4 ms·

Arizona has a policy of maintaining 100+ years of water (and all new construction must demonstrate that). The phoenix metro area has the most responsible and th

Arizona has a policy of maintaining 100+ years of water (and all new construction must demonstrate that). The phoenix metro area has the most responsible and thoughtful water management policies of any major american city and is a net contributor to ground water. What arizona gets from the colorado river is icing and a literal drop in it's well managed supplies. Arizona was preparing for this possible outcome in the early 1980's. It's a total non event for the state. Save your outrage for the cities on our coasts whose antiquated and poorly managed treatment systems dump millions of gallons of untreated sewage into our rivers and oceans.

Keyframe 5y ago
What does it mean to maintain 100+ years of water? As in reserves to last them 100+ years or something else?
- ortusdux 5y ago
  This should answer most questions: http://www.arizonawaterfacts.com/water-your-facts http://www.arizonawaterfacts.com/water-your-facts
- bob33212 5y ago
  No, the plan doesn't expect every single water supply to go empty, and then have 100 years of water in storage tanks. But it does expect that there may be a very large drop in water coming in for years at a time.
  - tony_cannistra 5y ago
    Actually, it sort of does put water away in storage tanks. Groundwater replenishment is a huge part of how urban development projects "get away" with assuring 100+year supplies. In a way, this replenishment is sort of equivalent to putting water in a storage tank. Especially when the water comes from somewhere else, like the Colorado River.
    - bob33212 5y ago
      But not 100 years worth.
csolorio 5y ago
While this is true, we're not 100% out of the woods. My brother is an architect in the region and mentioned to me that our exurbs and suburbs are notorious for fudging their water sustainability numbers vs actual use.
- 1123581321 5y ago
  Is there a tort? It seems reasonable for these regions to compensate by funding reclamation projects.
- hamburgerwah 5y ago
  Since 1980 total water use has declined in the state by about 25% while population has tripled (300% growth). New construction is required to use grey water where suitable and it's waster water makes it back as treated or depending on geography is used by Palo Verde nuclear station. This is a non issue.
  - wcoenen 5y ago
    > while population has tripled (300% growth). Tripling would be 200% growth, quadrupling would be 300% growth. Therefore I wasn't sure which one you meant, and I checked: according to [1] there was roughly a tripling from 1.5M to 4.5M between 1980 and 2020. [1] https://www.macrotrends.net/cities/23099/phoenix/population https://www.macrotrends.net/cities/23099/phoenix/population
pm90 5y ago
> Save your outrage for the cities on our coasts whose antiquated and poorly managed treatment systems dump millions of gallons of untreated sewage into our rivers and oceans. I was with you until that last comment. Most West Coast cities have adequate water supplies and management. The drought affects small towns the most. If they are caught off guard its because these are unprecedented weather events. It is reasonable for Arizona to conserve water from the get go. Not so for the west coast, which could rely on precipitation/snow melt for the past several decades. Also the root cause isn't poor water management by cities, its that the farming industry consumes most of the water.
- nradov 5y ago
  The Monterey Peninsula area has terrible water management. Sewage spills into the ocean have been a frequent problem. Despite the housing shortage, property owners can't get building permits due to a lack of water. https://www.montereyherald.com/health/20180224/addressing-the-problem-of-sewage-spills https://www.montereyherald.com/health/20180224/addressing-th...
- hamburgerwah 5y ago
  Every major city in southern california dumps raw sewage into rivers and oceans with regularity. There is too much of it to even keep track of. Here is massive one from not even 30 days ago: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-07-12/la-me-power-plant-sewage-ocean https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-07-12/la-me-po... There is no municipal grey water systems or mandates. No reasonable person would say anything about southern california's water policy or water history is "responsibly managed". I don't know enough about northern california's situation first hand to offer comment but I would be shocked if it's any better. Oroville remind you of anything? It is completely true that agriculture consumes many times more water than residential use. California is a complete disaster there too. 25% of irrigable water is diverted to the ocean for the delta smelt, and another 25-40% is controlled by the resnick family's holdings and the sham of the kern county water bank.
  - etc-hosts 5y ago
    I believe if you don't divert water... you get salt water encroachment, which will poison fresh water aquifers.
jorblumesea 5y ago
Cities and suburbs are only one component of water use. A large amount of water is used by agriculture, and they have different restrictions, if any. So it's not a disaster for the metro areas, but really impacts rural areas and farmers.
- sigstoat 5y ago
  if i've driven through arizona, it's been 25+ years. is there a lot of rural agriculture?
  - ericbarrett 5y ago
    More than ever, and more water intensive than it used to be. For example: https://www.azcentral.com/in-depth/news/local/arizona-environment/2019/12/05/biggest-water-users-arizona-farms-keep-drilling-deeper/3937582002/ https://www.azcentral.com/in-depth/news/local/arizona-enviro...
  - anonAndOn 5y ago
    Arizona was built on the 5 C's: Cattle, Cotton, Citrus, Copper and Climate.
jartelt 5y ago
Many of the rapidly growing Phoenix suburbs are projected to find themselves in trouble with regards to water resources in the future. These suburbs have met their 100+ years of water requirement using the Central Arizona Groundwater Replenishment District (CAGRD), an entity created in the 1990s tasked with replacing pumped groundwater by finding renewable water supplies and injecting that water back into the aquifer. However, the current drought and temperature projections going forward show that it will be increasingly difficult for CAGRD to find water to inject back into the aquifer to meet its obligations. In the end these suburbs will either need to pay super high rates for water to inject into aquifers or will need to slow growth. https://www.hcn.org/issues/53.6/south-water-rapid-growth-in-arizonas-suburbs-bets-against-an-uncertain-water-supply https://www.hcn.org/issues/53.6/south-water-rapid-growth-in-...
- tony_cannistra 5y ago
  Thanks for this -- it's critical to recognize that the supply for the groundwater replenishment upon which much of the "100+ year" assured water contingency rests is provided in part by the Colorado River.
obelos 5y ago
I haven't been to Phoenix in twenty years, but it's hard for me—as someone who is not a civil engineer—to grasp how this is the case. I remember walking around there in the summer and being shocked to see a higher concentration of lush green lawns there than in Ohio where I lived at the time. Homeowners had spigots poking out of the corner of their yard, which they'd turn on to literally flood their yard. Flying into the airport you could see the profusion of green lawns, private backyard swimming pools, and expansive golf courses. Is there a good resource where I can see how that opulent water use squares with having a 100+ year native supply and is actually a net water contributor?
- etc-hosts 5y ago
  I always wondered how Phoenix homeowners get away with watering their lawns just by flooding them.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    Water prices so cheap that they do not reflect externalities, such as water supply per capita being lower in the future.
  - ridgeguy 5y ago
    I attended high school in Phoenix in the late 1960s. There was a widespread irrigation infrastructure that consisted of gated ditches running throughout residential areas. This was way before drip irrigation or other water conservation measures were a thing. These ditches were supplied with water on a scheduled basis. One watered one's lawn by shutting off your downstream neighbor's ditch gate and opening yours on schedule. After your hour or two of flooding, your upstream neighbor would do the same, leaving your deeply flooded yard to absorb the water. This was a 2 or 3 times/week thing. It was horribly inefficient in terms of evaporation losses. About the only positive aspect I recall is socializing with our neighbors in the after-midnight hours that we usually drew for our turn at the floodgates.
brudgers 5y ago
The Colorado River Delta is an ecological disaster. Because it is in Mexico, it is not part of the analysis done in places like Phoenix. The Gila River in Arizona is about run dry before it reaches the Apache Nation at San Carlos. Mostly for cotton in the desert. Cotton in the desert is only possible because of water rights.
inpdx 5y ago
Since you seem to be knowledgeable, care to comment on this: https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-environment/2021/05/13/arizona-is-depleting-groundwater-in-many-areas-researchers-warn/5059471001/ https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-environme... It very much sounds like it directly contradicts your confident tone.
- hamburgerwah 5y ago
  "We planned well and have water security for at least one or two generations to come" would get approximately 0 clicks as a headline. News makes money on fear even when they have to make up things to be afraid of.
  - inpdx 5y ago
    One or two generations isn't 100 years though.
tony_cannistra 5y ago
Thanks for this comment, and largely good points here, but you're certainly mistaken on the most pertinent point you made here, namely the role of Colorado River water in Arizona's water plan. Arizona gets 35% of its water from the Colorado River [0]. "A literal drop?" I wouldn't agree. However, since reductions affect various water-using constituencies differently, Tier 1 reductions don't have an effect on municipalities' water availability (but future tiers do) [2]. Again, largely important points you've raised here, but it's also important not to understate the value of the Colorado River / Central Arizona Project in municipalities' water availability and water contingency planning, as you have. [0]: http://www.arizonawaterfacts.com/water-your-facts http://www.arizonawaterfacts.com/water-your-facts [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/16/climate/colorado-river-water-cuts.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/16/climate/colorado-river-wa... [2]: https://www.amwua.org/blog/tier-1-shortage-what-does-it-mean-for-us-here-in-arizona https://www.amwua.org/blog/tier-1-shortage-what-does-it-mean...
- hamburgerwah 5y ago
  The majority of colorado water river is simply banked. So in terms of consumption in the scheme of statewide water usage I stand by "drop". Prior to the water bank Arizona consumed about 15% of it's entitled colorado river water and forwent the remainder. Planning accounts for the possibility of 0 acre feet of colorado river water by 2025. Arizona is legally entitled to its share of the colorado river and takes it and stores it rather than forgo it. My comment was in response to the salacious title that Arizona's water supply has been "slashed" which is not a factually accurate headline. https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-phoenix-is-preparing-for-a-future-without-colorado-river-water https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-phoenix-is-preparing-for-... https://tucson.com/news/local/arizona-water-bank-started-as-a-safeguard-against-california/article_fd90e6ab-ecc0-5db4-98b1-ef83cc884d00.html https://tucson.com/news/local/arizona-water-bank-started-as-...
jvanderbot 5y ago
You can drain a river to dust, harming everyone down stream and still be a net contributor to ground water by, say, dumping it on desert sand to grow crops. Arizona is not in any form a net contributor to water resources as that is physically impossible unless they are fusing hydrogen and oxygen from space. If there's no precipitation, every drop of water we have came from someone else's bucket.
- perl4ever 5y ago
  >Arizona is not in any form a net contributor to water resources as that is physically impossible unless they are fusing hydrogen and oxygen from space. Arizona is not a closed system, so why would it be impossible for water to be flowing out of the state? [Or water vapor]

Keyframe 5y ago

What does it mean to maintain 100+ years of water? As in reserves to last them 100+ years or something else?

ortusdux 5y ago
This should answer most questions: http://www.arizonawaterfacts.com/water-your-facts http://www.arizonawaterfacts.com/water-your-facts
bob33212 5y ago
No, the plan doesn't expect every single water supply to go empty, and then have 100 years of water in storage tanks. But it does expect that there may be a very large drop in water coming in for years at a time.
- tony_cannistra 5y ago
  Actually, it sort of does put water away in storage tanks. Groundwater replenishment is a huge part of how urban development projects "get away" with assuring 100+year supplies. In a way, this replenishment is sort of equivalent to putting water in a storage tank. Especially when the water comes from somewhere else, like the Colorado River.
  - bob33212 5y ago
    But not 100 years worth.

csolorio 5y ago

While this is true, we're not 100% out of the woods. My brother is an architect in the region and mentioned to me that our exurbs and suburbs are notorious for fudging their water sustainability numbers vs actual use.

1123581321 5y ago
Is there a tort? It seems reasonable for these regions to compensate by funding reclamation projects.
hamburgerwah 5y ago
Since 1980 total water use has declined in the state by about 25% while population has tripled (300% growth). New construction is required to use grey water where suitable and it's waster water makes it back as treated or depending on geography is used by Palo Verde nuclear station. This is a non issue.
- wcoenen 5y ago
  > while population has tripled (300% growth). Tripling would be 200% growth, quadrupling would be 300% growth. Therefore I wasn't sure which one you meant, and I checked: according to [1] there was roughly a tripling from 1.5M to 4.5M between 1980 and 2020. [1] https://www.macrotrends.net/cities/23099/phoenix/population https://www.macrotrends.net/cities/23099/phoenix/population

pm90 5y ago

> Save your outrage for the cities on our coasts whose antiquated and poorly managed treatment systems dump millions of gallons of untreated sewage into our rivers and oceans. I was with you until that last comment. Most West Coast cities have adequate water supplies and management. The drought affects small towns the most. If they are caught off guard its because these are unprecedented weather events. It is reasonable for Arizona to conserve water from the get go. Not so for the west coast, which could rely on precipitation/snow melt for the past several decades. Also the root cause isn't poor water management by cities, its that the farming industry consumes most of the water.

nradov 5y ago
The Monterey Peninsula area has terrible water management. Sewage spills into the ocean have been a frequent problem. Despite the housing shortage, property owners can't get building permits due to a lack of water. https://www.montereyherald.com/health/20180224/addressing-the-problem-of-sewage-spills https://www.montereyherald.com/health/20180224/addressing-th...
hamburgerwah 5y ago
Every major city in southern california dumps raw sewage into rivers and oceans with regularity. There is too much of it to even keep track of. Here is massive one from not even 30 days ago: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-07-12/la-me-power-plant-sewage-ocean https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-07-12/la-me-po... There is no municipal grey water systems or mandates. No reasonable person would say anything about southern california's water policy or water history is "responsibly managed". I don't know enough about northern california's situation first hand to offer comment but I would be shocked if it's any better. Oroville remind you of anything? It is completely true that agriculture consumes many times more water than residential use. California is a complete disaster there too. 25% of irrigable water is diverted to the ocean for the delta smelt, and another 25-40% is controlled by the resnick family's holdings and the sham of the kern county water bank.
- etc-hosts 5y ago
  I believe if you don't divert water... you get salt water encroachment, which will poison fresh water aquifers.

jorblumesea 5y ago

Cities and suburbs are only one component of water use. A large amount of water is used by agriculture, and they have different restrictions, if any. So it's not a disaster for the metro areas, but really impacts rural areas and farmers.

sigstoat 5y ago
if i've driven through arizona, it's been 25+ years. is there a lot of rural agriculture?
- ericbarrett 5y ago
  More than ever, and more water intensive than it used to be. For example: https://www.azcentral.com/in-depth/news/local/arizona-environment/2019/12/05/biggest-water-users-arizona-farms-keep-drilling-deeper/3937582002/ https://www.azcentral.com/in-depth/news/local/arizona-enviro...
- anonAndOn 5y ago
  Arizona was built on the 5 C's: Cattle, Cotton, Citrus, Copper and Climate.

jartelt 5y ago

Many of the rapidly growing Phoenix suburbs are projected to find themselves in trouble with regards to water resources in the future. These suburbs have met their 100+ years of water requirement using the Central Arizona Groundwater Replenishment District (CAGRD), an entity created in the 1990s tasked with replacing pumped groundwater by finding renewable water supplies and injecting that water back into the aquifer. However, the current drought and temperature projections going forward show that it will be increasingly difficult for CAGRD to find water to inject back into the aquifer to meet its obligations. In the end these suburbs will either need to pay super high rates for water to inject into aquifers or will need to slow growth. https://www.hcn.org/issues/53.6/south-water-rapid-growth-in-arizonas-suburbs-bets-against-an-uncertain-water-supply https://www.hcn.org/issues/53.6/south-water-rapid-growth-in-...

tony_cannistra 5y ago
Thanks for this -- it's critical to recognize that the supply for the groundwater replenishment upon which much of the "100+ year" assured water contingency rests is provided in part by the Colorado River.

obelos 5y ago

I haven't been to Phoenix in twenty years, but it's hard for me—as someone who is not a civil engineer—to grasp how this is the case. I remember walking around there in the summer and being shocked to see a higher concentration of lush green lawns there than in Ohio where I lived at the time. Homeowners had spigots poking out of the corner of their yard, which they'd turn on to literally flood their yard. Flying into the airport you could see the profusion of green lawns, private backyard swimming pools, and expansive golf courses. Is there a good resource where I can see how that opulent water use squares with having a 100+ year native supply and is actually a net water contributor?

etc-hosts 5y ago
I always wondered how Phoenix homeowners get away with watering their lawns just by flooding them.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  Water prices so cheap that they do not reflect externalities, such as water supply per capita being lower in the future.
- ridgeguy 5y ago
  I attended high school in Phoenix in the late 1960s. There was a widespread irrigation infrastructure that consisted of gated ditches running throughout residential areas. This was way before drip irrigation or other water conservation measures were a thing. These ditches were supplied with water on a scheduled basis. One watered one's lawn by shutting off your downstream neighbor's ditch gate and opening yours on schedule. After your hour or two of flooding, your upstream neighbor would do the same, leaving your deeply flooded yard to absorb the water. This was a 2 or 3 times/week thing. It was horribly inefficient in terms of evaporation losses. About the only positive aspect I recall is socializing with our neighbors in the after-midnight hours that we usually drew for our turn at the floodgates.

brudgers 5y ago

The Colorado River Delta is an ecological disaster. Because it is in Mexico, it is not part of the analysis done in places like Phoenix. The Gila River in Arizona is about run dry before it reaches the Apache Nation at San Carlos. Mostly for cotton in the desert. Cotton in the desert is only possible because of water rights.

inpdx 5y ago

Since you seem to be knowledgeable, care to comment on this: https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-environment/2021/05/13/arizona-is-depleting-groundwater-in-many-areas-researchers-warn/5059471001/ https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-environme... It very much sounds like it directly contradicts your confident tone.

hamburgerwah 5y ago
"We planned well and have water security for at least one or two generations to come" would get approximately 0 clicks as a headline. News makes money on fear even when they have to make up things to be afraid of.
- inpdx 5y ago
  One or two generations isn't 100 years though.

tony_cannistra 5y ago

Thanks for this comment, and largely good points here, but you're certainly mistaken on the most pertinent point you made here, namely the role of Colorado River water in Arizona's water plan. Arizona gets 35% of its water from the Colorado River [0]. "A literal drop?" I wouldn't agree. However, since reductions affect various water-using constituencies differently, Tier 1 reductions don't have an effect on municipalities' water availability (but future tiers do) [2]. Again, largely important points you've raised here, but it's also important not to understate the value of the Colorado River / Central Arizona Project in municipalities' water availability and water contingency planning, as you have. [0]: http://www.arizonawaterfacts.com/water-your-facts http://www.arizonawaterfacts.com/water-your-facts [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/16/climate/colorado-river-water-cuts.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/16/climate/colorado-river-wa... [2]: https://www.amwua.org/blog/tier-1-shortage-what-does-it-mean-for-us-here-in-arizona https://www.amwua.org/blog/tier-1-shortage-what-does-it-mean...

hamburgerwah 5y ago
The majority of colorado water river is simply banked. So in terms of consumption in the scheme of statewide water usage I stand by "drop". Prior to the water bank Arizona consumed about 15% of it's entitled colorado river water and forwent the remainder. Planning accounts for the possibility of 0 acre feet of colorado river water by 2025. Arizona is legally entitled to its share of the colorado river and takes it and stores it rather than forgo it. My comment was in response to the salacious title that Arizona's water supply has been "slashed" which is not a factually accurate headline. https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-phoenix-is-preparing-for-a-future-without-colorado-river-water https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-phoenix-is-preparing-for-... https://tucson.com/news/local/arizona-water-bank-started-as-a-safeguard-against-california/article_fd90e6ab-ecc0-5db4-98b1-ef83cc884d00.html https://tucson.com/news/local/arizona-water-bank-started-as-...

jvanderbot 5y ago

You can drain a river to dust, harming everyone down stream and still be a net contributor to ground water by, say, dumping it on desert sand to grow crops. Arizona is not in any form a net contributor to water resources as that is physically impossible unless they are fusing hydrogen and oxygen from space. If there's no precipitation, every drop of water we have came from someone else's bucket.

perl4ever 5y ago
>Arizona is not in any form a net contributor to water resources as that is physically impossible unless they are fusing hydrogen and oxygen from space. Arizona is not a closed system, so why would it be impossible for water to be flowing out of the state? [Or water vapor]