keep in mind that the values shown on this chart do not consider the significance of water to a given sector or production process. For example, a farm and a law firm may have similar revenues (same numerator). However, the farm not only uses more water than the law firm (different denominator), but water is proportionally a much more significant input to the farm’s production. Consequently, water accounts for a greater proportion of the farm’s revenues than it does for the law firm’s revenues.
Caveats notwithstanding, this simple metric still provides some interesting food for thought. The main conclusion here is that broad conversations about Arizona’s future water supplies should consider the tremendous heterogeneity in economic returns for different water uses. These economic realities will almost certainly shape how water resources are developed and used in the future.
Juliet M. McKenna, MS, PG | Taylor D. Shipman, MS | Michele Robertson, PG
Posted by admin on February 8, 2012 under AZWPU Editorials |
We continue our analysis of the Water Resources Development Commission (WRDC) reports and take a closer look at the Little Colorado River Plateau (LCRP) in northern Arizona.
The WRDC certainly should be commended for attempting the monumental task of quantifying how much water Arizona has currently and how much it will need in the future. However, its estimates for the LCRP planning area fail to consider some key hydrogeologic and jurisdictional limitations.
The LCRP covers one-fourth of Arizona and, according to the WRDC statistics, it contains two-thirds of the groundwater stored in the state’s aquifers. In fact, the WRDC numbers indicate that about one-half of Arizona’s groundwater resides in aquifers that underlie the Navajo and Hopi Reservations. Given these numbers, it sounds like the LCRP has the potential to be a “water farm” for thirsty Arizona communities. If so, why then is the City of Flagstaff planning to pipe water 40 miles to maintain its supply? And why has the City of St. Johns moved its wellfield 12 miles to obtain decent quality water? Likewise, why is hauling water a way of life for tens of thousands on the Navajo Nation? In other words, why don’t the WRDC numbers match reality in the LCRP?
In a nutshell, it’s because the WRDC developed these estimates based on the same assumptions it used for southern Arizona basins. Unfortunately, political and hydrological conditions in northern Arizona differ radically from the rest of the state.
For one thing, natural groundwater quality is generally good in most of southern Arizona. Not so in the LCRP. Groundwater in the regional Coconino aquifer is brackish or saline in an area that encompasses about 8,000 square miles (about 30 percent of the planning area). In addition, because so few perennial streams still flow in southern Arizona basins, groundwater withdrawals are less likely to be limited by interactions with surface water. In contrast, the LCRP features many streams, and the ability to pump groundwater may be limited by surface water / groundwater connections in certain areas.
Political realities also limit groundwater availability in the LCRP planning area. According to the WRDC numbers, about 80 percent of the groundwater stored in the LCRP underlies the Navajo and Hopi Reservations or associated Trust land. This water is almost certainly unavailable for non-Indian uses. In addition, a substantial amount of LCRP groundwater is stored beneath National Forest land and, as such, remains generally unavailable for other uses.
Ultimately, planners and regulators will need to take water supply estimates one step further and account for these hydrologic and political realities in the LCRP. After all, groundwater is not truly available if its quality is severely impaired or if the right to use it is in question.
This month’s Editors’ Notes were written by M&A hydrologist Ed McGavock, who presented this information at last week’s Winter Watershed Conference in Show Low. The former Assistant District Chief of the USGS’ Water Resources Divisions in Arizona and Washington, Ed has worked on the Colorado Plateau throughout much of his nearly 50-year career.
Juliet M. McKenna, MS, PG | Taylor D. Shipman, MS | Michele Robertson, PG | Mark H. Myers, MBA
Posted by admin on January 6, 2012 under AZWPU Editorials |
This editorial is from the January issue of M&A’s Arizona Water Policy Update.
The future cost of water supplies may encourage Arizona communities to implement aggressive demand-side policies and rates.
In October 2011, the Water Resources Development Commission (WRDC) wrapped up an enormous statewide planning effort that resulted in six reports on water supply planning. The reports are dense with data, assumptions, projections, and conclusions about Arizona’s water future. Although legislative recommendations are still under development, the work thus far provides an interesting glimpse into the water supply challenges that lie ahead for Arizonans.
One of the most significant challenges is the cost of developing new supplies. To frame this challenge, the committee updated the cost estimates for four proposed projects that would provide water to communities outside the CAP service area. These projects are in Coconino County, the Verde River basin, Payson and the Mogollon Rim region, and the Sierra Vista area. The capital and annual O&M cost estimates for each project are shown on the chart below. The finance committee’s report concludes that getting water to these areas will be “extremely expensive.” In fact, the magnitude of these preliminary infrastructure cost estimates is staggering, especially when compared to the cost of building and operating the CAP pipeline and other proposed water supply augmentation projects, including the CAP canal expansion and the Yuma and Carlsbad desalination plants. It is almost certain that water developed for these areas will be much more expensive than what users are currently conditioned to paying for, in terms of both upfront capital and annual O&M costs.
It’s easy to see the negative side of expensive water projects. They compete with other pressing needs for tax dollars, they force difficult lifestyle and business enterprise decisions, and they may compound the impacts of the recession.
But their big price tag may have some demand-side silver linings. For example, they may encourage would-be buyers to build strong conservation incentives into rate structures and push communities to account for all groundwater withdrawals, including those from exempt wells. They may also promote creative alternative solutions to the water-supply-and-demand imbalance that is developing at current prices. Less-populated areas of the state may be motivated to implement demand-side policies that will shape these areas in ways that have been unachievable under previous water laws.
Juliet M. McKenna, MS, PG | Taylor D. Shipman, MS | Mark H. Myers, MBA
Posted by admin on December 6, 2011 under AZWPU Editorials |
This editorial is from the December issue of M&A’s Arizona Water Policy Update.
Last month, we looked to California for an indication of Arizona’s next bucket of water, which may include brackish groundwater supplies that are plentiful but poor in quality. This month, we again turn to California, with a guest editorial by Michele Robertson, M&A’s environmental permitting specialist.
Could California’s aggressive measures to increase the use of reclaimed water influence Arizona’s future policies and regulations?
Some arid states are just beginning to jump on the bandwagon, but Arizona has a long history of using treated wastewater for beneficial purposes. The first documented use of treated wastewater occurred at Grand Canyon Village in 1926. The reuse of treated wastewater—or “reclaimed water”—was unregulated until 1972; these regulations were updated in 1985. The current rules, promulgated in 2001, represent a comprehensive approach to regulating the use of reclaimed water. They address permitting, water quality standards, allowable end uses, and technical standards for conveyance systems. Since 2001, reclaimed water use has grown throughout the state. Even so, the direct reuse of reclaimed water accounts for only a small portion—3 percent—of Arizona’s overall water use.
Two recent reports examined the role of reclaimed water in Arizona. Published by the Governor’s Blue Ribbon Panel on Water Sustainability (November 2010) and the Water Resources Development Commission on (October 2011), these reports recognize that reclaimed water is an underutilized resource. They further conclude that it will play an important, ever-increasing role in Arizona’s future water supplies. The final GBRP report lists 18 recommendations and 63 subrecommendations to improve water management, education, and research capabilities. More than half of these recommendations are intended to remove impediments and thereby increase the use of reclaimed water. Of these recommendations, most focus on expanding or modifying the existing regulations or on researching the fate and human health effects of emerging contaminants that often occur in reclaimed water. ADEQ, ADWR, and the ACC have been tasked with implementing the GRBP recommendations; however, it is likely to take many years before significant results are achieved.
California has long been viewed as a bellwether state regarding the promulgation of environmental regulations so it is interesting to see the state aggressively pursue policies and regulations related to the reuse of reclaimed water. How does California’s approach compare to Arizona’s current programs? Like Arizona, California is focusing on implementing a statewide water-recycling policy that establishes goals for increased reuse.
This year, the California legislature adopted statutes setting two deadlines: a 2013 deadline for regulations that would create uniform criteria for indirect potable reuse for groundwater recharge, and a 2016 deadline for a final report with recommendations on direct potable reuse. Meanwhile, Arizona has not revised its reclaimed water regulations in over 10 years and is unlikely to do so under the continuing moratorium on new rulemaking. Strained budgets have reduced available staff resources, challenging the agencies tasked with implementing the GRBP recommendations to remove impediments to reuse. Time will tell if California’s precedent in setting regulatory deadlines will influence Arizona’s future reclaimed water policies and regulations.
Juliet M. McKenna, MS, PG | Taylor D. Shipman, MS | Mark H. Myers, MBA
Posted by admin on November 2, 2011 under AZWPU Editorials |
This editorial is from the November issue of M&A’s Arizona Water Policy Update.
What is Arizona’s next bucket of water? Southern California may provide some clues.
The major population centers in southern California have scant precipitation and are located adjacent to the Pacific Ocean, within relatively small drainage basins overlying equally small aquifers. Southern California has very limited supplies of fresh groundwater and relies almost entirely on imported water supplies — water that must be conveyed hundreds of miles from the Colorado River and northern California via the State Water Project. Because of concerns about delivery costs and reliability of imported water supplies, the area has traditionally focused on reclaimed water (treated effluent) and desalinated ocean water as the “next buckets” of water. However, problems with public perception, environmental impacts, and escalating costs have led to delays in implementing large desalination and water recycling projects — as illustrated most recently by Carlsbad’s 10-year-and-counting trek through the gauntlet of permits and lawsuits. In response to these challenges, recent efforts in southern California are focusing on local groundwater supplies that were previously overlooked because impaired water quality and other technical challenges made them too expensive to develop. For example, the USGS has spent the last decade working with the City of San Diego to develop a network of monitoring wells to characterize the hydrogeology and water quality of the deep coastal aquifer in the San Diego area. The mostly brackish groundwater in this deep aquifer is being targeted as a potential future supply source. Understanding that treatment costs need to be considered for any new water supply, San Diego is betting that local groundwater pumped from greater depths could be a viable component of its portfolio — one that could be both less expensive and more reliable than imported supplies.
Within Arizona, our extensive brackish groundwater supplies may start to look similarly attractive when water planners start looking at the cost of developing new supplies that require advanced treatment and/or conveyance over long distances. Areas around Yuma, Holbrook, Gila Bend, and Willcox have relatively abundant and largely untapped supplies of brackish groundwater. However, unlike in southern California, these aquifers lie far from Arizona’s major population centers, so there will be costs for delivery as well as for pumping and treatment. Water managers and planners must determine if, and how, they can use these supplies in the areas that are thirsty enough to develop them.
Juliet M. McKenna, MS, PG | Taylor D. Shipman, MS | Mark H. Myers, MBA
Posted by admin on October 5, 2011 under AZWPU Editorials |
This editorial is from the October issue of M&A’s Arizona Water Policy Update.
Our future water availability need not be based on a simple supply-demand projection… if we are willing to make informed policy choices about water demand.
“Texas Does Not and Will Not Have Enough Water for the Future.”
This recent headline reflected the conclusions of the Texas Water Development Board’s 2012 long-range water plan, published during the state’s worst single-year drought on record. The plan concludes, in unvarnished terms, that the Lone Star state has reached its water resource limits and that it will need to implement aggressive water conservation and management strategies to survive future droughts.
You may recall seeing similar headlines last year about Arizona. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) published a study on water sustainability that compared precipitation and water demand in each U.S. county, reasoning that the larger the gap, the more vulnerable the population to drought. Not surprisingly, Tucson and Phoenix ranked near the bottom of the list in relation to a match between precipitation and water use. The study was followed by a report on risky municipal water bonds in these “vulnerable” areas. When Lake Mead reached the historic low mark late last year, the sky really looked like it was about to fall on Arizona. However, the authors failed to consider—among other things—the unique and significant investments in infrastructure that enable us to store (both above and below ground) and move millions of acre-feet of water in Arizona, where and when it is needed.
Partly to address these misleading messages, ASU’s Morrison Institute for Public Policy, under lead author Grady Gammage, Jr., released a new report, Watering the Sun Corridor: Managing Choices in Arizona’s Megapolitan Area. The report provides a systematic and generalized estimate of the state’s current water supply and compares it to demand. However, unlike the NRDC report, it states that the future availability of Arizona’s water depends entirely on how we choose to use it. Far from being powerless, we have enormous flexibility in how we use our water resources. And, although the Morrison Institute report provides no answers, it articulates a series of policy choices that should be made regarding agriculture, economic development, location of growth, landscaping, and the natural environment. It concludes that, given adequate water resources, “the question ultimately becomes how much Sun Corridor residents should adjust their lifestyle and uses of water to accommodate more residents.”
This is a very different question from the one that dominated water management in the West for over a century. The Reclamation Act of 1902 called for teams of engineers to “tame” and develop the water supplies of the West, and Arizona benefitted from the program’s success. But the challenge of this generation is not as much about developing new supplies as it is about addressing the other side of the equation: demand. And the two primary tools for managing demand include water use policies and price structure.
In the end, we may need to reframe the question in terms of our willingness and ability to use these tools. Perhaps rather than asking individuals what lifestyle adjustments they are willing to make, we should ask communities, “What kinds of conservation measures and pricing structures are you willing to adopt to ensure a sustainable future for current and future Arizona residents?”
Juliet M. McKenna, MS, PG | Taylor D. Shipman, MS | Mark H. Myers, MBA
Posted by admin on September 5, 2011 under AZWPU Editorials |
This editorial is from the September issue of M&A’s Arizona Water Policy Update.
New policy developments create ripples; sometimes these ripples are unanticipated, even negative. Predicting consequences of a policy change can be both a fascinating and challenging exercise.
Take the case of Intentionally Created Surplus, for example. ICS was recognized as a major policy development in the Law of the River when it was adopted a few years ago. It was, of course, a critical tool for southern Nevada water resource planning; it was also designed to encourage investments in infrastructure, like the Drop 2 Reservoir and the Yuma Desalting Plant. But in the 4 years since the ICS agreement was signed, we have already seen unanticipated ripples.
One ripple has been Nevada and Arizona’s leveraging of ICS to preserve higher water levels in Lake Mead, where the threat of a shortage declaration had loomed for several years. For Arizona, this strategy has the benefit of delaying shortage reductions; for Nevada, it could be critical for maintaining deliveries until the new intake — which has run into significant construction problems — is completed. However, using ICS in this way is risky because it relies on water in storage that may belong to another user.
Another interesting ripple from the creation of ICS followed the April 2010 Mexicali earthquake, which damaged irrigation delivery systems in Mexico. The disaster got the attention of water policy experts in the U.S. and Mexico and resulted in a new Mexican ICS program. This program is not only valuable to Mexico but it is an important part of binational negotiations for shortage sharing and other Colorado River issues.
We recently became curious about how much ICS has actually accrued in Lake Mead and decided to look for data on storage quantities and rates. What we found surprised us: At the end of 2010, more than 800,000 AF of ICS was stored, about 150,000 AF of which had accrued in 2010. Although Nevada holds the largest total balance (about 450,000 AF), California entities accounted for about 80 percent of the storage accrued in 2010.
In light of these burgeoning ICS credit accounts and a possible surplus condition in Lake Mead for 2012 (see discussion under “Lake Mead,” below), several questions come to mind:
- Given that ICS is “top water” (water that is lost if Lake Mead has to spill), how would ICS holders react to a threatened filling of Lake Mead?
- How would Nevada, with little in-state storage capacity, manage to “rescue” its large proportional ICS balance?
- Given the possibility of free surplus water, would Arizona or California commit any canal and recharge capacity to storing Nevada water, even though they have their own ICS balances to rescue?
- Or, given the possible logistical challenges associated with ICS storage and recovery, would the basin states make yet another policy change to reprioritize all ICS so they could effectively reserve space in Lake Mead?
The situation that could develop is akin to the dog with a tennis ball in its mouth that is frustrated by his inability to catch a second ball. What policy devices will be developed to preserve the “second tennis ball” of ICS (over and above “normal” surplus water) — and what ripples will those policies create in turn?
Juliet M. McKenna, MS, PG | Taylor D. Shipman, MS | Mark H. Myers, MBA
Posted by admin on August 3, 2011 under AZWPU Editorials |
This editorial is from the August issue of M&A’s Arizona Water Policy Update.
What is the right balance between federal and local environmental protections? The Endangered Species Act often pits federal regulations against local interests.
Lately, the Clean Water and Endangered Species Acts have underscored the tension between those who support federal resource management and those who support local management. In recent months, both of these landmark environmental protection laws have been targets of a Congress that is focused on reducing the reach of the federal government. At the same time, advocacy groups have found ways to leverage the judicial system to increase environmental protections under these laws. We covered the CWA last month; this month, we take a look at the ESA.
The ESA mandates the protection of endangered species, essentially above all other land and water use priorities. When a species is listed, local governments, landowners, and other stakeholders are cut out of land and water use decisions. Since the ESA was enacted in 1973 by President Nixon, a few nonprofit organizations have become adept at using this federal authority to block land development around the country, particularly in the western U.S. Just this summer, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service announced an historic agreement with the Center for Biological Diversity to settle many of the petitions and lawsuits that it filed over the past decade. Among these lawsuits is one that the CBD filed against another environmental organization; according to the CBD, it did not go far enough to protect species. The agreement stipulates that the USFWS will review the status of 757 species for protection under the ESA — an unprecedented commitment of agency resources at a time when funding levels are being slashed.
Congress has taken notice. This summer, a rider was included in the House spending bill that would cut federal funding for species listings and critical habitat designations. Although this rider was ultimately defeated in a close House vote (representing a rare environmental victory in Congress this year), legislative intervention remains the primary means to overcome the federal protections granted in the ESA.
Litigation and legislation are both fairly blunt tools when used to manage local land and water resources. Exempting species from ESA protections through legislation means that politics, not scientific data, ultimate determines how species are managed. Science doesn’t necessarily win out in the litigation process either, and the costs and local consequences can be far-reaching. A better solution would combine federal oversight with local input to protect species. Of course, compromise on both sides will be required to refine the tools in our regulatory toolbox.
Juliet M. McKenna, MS, PG | Taylor D. Shipman, MS | Mark H. Myers, MBA
