A
SaddleBrooke Water Primer
February,
2008
By Bob Simpson
I.
Welcome to the Desert
The
area is in its 8th
year of drought. Ground
water levels have declined 50-70 feet in
So,
how secure should we feel about living in SaddleBrooke? When I purchased a home here in 2003, I was
told that our water supply is from a strong aquifer – one of the few in the
state that showed recent rising water levels.
(I was also told that our views were protected by surrounding state
trust lands which would never be sold!).
Recently, I set out to learn more about local water and, most
importantly, its future availability.
However, I quickly learned that water is not just a local issue.
The
economic viability of the entire
This
primer attempts to present, in a simplified, but accurate way, what I think
most SaddleBrooke residents should know about water,
and how water issues may affect their futures here. I have excluded discussion of many issues
that affect primarily other parts of the state which were less affected by
II.
Arizona’s Progressive Water Law
In
a 2007 Arizona Law Review article (Vol. 49, No. 2),
“In the late 1970s, a number of forces
coalesced to produce the perfect scenario for overhauling
“The
1980 Groundwater Management Act (GMA) was truly progressive. The GMA established a system of quantified
rights for all existing groundwater users within … Active Management Areas (AMAs), made most rights transferable, restricted initiating
most new groundwater uses within AMAs, established
strong management by …the Department of Water Resources [ADWR], and required
conservation programs.”
Since
the GMA was enacted, other players have become more involved in the management
of
These
are only a few examples of the broader context within which water could be
viewed. For SaddleBrooke,
however, the role of the ADWR, through its oversight of the Tucson Active
Management Area (TAMA), is key.
III.
Tucson Active Management Area
TAMA
has two primary regulatory mechanisms governing “new water”:
Permitting new wells.
For non-exempt wells (wells producing more than 35 gallons per minute)
TAMA administers well spacing
requirements to address: “three
types of unreasonably increasing damage: (1) additional drawdown of water
levels at neighboring wells of record; (2) additional regional land subsidence;
and (3) migration of contaminated groundwater to a well of record.”
It also administers well construction standards. These regulations involve fairly extensive
and complex guidelines and will not be presented here. The lighter statutory requirements for the
regulation of exempt wells have been criticized. However, outside of active management areas,
such wells are largely unregulated.
Assured Water Supply
Certificates.
Under
Since
a 1995 strengthening of AWS Rules, applicants must also demonstrate the use of renewable
water supplies, rather than groundwater, to meet most of the demand of the
development for 100 years. However,
recognizing that sufficient renewable sources may not be available at the
location of the development, an AMA permits this requirement to be met if the
developer becomes a member of the Central Arizona Groundwater Replenishment
District (CAGRD). The CAGRD, a
quasi-government entity, describes its role, in part, as follows:
"Development
… is not necessarily stymied for those landowners and water providers who have
no direct access to CAP water or other renewable supplies. If a water provider
or a landowner has access to groundwater and desires to rely exclusively on
groundwater to demonstrate a 100 year water supply, it may do so, provided it
joins the CAGRD. As a member of the CAGRD, the landowner or provider must pay
the CAGRD to replenish any groundwater pumped by the member which exceeds the
pumping limitations imposed by the AWS Rules."
Replenishment
means that the CAGRD recharges somewhere in the same AMA the amount of
renewable water needed to offset most (currently about 90%) of the groundwater
that the developer will be pumping for 100 years. In other words, an AMA’s rules aim at
achievement of Safe Yield on a basin-wide basis. This flexibility is crucial. It enables new large residential developments
to rely almost solely on the pumping of groundwater which could, over the
years, result in significant drops in local water tables. CAGRD could be
recharging (replacement) renewable water elsewhere in the basin. As we will
see, this has important implications for SaddleBrooke.
To illustrate how TAMA’s
rules work, we may look at SaddleBrooke Ranch (SBR)
which is being developed under current TAMA rules and procedures. On
Number of lots 5,619
Golf
Other 50
room hotel resort
Other shopping
center
Water provider Arizona
Water Company-SaddleBrooke
Sewage utility provider Mountain Pass Utility Co.
Type of water delivered groundwater and treated
effluent
Consistency
with Management
Goal CAGRD
enrollment
Total
Water Demand, Acre Feet/Year (AF/yr):
Residential 1210.58
Non-residential 1510.25
Construction
1.72 (applies only during construction
phase)
Lost+Unaccounted 269.26
TOTAL/YEAR 2991.81
Total
100 Year Demand
265,457 AF
Basic Groundwater Allowance 23,934.4AF("mined"groundwater) Percentage that may be mined 9%
(23, 934.48 divided by 265,457)
Percentage
to be replaced by
renewable sources (i.e.,CAGRD
+ effluent) 91%.
Thus,
SBR will be supplied almost entirely by new groundwater, with CAGRD recharging
in a distant location (e.g., Avra Valley) about 86%
of 100 year usage if effluent provides 5% of SBR demand.
To
further illustrate the flexibility of AMA rules, the new SBR golf course is being
irrigated by a “recovery well”. This
means that the groundwater being pumped is not being recorded against the
Ranch’s groundwater allowance but rather against credits that the developer has
obtained by recharging effluent elsewhere in the TAMA. Also, because Arizona Water Company-SaddleBrooke is “new” (it was incorporated separately by
the existing Arizona Water Company which serves Oracle) it will be held by TAMA
to lower conservation standards until it qualifies as a “large municipal
supplier” by serving at least 560 residential units at SaddleBrooke
Ranch.
Finally,
it should be noted that in becoming a member of the CAGRD the developer has
elected the common practice of having the homeowners of the development pay for
groundwater replenishment. Thus, future
residents of SaddleBrooke Ranch will pay in their
annual Pinal County Real Estate Tax bills an amount which can be expected to
escalate over the years as both the quantity of replenishment, and the cost of
replacement water, increase. This will be in addition to the ad valorem tax that all property owners in Pinal, Maricopa and
Pima counties now pay to amortize the financing of the Central Arizona Project
(CAP). Property owners now find this item on their Pinal real estate tax as
“Central Arizona Water Conservation”.
IV.
Where Will Renewable Water Come From?
The CARGD and the CAP
In
1922 the seven basin states of the Colorado River and the federal government
negotiated the Colorado River Compact which divided the states into upper and
lower basins, and apportioned 7.5 million acre feet of water annually for each
basin. Arizona was the last to sign the
Compact and obtained 2.8 million AF compared to California’s 4.4 million. After 22 years of lobbying, Arizona obtained
Congressional approval for federal funding of parts of the construction
project. Construction was begun in 1973
at Havasu on a canal system that today brings water
336 miles to a terminus 14 miles south of Tucson. The entire project cost was about $4 billion
and water is allocated to municipal, agricultural, mining, and certain Indian
community users (12 tribes have allocations).
The
major source for recharging water within the TAMA is the CAP canal system which
conducts about half of the total amount of Colorado River water allocated to
Arizona to certain agricultural and urban users in central and southern
Arizona. The other half goes to users
along the River such as the Colorado River Indian Reservation and the Gila
Project (agricultural irrigation districts).
Tucson is at the end of the CAP canal. The City and certain other local
holders of CAP allocations are recharging CAP water in the Marana/Avra Valley area and in South Tucson. Combined with other factors such as the
purchase and retirement of farmland, and recharging effluent into the Santa
Cruz River bed, groundwater levels in certain locations have made some recent
recovery – e.g., a rise of 50-70 feet in the Marana area. However, depth to
water is still 200-300 feet in these locations.
Unfortunately,
CAP water as it is now allocated is almost certainly not going to be sufficient
to meet CAGRD’s growing replenishment requirements as
build-out occurs in new developments and other basin states’ demands on the
River increase. Although it has the largest allocation, CAP enjoys the lowest
priority (4th) of any Arizona user. The ADWR website describes gives
its overview of the situation, in part, as follows:
“Of
the 7.5 million acre-feet of water available to the Lower Basin states of
California, Arizona and Nevada, Arizona’s Priority 4 (post 1968) contractors,
including the Central Arizona Project, have a junior priority. If water
supplies are below normal, water deliveries to Arizona’s Priority 4 contractors
will be reduced by the Secretary of the Interior, in an amount that depends
upon the overall reduced water storage in Lake Mead. The Central Arizona
Project is expected to take a large portion of the reductions, which are
expected to total between 400,000 and 600,000 acre-feet, and possibly more.”
“When
the Colorado River Compact was negotiated, average annual flows were estimated
to be about 18 million acre-feet. Today a more accurate flow estimate is about
16.3 million acre-feet, however total Colorado River allocations, including the
Mexican Treaty obligation, total 16.5 million acre-feet. Annual flows are
highly variable ranging from a low of 6.3 million acre-feet to a high of 27
million acre-feet. Concern over possible long-term water supply shortages
has resulted in studies regarding water supply augmentation of the Colorado
River by increasing system delivery and operational efficiencies, importation,
weather modification, and vegetation management. Other methods of
augmentation such as desalinization of seawater or brackish water continue to
be evaluated, but these methods have relatively high costs making them less
feasible.”
A
further threat to CAGRD’s future access to CAP water
is posed by certain long-unresolved Indian water claims. For example, The Arizona Republic, Aug. 27,
2007, carried an article stating,
“Based
on a 1908 Supreme Court decision, tribes hold water rights that date to the
creation of their reservations. That would give the Navajos high priority for
water in Arizona or New Mexico and could allow the tribe, with a court victory,
to disrupt the entire Colorado River.”
V.
Other Sources of Water
Facing
a likely long term declining supply of CAP water, what other sources of water
might southern Arizona turn to?
Conservation
is the equivalent of finding renewable water.
Switching to a more efficient irrigation system, or installing a low
flow bathroom shower head are examples of the many permanent changes homeowners
can make that reduce water usage every year.
In our region, TAMA has rules for municipal water suppliers to reduce
per capita water consumption, or alternatively, adhere to “best management
practices” to achieve conservation.
Farmers have been subject to non-expansion of irrigated acreage
requirements, and limited phased reductions of groundwater use per acre. Farmers must have meters on their wells and
report usage, while remaining free to decide whether to plant lower water
requirement crops, use water-saving irrigation techniques, etc.
Agriculture
represents a large factor in Southern Arizona’s water picture. State-wide, it
accounts for 75% of total water consumption, and in the TAMA, 26%. In a free economy, economic theory holds that
resources eventually flow to their “highest and best use”. Urban users can afford to pay much more for a
gallon of water than the value farmers can derive from it, even with federal
subsidy programs – e.g., for cotton, corn, and dairy products.1 In the 1970s the City of Tucson purchased some 10,000 acres of farmland in
the TAMA for water benefits. In
California, a complex arrangement has been approved by the legislature whereby
California will reduce its dependence on the Colorado River, and the Imperial
Irrigation District will transfer agricultural water to the City of San Diego
with payments to Imperial Valley farmers for the diverted water. It is noteworthy that agricultural users of
CAP water in Arizona have lower priority, and will presumably bear the initial
brunt of any necessary future CAP cutbacks.
Effluent
use is growing in the TAMA as output rises with population growth. Most is used for golf course irrigation and
aquifer recharging. But, according to
the draft 2005 Tucson AMA Water Budget, effluent is expected to supply only 15%
of municipal demand by 2025. For 2005,
the Lago del Oro Water Co.
reported that effluent accounted for only 9% of its total water sold.
Other
approaches such as water
harvesting have limited scope
or have “robbing Peter to pay Paul” implications. If you “harvest” water in one area, it does
not flow elsewhere.
VI. SaddleBrooke:
What Is Our Future?
1.
Our Water Supplier.
SaddleBrooke currently depends on water
obtained from the Lago del
Oro Water Company, a “large municipal supplier” regulated by TAMA and other
agencies. The company was purchased by
the Robson organization and now has 16 wells serving both SaddleBrooke
and some Catalina residential and commercial customers. Its 20 year demand projections are for 7,539
dwelling units and 3,969 AF of water annually.
In 2005 Lago paid to the ADWR $8,031.57 in
groundwater withdrawal fees ($3.00 per acre foot) which are used for storage of
water by the Arizona Water Banking Authority ($2.50 per AF), and for water
management assistance by the TAMA ($0.50 per AF). Lago has not
recently been reporting depth to water in its wells. According to a company official, this is
because its wells are being pumped so heavily that reliable static water level
readings cannot be obtained. In May,
2006, Lago received permission to “enlarge” an
existing well to a depth of 1,340 feet.
Limited
evidence of water level stability is reflected in measurements of one index
well in the area, and recent reports to TAMA by the Arizona Water Company on
one well in the Oracle Junction area.
This latter well had November depth-to-water measurements of 345 feet in 2003
and 344 feet in 2005. Spring
measurements were 342 feet for all three years, 2003-2005.
Lago Water may come under increased water
conservation requirements as the TAMA implements its
Third Five Year Management Plan and works toward its Safe Yield objective. Lago has succeeded
in reducing its “lost and unaccounted for” water to below the 10% target set by
TAMA. However, unlike some other large
municipal suppliers, it has no pro-active programs to encourage water
conservation by residents.
2.
Our Future Water Supply.
Lago del Oro’s wells pump water from deep alluvial structures that
receive varying amounts of annual recharge, depending almost entirely on
precipitation. Historically, there have
been two sources of recharge.
State
hydrologic studies have continued and a groundwater modeling report issued in
2006 estimated groundwater outflow from
The
rate of decline is difficult to predict.
Water moves very slowly and it may take many years for the effects of a new
major well to spread widely. More
importantly, the total volume of water stored in the Valley is difficult to
estimate because most of the land is undeveloped and there are few wells from
which water table levels can be determined.
A further unknown is whether an initial drop in the Valley water table
could trigger at least a temporary reversal of water flow – ie,
a flow of groundwater from the greater SaddleBrooke
area back into Falcon Valley. In this
event, housing developments in
Direct Mountain and Local Recharge. Preliminary ADWR
modeling results indicate that the southward groundwater underflow measured 1-2
miles south of the
Conclusions
1.
SaddleBrooke’s Water Future Will Depend on
Regional Developments. It
is becoming clear that the Active Management Areas, created under the 1980 GMA,
do not have the mandate or authorities required to protect the water supplies
of many communities and residents within their boundaries. Pima County recently adopted amendments of
its Comprehensive Plan to integrate land use and water resource planning. A County report providing background for the
amendment describes the impact of the deficiencies of current water resource
planning in terms that appear relevant to communities such as SaddleBrooke:
“In recent years, the number
of Member Lands in the northern portion of the AMA, straddling the Pima-Pinal
border. has increased … All of these areas are
hydraulically isolated from the recharge being done on their behalf elsewhere
in the basin. This means that the groundwater being withdrawn from the aquifer
by these subdivisions is not being replaced in a way that will eventually give
the subdivisions access to the replenished water. The groundwater tables under
these subdivisions will continue to fall, in some cases precipitously, until
the detrimental effects of groundwater pumping threaten the economic stability,
environment and infrastructure of the community. Many of these areas are so
remote from renewable supplies that the capital investment and operations costs
of delivering renewable supplies are orders of magnitude beyond the capacity of
residents.”
The
Report further notes that
“Reducing groundwater levels by much less than 1,000 feet could likely cause
significant problems with subsidence and water quality. The physical, environmental and economic
costs would be so great that it is unlikely that water providers would actually
draw aquifers down his low.”
The
Report cites the experience of communities, which, unlike SaddleBrooke,
have CAP allocations and are already taking measures to try to address serious
water depletion problems:
“OroValley, Marana
and Flowing Wells Irrigation District, have realized
that the state regulated system does not provide a sustainable future for their
customers. All of the areas have experienced water level declines and realize
that delivering renewable water is the only sustainable path. The capital
investment for extending the CAP to these providers is estimated to cost
between $97 and $182 million, depending on the treatment system used.”
2.
The Pinal County Plan Update
Could Significantly Impact SaddleBrooke.
Pinal County is currently developing an update to its Comprehensive Plan
which “will be the county’s document to manage and direct future growth and
development…” Because of the rapid
northward expansion of development along Oracle Highway into our area of Pinal
County and Falcon Valley, we in SaddleBrooke should
make every effort to ensure that Pinal County adopts provisions to integrate
land use and water resource policy as Pima County will be doing. This would mean that the County could restrict
any future large water using developments to those that did not threaten the
well being of existing residents or the ecological and environmental assets of
the County.
3.
Monitoring Well Water Levels is
Important. The crucial issue for SaddleBrooke
is increased groundwater pumpage in the surrounding
area. Hydrologic data for our northeastern section of the TAMA are inadequate
and modeling cannot accurately predict when or how much further area pumping
will draw down water tables. Monitoring local
water levels in wells appears to be the only warning device available. However, because underground water moves very
slowly, the ultimate impact of new wells on an aquifer may not be detected for
years.
4.
State Trust Lands Pose An Issue.
As SaddleBrooke’s experience with the
neighboring Eagle Crest is demonstrating, State constitutional provisions
requiring the disposition of State trust lands at their highest value (to
support public education) poses not only a threat to ecological and aesthetic
values, but to the depletion of local
aquifers. A glance at a map indicates
that more than 90% of Falcon Valley is Trust land as is almost all of the land
surrounding SaddleBrooke to the north and west to the
Tortalitas.
Although the integration of water resource and land use policy in county
plans as discussed above could reduce the demand for Trust land development
inconsistent with County goals, this is by no means assured. SaddleBrooke
residents should therefore consider actively supporting Governor Napolitano’s
efforts to bring about an amendment of the Constitution to permit the State
Legislature to determine the requirements for the disposition of Trust lands.
It is
hoped that this presentation for SaddleBrooke
residents will heighten awareness of water as the underpinning of our long term
well-being in this community, and encourage not only conservation, but
consideration of policy measures to preserve this desert land for ourselves and
for generations to come.
Bob Simpson
January, 2008
Appendix
Willow
Springs
Willow
Springs, located in Falcon Valley near the Black Mountains, is the site of a
proposed community of Willow Springs Properties, LLC. Initially proposed as a large development (a
projected population of as much as 80,000 persons according to some sources),
it was rejected by Pinal County and the developers were advised to re-apply on
a unit-by-unit basis. A recent
pre-application for two units of “Willow Springs South” totals 1,038 lots. It is not clear how many lots the developers
may ultimately seek. Their current
application to TAMA requests an AWS certificate totaling 2,875 AF/yr (see
public notices in Arizona Star June 12 & 19, 2007). This is about the same amount of water
projected to be used by SBR (see above).
However, the Willow Springs application for an AWS includes only one
golf course and one school.
According
to TAMA, no objections were received in the fifteen days following public
notice of the Willow Springs application.
In 2004 a hydrologic analysis was submitted supporting an Assured Water
Supply for 4,350 AF/yr for the larger development then planned. The current scaled-back request is,
therefore, likely to be granted by TAMA.
The developer must still work out arrangements with the Fish and
Wildlife service for wildlife protection, with the state for constructing a 5
mile road to state standards to access the development, and with the
County.
(Footnotes)
1 Corn has a direct subsidy program, but
production is now stimulated primarily by Federal subsidies for ethanol
production. Programs to maintain high
prices for dairy products increase the demand for alfalfa in Arizona. By restricting imports of cotton, the US
Government maintains domestic prices that are often double world cotton prices.
2
Modeling studies of this nature, primarily
because of data deficiencies, are subject to substantial margins of error – 30
to 40% in the judgment of some analysts.
Bob Simpson has been a full-time
resident of SaddleBrooke for two years. He is a
retired foreign-service officer who specialized in economic, commercial and
agricultural affairs. His overseas service includes Japan, Madagascar and
Switzerland. He has a masters degree in agricultural
economics from