Arizona Water Policy: Should we be worried? NACOG February 6, 2020 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Arizona Water Policy: Should we be worried? NACOG February 6, 2020 1

Arizona’s “Water Problem” Annual Rainfall 2 Source: Water Resources Research Center, University of Arizona

WHERE DOES OUR WATER COME FROM? 3

Arizona’s Sources of Water [CATEGO RY NAME] [PERCENT [CATEGO AGE] RY NAME] Colorado [PERCENT 39% AGE] Other Surface 19% Colorado Other Surface Groundwater Effluent 4 Source: Arizona Dept. of Water Resources

The Colorado River Basin • 40 million people • 7 states, 22 tribes & Mexico • 4.5 million acres agriculture • Significant biodiversity • Grand Canyon & other national parks & monuments 5 Source: US Bureau of Reclamation

• • 83% Arizonans in service area 330 miles • • Maricopa, Pinal & Pima Counties 2400’ elevation change 6 Source: Central Arizona Water Conservation Dist.

Arizona Watersheds 7 Source: Univ. of Ariz. Coop. Extension

Avondale, Chandler, Gilbert, Glendale, Mesa, Peoria, Phoenix, Scottsdale, Tempe, Tolleson 8

SRP Inflows & Outflows Source: SRP 9

WHERE DOES THE WATER GO? 10

Arizona Water Demand by Sector Industrial Municipal 8 % 24 % Agriculture 68 % Annual Demand ≈ 6.28 MAF Source: Arizona Dept. of Water Resources

How much is an acre- foot? 325,851 gallons 2 – 4 households/year

Phoenix AMA Demand Industrial Tribal 8% 11% Municipal 49% Agriculture 32% Annual Demand ≈ 2.29 MAF Source: ADWR Phoenix AMA Assessment (2017) 13

What’s going right? 14

Water Demand & Growth

Agricultural Demand (% / Statewide) 2014 16 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1985 1980 Source: Arizona Dept. of Water Resources 1975 1970 1965 1960 1955 1 0.95 0.9 0.85 0.8 0.75 0.7 0.65 0.6

Phoenix Population and Water Use 300 1,700,000 Population Total GPCD Residential GPCD 1,600,000 250 1,500,000 200 1,400,000 Population GPCD 150 1,300,000 1,200,000 100 1,100,000 50 1,000,000 0 900,000 17

Example of a Phoenix Neighborhood Source: City of Phoenix

more people greater water & demand bigger economy 19

Groundwater Management Active Management Act of 1980 Areas • 83% of Arizonans • Water banking • 95% re-use • Mandatory system-level conservation • 100-year Assured Water Supply requirement Sources: HDR, Technical Memorandum (Dec. 3, 2013); ADWR 20

Groundwater Management Active Management Areas growth is tied to renewable supplies 21 Sources: HDR, Technical Memorandum (Dec. 3, 2013); ADWR

Water ReUse Greater Phoenix – Palo Verde NGS Tucson – 18 golf courses ▪ Scottsdale – 23 golf courses Chandler – Intel Ocotillo Plant Gilbert, Phoenix, Tucson – Constructed Wetlands & Some Agriculture 22

Water Banking 11 MAF 23

24

What should we be worried about? 25

Colorado River Supplies

Lake Mead Structural Deficit Inflow = + 9.0 MAF Outflow = - 9.6 MAF Evaporation = - 0.6 MAF Balance = - 1.2 MAF

CAP delivers ~ 1.6 MAF/yr Maricopa • • Pinal • Pima

Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plan

Arizona DCP – Who’s Impacted 1,600,000 Low Other Excess Shortage 1,400,000 Pinal County Ag Ag Pool Shortage 143 KAF Tribes, Cities, 1,200,000 Ag Pool 157 KAF Homebuilders CAP Delivery Priority Tier 1 (512 KAF) 1,000,000 NIA Priority 222 KAF Tier 2a (590 KAF) Tier 2b (640 KAF) Acre Feet 800,000 Tier 3 (720 KAF) 600,000 Tribes Indian M&I Priority Priority 448 KAF 326 KAF 400,000 Cities 200,000 High Priority 3 - 68 KAF 0 Not to scale!

Arizona DCP – Mitigation Plan 2020-22 • 100% mitigation for NIA Pool Other Excess Shortage • Fixed volume for Ag Pool, depending on tier Ag Pool Shortage 143 KAF Ag Pool 157 KAF 2023-25 • No Ag Pool mitigation (conversion to NIA Priority 222 KAF groundwater) • NIA volume tbd based on orders & conditions ○ 75% under Tier 1 & Tier 2a ○ 50% under Tier 2b • M&I & Indian full mitigation Indian Priority M&I Priority 326 KAF 448 KAF 2026 or Tier 3: No Mitigation Priority 3 - 68 KAF

Arizona DCP - Implications 1. Reduces risk of a Tier 3 shortage ( protects cities ) 2. Provides ground rules to enable conservation in Lake Mead 3. Mitigates impacts of cuts to Ag & NIA 4. ~ $200 million cost (CAP, state & federal) 5. Increases groundwater mining in Pinal County

Lake Mead Storage with DCP in Place Lake Mead End of Calendar Year Elevation 1,150' Surplus Condition Adoption of 1,125' 2007 Interim Guidelines Projected end of CY 2019 elevation is 1,089.40 feet (based on August 24-Month Study) 1,100' Normal or ICS Surplus Condition 1,075' IBWC Level 1 Shortage Condition Minute 318 IBWC Minute 319 1,050' Pilot System Conservation Program DCP & Level 2 Shortage Condition and Lower Basin Drought MOU BWSCP IBWC Minute 1,025' 323 Level 3 Shortage Condition and reconsultation under the 2007 Interim Guidelines 1,000' 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Groundwater Dependent Places

Groundwater Dependent Places 37

Arizona Water Rights Cases 38

Verde Basin Well Development – 1974 (2,311 wells)

Verde Basin Well Development – 1987 (7,457 wells)

Verde Basin Well Development – 2017 (17,754 wells)

The 4 Forest Restoration Initiative

supplies for growth 44

The Arizona Republic March 5, 2019 ‘A recipe for disaster’: Pinal County might not have enough water for 139,000 planned homes State water regulators have confirmed their data shows there may not be enough water underground for dozens of planned developments in Pinal County, new subdivisions that, if built, would bring more than 139,000 homes. That finding is based on data the Arizona Department of Water Resources has complied that shows a long-term groundwater shortage in the area is possible. The data, which The Arizona Republic obtained through a public-records request, raises red flags about growth and the water supply in one of the fastest growing parts of the state.

Source: CAGRD

• Water Supply Planning • Adjudication • Colorado River • Rural Groundwater

Sarah Porter 602-828-0866 s.porter@asu.edu 48

Arizona’s water future water data hub new infrastructure & supplies partnerships modern durable dynamic web-based new uses of infrastructur application e continually updated augmentation strategies policy barriers project costs visual re-envision policy

Watersheds Municipal Boundaries Sub Watersheds Municipal Populations Aquifers Municipal Water Service Areas Groundwater Basins Private Water Company Service Streams Areas Rivers Community Water Service Areas Land Subsidence CAGRD Member Land Subdivisions CAGRD Member Service Areas Dams Buckeye Waterlogged Area Water Treatment Facilities CAP Canal Critical Habitat CAP – SRP Interconnect Important Bird Areas SRP Canals Land Ownership Underground Storage Facilities Mines Groundwater Savings Facilities Tribal Leases Active Management Areas ADWR Planning Areas Irrigation Non-expansion Areas Augmentation Projects Adjudication Areas Augmentation Projects Viability Adjudication Sub-areas Delivery Infrastructure Projects Irrigation Districts Data layers (to date)

Spatial exploration

Data visualizations

Municipal resilience

Topics for upcoming meetings: History, context and bigger picture regarding significant water policies (how we got here) Rural water hotspots and challenges, including hotspots like Supplies/options for management within AMAs Water for Arizona agriculture Urban water management Change the Arizona dialogue Data and projections Water technologies Adjudication Habitat values and ecosystem services Misconceptions > Myth busters Tool for dialogue & planning

• Cost • Capacity • Regulatory hurdles • Timeline • Beneficiaries • Potential partners Augmentation Concepts

AWBA Long Term Storage Credits 1997-2016 350 300 250 192 KAF 200 150 100 50 0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 KAF 57 Source AZ Water Banking Auth.

Greater Phoenix’s Water Sources Salt-Verde Effluent CAP 27% 2% 41% Groundwat er 30% 58 CAP Groundwater Effluent Salt-Verde Source: Arizona Dept. of Water Resources

Phoen Pho enix Re ix Reside sidential ntial Wate Water Us r Use 160 1,700,000 1,600,000 150 1,500,000 140 1,400,000 130 1,300,000 120 1,200,000 110 1,100,000 100 1,000,000 90 900,000 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

Upper San Pedro Basin – 1987 Well Development (3,592 wells)

Upper San Pedro Basin – 2017 Well Development (8,765 wells)