State lawmakers have sent to Gov. Katie Hobbs a bill that some supporters are calling the most significant piece of water legislation since the landmark 1980 Groundwater Management Act.
The measure, known as the "ag-to-urban" bill, would allow developers to buy the water rights from farmers who are ready to move on from agriculture. The aim is to increase the supply of housing while at the same time using less water, since homes generally use less water than farms.
Kathleen Ferris, senior research fellow at the Kyl Center for Water Policy at ASU and a former director of the Arizona Department of Water Resources, joined The Show to talk about the potential impact of this bill.
Full conversation
MARK BRODIE: So I want to ask you, since you were a driving force between that 1980 Groundwater Management Act, do you agree with the assessment that this is the most significant piece of water legislation since then?
FERRIS: Significant in a negative way, I think.
BRODIE: OK. How so?
FERRIS: Well, it's a developer-driven program that is supported by "big ag" as an excuse to mine groundwater to build new residential subdivisions in the exurbs of the Valley. And I believe it will be to the long term detriment of current Arizonans and our assured water supply program.
BRODIE: Is it, like, in the sense that farms generally — it's generally accepted that agriculture is sort of the big driver of water use, at least in this part of Arizona. If we are not using some of that water, but using it for homes that use less of it, is that not a net positive?
FERRIS: Well, it's positive in the short run, but let's face it, some of this agriculture would go out of business anyway. And remember that you're replacing them — these crops — with homes. Homes cannot be fallowed. Homes are permanent. And even the Department of Water Resources projections show that, at some point, the benefit to the aquifer becomes negative as more and more homes are built and more groundwater is pumped.
BRODIE: Do you think that the negative will be longer out into the distance than it would’ve been if that water was continued to be used for agriculture?
FERRIS: Well, perhaps. But here's the rub, and it's really important to recognize this: Groundwater is a finite, nonrenewable water supply. And the whole point of the Groundwater Management Act was to preserve it and conserve it. So, an assured water supply, which is what is driving this whole program, was meant to be a sustainable renewable supply of surface water and not groundwater. And under the "ag-to-urban" program, the responsibility falls on the replenishment district, that was created in 1993, to replenish the groundwater pumped.
Well, that replenishment district is already strapped. Their most current plan of operation shows that they're going to have to cut about half of the water supplies they thought they could rely on, CAP low priority water, because of the shortages on the Colorado River district. And now they're scrambling to find other water supplies just for the replenishment obligations they already saw, not including "ag-to-urban." So we are chasing a finite supply of Colorado River water, a finite supply of groundwater, and, at the same time, we're going to allow more growth on groundwater. It simply is not in the best interests of the state's water security.
BRODIE: What would be a better way to handle this, given the demonstrated need in the state for more housing? Like how would it be a better way to go about providing that housing with maybe putting less stress on finite supplies of water?
FERRIS: Well, let me point out that this bill is to benefit the exurbs of the Valley, like the Buckeyes and the Queen Creek. It does. It's not for the benefit of the major cities in the Valley, which are doing all kinds of things to ensure that they have an assured water supply.
And what it does is it takes away from the need to develop renewable water supplies and to develop the infrastructure to bring those supplies into our state. And as long as we keep allowing growth on cheap groundwater, then we won't have the incentive to really make the investments that are needed to provide long-term water securities by bringing in renewable water supplies and building the infrastructure to deliver them.
BRODIE: This is happening at the same time as the state Department of Water Resources is looking at, you know, water purification, you know, using recycled wastewater, in, you know, in more places. Does that not assuage your concerns a little bit, that maybe there will not be incentives to develop these kinds of things?
FERRIS: You know what? That's already being done by the big Valley cities like Phoenix, who look down the road. And, by the way, Phoenix probably has the most secure water supply of any city in the state. But they look down the road and they say, "Man, we've got to do something more. We see the shortage in the Colorado River coming. We see the competition for groundwater. So we're going to invest in this very, very expensive process of treating wastewater to drinking water standards."
It's important and it needs to be done, but, it is a long way off. And in the meantime, we will just have more and more growth on groundwater. And, by the way, the people who are growing on groundwater aren't contributing to those solutions of renewable water supplies or treating water to drinking water standards.
BRODIE: Kathy, you mentioned Queen Creek and the Buckeyes of the Valley, and those are, of course, areas where growth has not been able to happen after the Department of Water Resources, sort of said that they didn't have the 100-year water assured water supply. Are you concerned that if homes are built in some of these areas on what used to be farms, that they might at some point run out of water?
FERRIS: Yes! But I'm also concerned about the existing residents. You know, I think it's really important to — as KJZZ has reported just this week, a new poll finds that Arizonans are deeply concerned about the Colorado River and groundwater, and they want officials to do more. And they want the state to prioritize basic needs and the current population. It can't all be driven by growth. But our policymakers, for the most part, don't seem to be listening.
