Let's Talk Water

Wednesday, June 27, 2012

Let's Talk Water: Series 1, No. 4 / June 2012

What’s being said about Arizona water policy

By Jim Holway

Director of Western Lands and Communities

A Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and Sonoran Institute joint venture

What are our key water policy choices?

What values underlie these choices?

Will we face difficult tradeoffs between different uses of water?

What are our priorities and our major challenges?

Eighty individuals plus a number of facilitators gathered to discuss these questions during a half-day workshop held prior to the Water Resources Research Center’s annual conference in January. The Sonoran Institute, in collaboration with Morrison Institute for Public Policy and with funding from the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy sponsored this workshop. A lively discussion ensued on the fundamental policy and value choices we will face about water in the Sun Corridor, on the driving forces that will shape these choices and on the tradeoffs that we may ultimately need to make concerning how we supply and use our water.

Grady Gammage Jr. opened with his recent Morrison Institute Watering the Sun Corridor report and the Sonoran Institute’s Joe Marlow discussed driving forces of change. The afternoon focused on small group discussions to dive deeper into four areas of water use that we believed would illustrate key policy and value choices for our region: agriculture, household, urban amenities and public areas, and the natural environment. A fact sheet, brief descriptions for each of these issues, and the Watering the Sun Corridor report had been distributed to all participants prior to the workshop.

Key messages I heard included:

· Strong support for continued agriculture

· Increased priority for natural environment water uses, and

· A need for increased dialogue and public engagement on water issues

The workshop highlights below were compiled from keypad polling of the entire group and notes from discussions among diverse groups of six to eight people at 11 separate tables. Throughout the afternoon we alternated between brief presentations and 30- to 40-minute small group discussions. Keypad polling questions interspersed throughout the afternoon were designed to solicit ad-hoc responses, illuminate key values and provoke discussion. This instant polling and the table discussions of a self-selected audience certainly do not qualify as a systematic or random sample; they do, however, provide food for thought and identify interesting areas for further work and dialogue.

The participants were evenly split between Pima and Maricopa county residents with approximately 12 percent from outside central Arizona. Participants indicated they represented the following sectors:

Education 27%

Environmental group 19%

Business/agriculture/industry 14%

Municipal provider/city 13%

Citizen 13%

Civic organization 5%

Other 10%

Finally, there was clearly a large number of “water buffalos” in the room – with 45 percent of participants indicating they had been at “too many water meetings to count” in the last two years, another 10 percent at more than five meetings and only 10 percent indicating this was their first water meeting in the last two years.

The first tasks at the 11 tables were to identify the priority water policy topics for each participant, to discuss what issues they were most concerned about, and to discuss whether the Watering the Sun Corridor report identified the most important water policy choices.

We captured the approximately 50 different issues identified and combined these into 14 broad topics. In the final round of small group discussions, participants considered whether any additional topics needed to be included, at which point three additional topics were added.

These resulting 17 priority water policy issues and water uses were:

1) Future of Agriculture & Water Use

2) Future Economy & Industrial Uses of Water

3) Water & Growth

4) Lifestyle of Affluence & Household Uses of Water

5) Aesthetics & Public (Urban Environment) Uses of Water

6) The Natural Environment & Uses of Water

7) Economics of Water & Water Pricing

8) Securing New Water Supplies

9) Energy Production and Water Use

10) Water Policy Decision Making Process

11) Water Education

12) Equity

13) Water Conservation & Effluent Reuse

14) Climate Change & Variability

15) Water Quality

16) Prioritizing Water for Local Needs

17) Ensuring Water Sustainability for Arizona

Using the keypad polling, participants voted for the five issues they considered top priorities to be addressed. Six of these 17 issues clearly came out on top and are listed below in priority order:

· Natural environment

· Water policy decision making

· Economics & water pricing

· Climate change & variability

· Ensuring water sustainability

· Water & growth

Notably, private landscape uses of water and urban amenity uses of water, two topics highlighted in the workshop, received the lowest number of top five issue votes.

Additional results included:

· A majority of the participants recognized that some agricultural water would likely move to urban uses, but they put a priority on maintaining a viable production agriculture economy in central Arizona.

· Water for the natural environment was identified as a top priority water issue both in the keypad polling and during the individual table discussions. This unusual result for Arizona water discussions was, I believe, not simply the result of who attended the workshop but does in fact represent an evolving shift in Arizona’s water discourse.

· Participants also indicated a significant willingness to pay to sustain natural areas.

· A majority of participants supported reducing household water use and, perhaps surprisingly, elected to do so using “all” tools – including regulatory approaches.

· When asked to prioritize eight different categories of water use, allocating water for new growth was by far the lowest priority. As would be expected, providing sufficient water to meet basic household needs was by far the top priority.

Participants overwhelmingly supported some basic assumptions behind the workshop. Granted, there is a selection bias in terms of who attended the workshop, but I was surprised by the high level of agreement registered in the concluding votes:

· Future water scarcity will require difficult water allocation and management choices (52% strongly agreed, 35% agreed).

· Increasing uncertainty about supply and demand will require that we develop mechanisms to address uncertainty (63% strongly agreed, 27% agreed).

· Future water management will benefit greatly from broader civic engagement on the fundamental values and policy choices that underlie water management decisions (64% strongly agreed, 23% agreed).

In the concluding small group discussions, issues related to insufficient water management capacity and decision making were the most frequently discussed topic, highlighted at six of the 11 tables.

This workshop was an initial step in the Sonoran Institute’s efforts to advance a broad-based dialogue on water in the Sun Corridor. Our goal is to engage a larger community of organizations, individuals, and leaders; to consider the fundamental value and policy choices involved; and to move toward an agreed “vision” that can guide our future water policy choices.

Jim Holway is director of Western Lands and Communities, a joint venture of the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and Sonoran Institute. Further information on the Tucson water workshop, as well as the issue briefs, presentations, participant characteristics, keypad polling results and summaries of the discussions, are contained on the Sonoran Institute website at: http://www.sonoraninstitute.org/watering-the-sun-corridor-workshop.html

Established in 1982, Morrison Institute for Public Policy is a leader in examining critical Arizona and regional issues, and is a catalyst for public dialogue. An Arizona State University resource, Morrison Institute uses nonpartisan research and communication outreach to help improve the state’s quality of life.

Wednesday, May 9, 2012

Let's Talk Water: Series 1, No. 3 / May 2012

Should Arizona Preserve Agriculture?

By Richard Morrison

Morrison Institute Board Chairman

Should any effort be made to preserve agriculture in central Arizona?

This is one of the questions reported by Grady Gammage, Jr. in his initial invitation to participate in the Let’s Talk Water series on the future of Arizona’s Precious Resource. In turn, Grady was reporting this question as being one of the complex choices Arizona faces, as identified by the participants in the January statewide conference in Tucson, Watering the Sun Corridor; Managing Choices in Arizona’s Megapolitan Area, co-sponsored by Morrison Institute for Public Policy and the Water Resources Research Center at the University of Arizona.

Certain assumptions must be made about the question itself. I assume, for example, that the question does not contemplate “preserving” agriculture in the sense that some ambitious 501 (c)(3) will fund the acquisition of development rights on vast tracks of farmland near Phoenix or even actively promote conservation reserves that seek to preserve the aesthetic aspects of well-tended fields and the psychologically desirable attributes of open space.

Rather, I think the question invites attention to the relative economic importance of agriculture in relation to the potential economic benefits of more growth in central Arizona, and the question may also contemplate some consideration of the possible strategic importance of preserving domestic agricultural production in Arizona, as well as in the United States generally. The idea of strategic importance questions becoming dependent upon off-shore sources for food and other agricultural commodities where they can be produced more economically than is possible within the capital-intensive context of U.S. farming.

It has to be admitted that open space is appealing to many people, perhaps most. Indeed, Hermann Kahn and the Hudson Institute published a widely read report in the early 1980s stating that most people move to Arizona because of the relatively quick access to open space. Shortly after that, an Arizona State University geography professor made an interesting if impractical suggestion that the Salt River Valley development pattern should thereafter utilize a checkerboard pattern so that every section of urban space would be next to a section of farm land. However much urban dwellers may have liked that idea, commercial-scale farmers knew that would not work, and of course no one volunteered to bear the direct and indirect costs such a development pattern would generate for both the urban residents and the farmers.

So I believe the question is actually focused on the urban fringe, and beyond. What are the benefits to city dwellers in having irrigated agriculture nearby? Answer: environmental benefits from reducing the carbon footprint of farm to market activity, relatively low transportation costs (think lower cost to the consumer) and demonstrable (traceable) food quality.

In Arizona, one of the most important examples involves the delivery of fresh milk and other dairy products to a growing population. Indeed, while milk is probably the most obvious example that can be given, the “buy local” movement that is sweeping the country is obviously also interested in being able to ascertain the food quality of beef, other meat products and vegetables, as well.

Those who see agriculture as the water-related safety net for an expanding urban population (or for the existing population during times of extreme drought) are focused on the idea that agricultural water use should continue until that water is needed elsewhere. In truth, this is not so very controversial on the urban fringe, where farmers have and probably desire to have the option of selling their land for development purposes. The safety net idea is much more threatening farther out, in rural Arizona, where the idea of water transfers to satisfy an expanding and thirsty urban population can be life-threatening to local economies.

Economists who advocate market-based solutions to water-use questions are not likely to think of on-farm applications of water as the highest and best use for that water, reminding us of the old adage that water flows to money. One published study written by Robert Glennon, Sharon Megdal and others at the University of Arizona states as follows:

“Economic research has identified large potential gains from transfers of water out of agriculture to other sectors. Water commands substantially higher prices in urban uses. In one analysis of 2,154 water transfers between 1987 and 2005 in 12 Western states, study authors reported significantly higher prices for agriculture-to-urban trades compared to agriculture-to-agriculture trades — two to four times higher on average. Because water can command much higher prices for urban uses than for irrigated agriculture, there are significant economic incentives for transferring water out of agriculture to cities.”

I think that is a rather typical point of view held by free market economists generally. I know a lot of us like to think of ourselves as free-market people, but then when it comes to water, we may find ourselves thinking, “Hey, not so fast!”

In rural Arizona (as elsewhere), access to water and clean air are viewed as basic human rights because both are fundamentally important to life itself. Wherever people live, they want to know that they will have access to water in the future. “Free market transfers” may sound good in theory, but to the rural resident, it sounds like a policy that favors the rich.

So, depending upon the location and the context, the safety net idea may have social and ethical dimensions not well considered by city-dwellers. These dimensions should also be a part of the conversation in this series, and in our state.

Richard Morrison is chairman of the Morrison Institute for Public Policy Board of Advisors. His family, which founded Morrison Institute 30 years ago, are known for their works in ranching, farming and development. He also is a lawyer whose practice focuses on water law, environmental law and agriculture.

Wednesday, April 11, 2012

Let's Talk Water: Series 1, No. 2 / April 2012

Water: Are We Running Out?

By Grady Gammage Jr.

Morrison Institute Senior Fellow

One of the big questions raised in the January water conference in Tucson was whether urban Arizona is running out of water any time soon. A litany of recent books and reports would lead you to think it is. These include Bill DeBuys’ recent A Great Aridness, as well as a series of recent reports from the Natural Resources Defense Council, Sustainlane.com, CQ Researcher, The Stockholm Environmental Institute, and Ceres consulting. Against this backdrop, the Morrison Institute’s Watering the Sun Corridor report was intended to take a realistic look at urban Arizona’s water supply and demand.

The bottom line of that report is that the Sun Corridor has a relatively reliable set of water inputs amounting to about 2.4 million to 2.5 million square feet of water annually. This number is derived by aggregating the current water sources, the extent to which their reliability is enhanced by storage, and other management tools, and by assuming a 15% reduction in supply for the potential impact of climate change. These may not be all the right assumptions, but so far this number has not been widely challenged by people who have reviewed the report.

Equally unchallenged is the recognition that currently the Sun Corridor is using more than 3.2 million acre feet of water in an average year. Everyone essentially concedes that we are currently using more water than is sustainable on a long-term basis. The difference continues to be made up by pumping groundwater, an exhaustible resource. But the “urban uses” in the Sun Corridor —which for these purposes we defined as everything other than commercially irrigated agriculture —only amount to about 1.3 million acre feet a year. Between the 1.3 million and the “sustainable” 2.4 million number there is room for urban Arizona to grow pretty dramatically. Further, the current urban uses of 1.3 million acre feet represent a per capita urban use of well over 200 gallons per capita per day. More efficient reuse of household water and limiting of the amount of water used by outdoor landscaping could stretch that use significantly further.

Here was the water supply/demand chart from the Sun Corridor report:

Water Supply	1,800,000af	2,000,000af	2,200,000af
Per Capita Use	Approximate Population
200 GPCD (.22 af/yr)	8,182,000	9,100,000	10,000,000
150 GPCD (.17 af/yr)	10,588,000	11,765,000	12,941,000

But these population numbers assume the elimination of all agriculture within the Sun Corridor and the migration of water to urban uses. There are good policy arguments for not doing that. We will talk about those in a future series report. But apart from the policy arguments, the reality is that the Gila River Indian Community all on its own may decide it wants to continue using a very large block of water for farming far beyond the 2030 or 2040 growth range. As part of the settlement of the dispute of the funding of the CAP and the Indian tribes claims against waters of the Gila, the Gila River Indian Community received the right to more than 650,000 acre feet of water. They can lease that water to urban uses within Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal Counties, or they can use the water to continue to farm. Undoubtedly leasing it for urban uses will be more lucrative in the long term. But suppose they decided that 500,000 acre feet of water should be forever dedicated to agriculture in the Sun Corridor, then the chart would look like this, on reducing the urban supply:

Water Supply	1,300,000af	1,500,000af	1,700,000af
Per Capita Use	Approximate Population
200 GPCD (.22 af/yr)	5,909,000	6,818,000	7,727,000
150 GPCD (.17 af/yr)	7,647,000	8,823,000	10,000,000

So, if we assume the “low” range of water supply is reduced by 500,000 acre feet for farming, at current urban consumption levels (200 gpcd) we are down to a sustainable population of only about 6 million. That does not leave a lot of room for future growth. (2011 estimate of Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal counties is just under 5.2 million population.)

Clearly, there are reasons to start focusing on the Sun Corridor’s water future.

Grady Gammage, Jr. served on the Central Arizona Project Board of Directors for 12 years. In addition to being a senior fellow at Morrison Institute, Gammage is a lawyer, an author, a part-time academic, a land-use expert and a senior sustainability scholar at the ASU Global Institute of Sustainability.