The Quest for Long-Term Water Resource Planning Maricopa County Cooperative Extension April 29, 2009 Sharon B. Megdal, Ph.D. smegdal@cals.arizona.edu
WRRC Mission The University of Arizona's Water Resources Research Center (WRRC) promotes understanding of critical state and regional water management and policy issues through research, community outreach and public education. The WRRC is committed to: • assisting communities in water management and policy; • educating teachers, students and the public about water; and • encouraging scientific research on state water issues. Web site: www.cals.arizona.edu/azwater 2
Water Cycle 3
Geographic Context 4
Statewide Use by Sector Average 2000 – 2003 Indu dustrial 5. 5.8% 8% (0. 0.41 m 41 maf af) Munic icip ipal 20. 20.9% 9% ( 1.47 m maf ) Agric icult lture 73. 73.3% 3% (5. 5.16 m 16 maf af) 5
6
Growth in People and Economic Activity Has Resulted in Groundwater Overdraft Problem in parts of Arizona • Groundwater pumped from aquifers faster than it is replenished by nature • Problem: declining water tables, with numerous associated implications: – water quality – cost of pumping – land subsidence and fissuring. 7
Arizona’s Water Management System • Groundwater and surface water systems are managed separately • Water supply and water quality, with some exceptions, are managed separately • Colorado River water is managed separately from other surface water • Most ground water management activities are focused in 5 Active Management Areas (AMAs) 8
Importance of Surface Supplies and Dams to Arizona • Central Arizona Project • Salt River Project Roosevelt Dam Hoover Dam 9
Arizona Water Map Central Arizona Project shown in orange 336 Miles Cost over $4 billion Pumps water from A Point A, at sea level, to Point B, to a maximum elevation near Tucson of about 2,800 feet Built to transport 1.5 million acre feet of B water annually 10
The Salt River Project Watershed 11
Surface Water • Defined as water flowing on the surface, in definite underground channels, or “subflow” • Must obtain a permit to appropriate • “Reasonable use” controls the volume • “Prior appropriation” determines priority • “Use it or lose it” • In-stream flow rights are non-diversionary appropriative rights; relatively recent priority • Adjudications are court determinations of the nature, extent and priority of water rights 12
Groundwater • Reasonable Use Doctrine: Can use water beneath the land for any beneficial purpose, without waste; water is owned by the public but individuals can establish rights to use groundwater • No priority system • Regulated in certain parts of the state only pursuant to the Groundwater Management Act of 1980, as amended 13
1980 Groundwater Management Act • Created Active Management Areas (AMAs) with Management Goals and Irrigation Non-Expansion Areas • Quantified rights for existing groundwater users • Some rights transferable • Management Plans with Conservation Programs • Restricted new groundwater uses but grandfathered in most uses. • Footprint of agriculture could not expand. • Placed burden of using renewable supplies on new residential uses through requiring an assured water supply program (AWS) • Later legislation authorized recharge and recovery program 14
Safe Yield Management Goal “versus” Sustainability • Safe-yield: a water management goal which attempts to achieve and thereafter maintain a long-term balance between the annual amount of groundwater withdrawn in an AMA and the annual amount of natural and artificial recharge in an AMA (A.R.S.45-562 A) • Sustainability: The ability of current generations to meet their needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs ((Brundtland) World Commission on Environment and Development) 15
The Assured Water Supply Rules • AWS Rules adopted in 1995 • Use of renewable supplies “mandated” in safe- yield AMAs – Can utilize groundwater to serve new growth if the groundwater is replenished – Use can be “direct” or “indirect” use through recharge and recovery – Membership in the Central Arizona Groundwater Replenishment District (CAGRD) • Water suppliers and developers must plan for future growth. 16
Recharge • The process of adding water to an aquifer – Natural Recharge results from natural process such as precipitation and streamflow – Incidental recharge is water entering the aquifer after various human uses, such as irrigation uses or leaks in water lines – Artificial recharge facilities or projects that are developed for the purpose of adding water to an aquifer 17
Artificial Recharge Innovative policy used to: – Manage groundwater supply – Assure full use of Colorado River water allocation – Protect against shortages during drought – Enable affordable use of CAP water 18
Managed Recharge Facility ↑ ↑ Undergrounds Storage Facilities ↓ “Potential” Groundwater Savings Facility ↓ 19
Growth in CAGRD Membership has Exceeded Expectations 2004 Plan: Through 2030 based on membership projected through 2015 1994 Projection for 2015: 37,500 af 20
Surface Water/Groundwater Management Achievements • Major strides have been made by the State and its water management partners in securing water supplies for the AMAs: – Groundwater Management/Conservation – Central Arizona Project – Assured Water Supply Program – Underground Storage and Recovery Program (Recharge Program) – Arizona Water Banking Authority – Central Arizona Groundwater Replenishment District – Colorado River Management 21
Issues and Challenges • Drought, Climate Change • Growth and the need for additional supplies • Water management outside the Active Management Areas (AMAs), including water quantity assessments • Water Quality • Use of effluent for potable and other water needs – the next major new water source • Access to and utilization of renewable supplies • Interstate and international water issues • The surface water/groundwater interface • Riparian areas and other environmental considerations related to water • Conservation Programs • Recovery of Stored Water • Approaches to replenishment • Water cost/pricing 22
What about Planning? AMA Management Plans • Not really plans but conservation regulations for major water using sectors: agriculture, industry, and municipal • Focus on conservation at the individual provider/user level, with individual determination of how to meet the regulations. – Quantity – Best management practices • Have assessed progress toward regional management goals • Have not included provisions for regional cooperation or planning 23
Evaluation of Management Plans Study • Limited regional cooperation has resulted from Groundwater Management Act • Unclear whether the plans have resulted in demonstrable conservation • Groundwater overdraft has not stopped and most AMAs unlikely to reach safe-yield • The opportunity presented by the development of a new AMA management plan: Carry forward of existing regulations or vehicle for regional planning? • What about state-level planning? 24
Water Planning Should Engage a Broad Set of Stakeholders Slide Courtesy of Jennifer McKay 25 University of South Australia
Challenges to Engaging the Full Range of Stakeholders in Water Planning • Complexity of the issues • Commitment – Who has the responsibility? – Is the responsibility embraced? • Customized approach may be required, depending on the stakeholder type and the issues. One size does not fit all! – Surveys, focus groups, workshops, etc. • Communication mechanisms and frequency • Cost – Effective engagement is expensive in terms of time and dollars. Who pays? 26
Should we engage more in water planning at the state level? “Your [ADWR’s] Water Atlas is certainly a good start, but I agree with you that Arizona needs to take it a step farther… and now is the time.” Out of state observer, March 2009 27
Questions about Planning to Ponder • If we don’t take advantage of the Water Atlas’ up-to-date assembly of data, will we be missing an opportunity to understand better the implications of where we are heading? • Can we use development of the Fourth Management Plans to launch a statewide effort? • Do we have the capacity to develop a state water plan, given the shortage of financial resources and the great demands on staff resources at ADWR? • Do we have the political will to consider the many difficult questions associated with future water supplies and how to pay for them? • Can we afford not to develop a state water plan? • Do the complexities necessitate taking a big-picture look? • If the collective will to develop a plan materialized, could we establish a process for developing the plan that is 28 inclusive and transparent?
Concluding Comments • Need for education and information • There are significant uncertainties surrounding which water supplies will be used where – and at what cost. • Water planning is challenging and costly but necessary. 29
30
Recommend
More recommend
