Guest Comment: Three obstacles to water sustainability in the Green Valley/Sahuarita region

Editor’s Note: This is part one of a two-part series. Part two will appear in the Sunday edition of the Green Valley News and Sun.

STRIKE ONE: At the time of the passage of the 1980 Groundwater Code, the annual deficit of groundwater pumping in central Arizona was 2.5 million acre-feet a year (afy). Although the majority of the water use was for subsidized cotton payments, the Legislature grandfathered the entire use and mandated that urban areas would have to find “renewable supplies.” In the legislators’ view, this legislation enabled federal funds for the expensive CAP project to bring water to Phoenix and Tucson. Needless to mention, the AZ legislators were all aglow at their success of bringing approximately 1.5 million afy of Colorado River water to the cities at no initial cost to AZ taxpayers. In other words, nothing was done to fix the situation that was causing the deficit, so it has continued. Then, after giving the groundwater away, the legislators told the cities that they had to have an assured, or renewable, water supply—meaning surface water, wastewater, etc. While it’s true that Phoenix does have a viable surface water supply from the Salt River, by 1980, Tucson’s Santa Cruz River was bone dry.

Even though the legislators effectively mandated that CAP water be had to be used in the Phoenix and Tucson regions, they did not provide any funds for the infrastructure to connect to the main CAP pipeline. Therefore, small water companies that were not near the pipeline still have not been able to hook up to the mandated water supply.

In addition, the legislators overlooked a gaping leak in their betrayal. Since the federal government put up the money for the CAP project, they considered they had the right to manage its waters. In 2004, the Department of Interior awarded 50% of the CAP allocation, 750,000 afy of water, to Indian tribes without any discussion Arizona authorities. The same good ole boys, who ignored the urban citizens’ water rights, surely had ignored Native Americans’ water rights too -— highlighting the flaw of putting the management of water on federal public lands in the hands of the States. So a 30-year legal battle in Arizona ended when the Native Americans, in a well-deserved triumph, were compensated for the pumping dry of their traditional water supplies by white men—it all went to cotton and alfalfa. Now, three tribes are growing subsidized cotton and alfalfa, following in the footsteps of their white neighbors, who still pump up to one-half of the groundwater in the state. [It’s impossible to get the exact number from our water agency!]

So the billion-dollar CAP system was meant for municipal use, although there was some guise that it would be used for agriculture. However, it was widely known that the agriculture sector would not use it instead of free groundwater. In the 28 years since 1980, the 2.5 million afy agricultural use translates to 70 million acre-feet of water total. Currently, municipal and industrial usage in all urban managed areas is just over 785,000 afy per year, so that 70 million acre-feet would have provided water for all urban Arizonans (at current population) and industry for 89 years.

Ramifications in Green Valley/Sahuarita area: No pipeline or funds were provided to Green Valley although two of the four water companies (Las Quintas and Farmers Water declined) did sign up for allocations and have been paying for those allocations for almost 25 years. To make matters worse, there were two mining companies and the pecan groves (FICO) that were grandfathered with over 60,000 afy of water use, although their pumping had already started noticeably lowering the water table. Again, note that even the water under our residents and our water companies is not protected. According to Arizona water law, agriculture’s rule is “Water under my property is mine, and water under your property is mine too.” Due to lawsuits in the early 1970s, FICO was able to obtain $150,000 annually from the Duval/Sierrita mining company as compensation for the mining water use, but that money was not put into any infrastructure to augment the water table, even though Dick Walden, FICO president, stated that a CAP pipeline to the pecan groves is the easiest solution.

Neither were the two water companies with allocations able to bill their customers to pay gradually for a CAP pipeline because of the “use and useful” clause of the Corporation Commission, who must approve any rate increase. Since the major water users had turned down CAP, the water companies’ allocations would hardly have affected the health of the aquifer. Result: we now have two entities fighting over providing a CAP pipeline. It looks like the water companies and FICO were waiting for a “water daddy” and they both found one. But we do have to question their motives!

STRIKE TWO: In 1995, under pressure from the development sector, the Arizona Legislature created the Central Arizona Groundwater Replenishment District (GRD). They put it under the wing of the Central Arizona Water Conservation District (CAWCD) to give it legitimacy, although GRD is the antithesis of water conservation. The CAWCD administers CAP water, although there were no CAP allocations available for the GRD. All the CAP water had been allocated, and the excess water would be available only for a “limited time”—and GRD was put next to bottom on the priority list. Unfortunately, that limited time has arrived for the 2009 contracts. No GRD new water in 2009.

According to the statute in the “managed” urban areas, new development must pass two steps for water certification. First, a 100 year water supply has to be available at that site, actually under the property. What if there is not water under the property—small matter, as the director of State Trust Land water department told me, “We can build anywhere; we just have to sign up with a water provider that has an assured water supply.” Meaning? The water levels will be averaged over the water company’s entire service area.

Second, there has to be replenishment with “renewable supplies,” meaning surface water or effluent—or join GRD. A Maricopa developer paid a law firm to assess their doubtful water future. The attorney’s advice “...you may ask yourself, how does Black Acre show compliance with the management goal? The answer is easy. Enroll Black Acre (less the golf course) in the Central Arizona Groundwater Replenishment District (GRD)...”

Although the assured water certificate is tied to the GRD, this part of the certification does not have the 100-year requirement. At the present, GRD has enough water for 20 years for the present number of members—and they are mandated by law to take on new members without any idea of where the water will come from or what the ultimate price for water will be!

To make matters worse, the “unknown source” of replenishment water can be put into the water table anywhere within the “managed” region. It is defies logic that the water can be replenished in another area, even another basin (as in the case of Avra Valley recharge facilities that do not drain into the Tucson Basin at all) with no chance of affecting the area that is being pumped dry. The small recharge basin at Pima Mine Road, with the capacity of 30,000 af, is the only CAP recharge in the Tucson Basin. And the capacity is being limited some 30% by the ASARCO/Cemex sand and gravel operations.

Nancy Freeman is a water conserva-tion activist. The views expressed are the writer’s own and do not reflect those of this newpaper.