The Quest for Long-Term Water Resource Planning Maricopa County - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

The Quest for Long-Term Water Resource Planning

Maricopa County Cooperative Extension April 29, 2009 Sharon B. Megdal, Ph.D. smegdal@cals.arizona.edu

2

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

3

Water Cycle

4

Geographic Context

5

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)

Statewide Use by Sector

Average 2000 – 2003

6

7

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.

8

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)

9

Importance of Surface Supplies and Dams to Arizona

• Salt River Project

Roosevelt Dam

• Central Arizona Project

Hoover Dam

10

Arizona Water Map Central Arizona Project shown in

• range

336 Miles Cost over $4 billion Pumps water from 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 water annually

A B

11

The Salt River Project Watershed

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

• f 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)

16

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.

17

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

18

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

19

↑Undergrounds Storage Facilities↓ Managed Recharge Facility↑ “Potential” Groundwater Savings Facility↓

20

Growth in CAGRD Membership has Exceeded Expectations

2004 Plan: Through 2030 based on membership projected through 2015 1994 Projection for 2015: 37,500 af

21

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

22

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

23

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

• f 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

24

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
• f a new AMA management plan: Carry forward
• f existing regulations or vehicle for regional

planning?

• What about state-level planning?

25

Slide Courtesy of Jennifer McKay University of South Australia

Water Planning Should Engage a Broad Set of Stakeholders

26

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?

27

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

28

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 inclusive and transparent?

29

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.

30

31

Questions?/Discussion

Sharon B. Megdal, Director Water Resources Research Center The University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 email: smegdal@cals.arizona.edu web site: ww.cals.arizona.edu/azwater/