We need to socialize the value of water

By Joe Gysel
President EPCOR Water USA

I agree that we need to high grade the action items and the two that we have identified to tackle immediately represent tough challenges that have been in play for a long time as well as the important attention to the appropriate funding of the Water Resources dept.  They send a good message that the group is both forward thinking and practical in its approach.

Personally I believe that the Kyl Center for Water policy can also fill a much needed role in socializing the value of water, it’s importance as well as the economic realities regarding cost of water and pricing.  As independent academic think tanks they can tackle sensitive issues that need to be discussed and addressed for Arizona to move to sustainable water supply and demand.  The Arizona Water Consciousness Challenge is the beginning of raising awareness and will need further ongoing support from both Morrison Institute and Kyl Center to gain meaningful ground and momentum on this topic.

Re the water action items short and medium term 3,4,5&6. It looks like you have combined some groupings and edited.  My comments are as follows:

Action 4 -  Increased use of treated waste water – Currently treated waste water is put to use at many facilities.  At EPCOR AZ, we are responsible for about 10.5 MGD of waste water.  All is treated to required standards with 4 MGD used for recharge, 3 MGD used of golf courses, water features/common areas (schools and parks) and 3.5MGD is sent to APS via Tolleson.  The move to direct potable has a number of benefits and moves us up the value chain however we do take away from other uses currently developed.  We need to address the whole picture including current uses for treated waste water.  States and countries ie Singapore where they are using direct potable are a response to a severe lack of water supply source. AZ is not there at this point in time so we need to focus on setting standards and socializing the acceptability of direct potable waste water reuse should we be faced with critical supply shortages.  The major issue is consumer acceptance and as we are fortunate not to be on the “burning platform” we should begin efforts to ensure future supply constraints which force alternate sources are socialized so that with Direct potable reuse is an acceptable result.

Action 5 – Conservation  (including messaging on water scarcity issue) – I raised the controversial issue of water pricing at our session.  There were pros and cons on priority from various members of the group.  I feel that it is an essential part of any conservation or sustainable consumption plan in order drive the right behavior.  As pointed out it is a very complicated subject however who better than Morrison Inst and Kyl Center to set the tone on the right pricing mechanisms.  If lead by private water it is viewed as greedy profits, if lead by municipalities it is another tax.  The cost of water will be going up in all areas.  CAP water will face increased costs of pumping based on Navajo generating station changes.  Desalination costs, while declining are still well above any costs we face for surface or ground water.   EPCOR’s cost of ground water at plant averages $.42-.72/kgal and current surface water treated at our White Tanks and Anthem plants averages $1.23 - $1.69/kgal based on current CAP pricing.  Ocean desalination by comparison currently ranges from $7-$10/kgal depending on energy costs.  These are all a plant gate costs so one can imagine the impacts on water rates and associated concerns by consumers if not prepared for prices that could increase 5 fold or more.
Further complicating the issue of pricing are the traditional rate structures that have bundled infrastructure costs with those of the commodity and tend to mask the true cost of water.  This makes it difficult to incent the right consumption behaviors as conservation efforts are largely driven through tiered pricing which puts utility financial stability at risk.
Water pricing needs to be part of this conversation and the value of water.  

Longer term – Action 7 - Augmentation of water resources.  In addition to looking at traditional models new funding mechanisms leveraging the private sector should be explored.  P3 projects continue to gain momentum in many infrastructure sectors including water and waste water.  Tightening  municipal, state and federal budgets make this form of project delivery attractive.  EPCOR recently won the $200M waste water treatment plant project in Regina Sask under this model.  The City of San Antonio recently approve their estimated $3.4 billion P3 contract to develop a new large scale water supply project for the city which will deliver 168,970 m3/day of water (50,000 acre-feet per year) through a 142 mile pipeline.  The consortium will deliver the project under a 30-year concession agreement which involves the design, build, finance, operation and maintenance of new production wells from the Carrizo and Simsboro Aquifers, pumping stations, raw water collection, storage tanks and transportation. For large infrastructure projects these delivery models present attractive alternatives and can supplement traditional models.
 

Updates on Kyl Water Center, new director's job

 By Thom Reilly, director of Morrison Institute for Public Policy

Thank you for your continued interest and participation in this foundational work of the Kyl Center for Water Policy at MI.  A recap of our meeting of October 24th is as follows:

• The group agreed that the first two priorities of Kyl Center for Water Policy should be: 1) exploring more efficient ways of resolving stream and other water rights adjudications and 2) identifying potential financing mechanisms for ADWR and later augmentation.  See the attached Draft Initial Plan for details. 
•  
• We will form small groups to further work on each of these two areas. We would like to expand the group to include all stakeholders. If you are interested in participating in either of these groups, or If you know of anyone else who should be brought into these discussions, please forward their names (and contact information if possible) to Dan Hunting at dan.hunting@asu.edu <mailto:dan.hunting@asu.edu>  . The group studying adjudications will meet on November 24th from 1 to 3 in the afternoon. The location for that meeting is yet to be determined.
• There was also consensus that the broad outlines of the solution framework set forth at the meeting can guide the Center’s work. Please see the attached Water Action Items document. We have formed an advisory board for the Kyl Center which will help guide us through our next steps. A list of board members has been attached.
• We will be posting notes from the meeting at the Kyl Center blog: http://mi-waterforum.blogspot.com/ <http://mi-waterforum.blogspot.com/> . Please feel free to continue our discussions in this online forum.
• The aforementioned framework will be rolled out as part of the official launch of the Kyl Center at Morrison Institute’s State of Our State Conference and Luncheon taking place on November 14th, from 8 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. at the Phoenix Airport Marriott, 1101 N. 44thStreet. Click here to register for the event. The State of Our State program will feature a discussion of Arizona’s Water Future (and the initial work of the Kyl Center) moderated by Grady Gammage and featuring panelists Michael Lacey, Sharon Megdal, Steve Seleznow, and Kathy Ferris.
• Finally, the job posting for the Director of the Kyl Center is attached below. Please circulate this widely to anyone you feel might be a good candidate for this important position. Feel free to refer any names to me directly at Thom.Reilly@asu.edu.
  

Requisition ID	9350BR
ASU Job Title	Director
Job Title	Director - Kyl Center for Water Policy
Campus/Location	Campus: Downtown Phoenix
Job Family	Generic
Department Name	Morrison Inst For Publc Policy
Full-Time/Part-Time	Full-Time
VP Code	VP/EXEC VICE PROV DPC
Scope of Search	Open
Grant Funded Position	This is not a grant funded position and is not contingent on future grant funding.
Category	04
Salary Range	Depends on experience
Close Date	November 21, 2014 is the initial close date. Applications will continue to be accepted and considered every week until the search is closed.
Job Description	In expanding its role as a water research resource, Morrison Institute for Public Policy at Arizona State University soon will be launching its Kyl Center for Water Policy at Morrison Institute, which will serve both water experts and the general public in addressing state and regional water challenges. While the specifics of the center are yet to be fully determined it will address the state’s most pressing water issues on an ongoing basis. To that end Morrison Institute is seeking an inaugural Director with broad-based knowledge of water-related issues in Arizona and the Southwest.
Essential Duties	The individual who fills the position will be responsible for, but not limited to, the following job-related tasks: Serve as Morrison Institute’s director and principal investigator for all water-related projects. Directs and oversees the Kyl Center staff. Identify and pursue appropriate water related grant proposals. Generate ideas for water-related research projects beneficial to Arizona and manage all research activities. Serve as Morrison Institute’s spokesperson on all water-related issues. Serve as Morrison’s representative with other statewide water executives. Meet regularly with – and seek guidance from - the Kyl Center advisory board. Direct the education and public-outreach components of the Kyl Center. Direct the development, launch and updates of the Morrison Water Index.
Minimum Qualifications	Bachelor's degree in a field appropriate to the area of assignment AND eight (8) years of related administrative experience, which includes five (5) years of supervisory experience; OR, Twelve (12) years of related administrative experience, which includes five (5) years of supervisory experience; OR, Any equivalent combination of education and/or experience from which comparable knowledge, skills and abilities have been achieved.
Desired Qualifications	Evidence of a Bachelor’s or Master’s degree in a water-related discipline. Minimum of five (5) years of experience working in a water-related position. Experience and expertise in designing, organizing and giving formal presentations. Broad knowledge of water issues, preferably with an emphasis on Western U.S. water policy. Experience in the development of grant proposals. Knowledge of management and supervisory principles and practices. Knowledge of strategic planning principles and practices. Skill in planning, analyzing and coordinating activities and establishing priorities. Skill in effectively managing, supervising and evaluating assigned staff. Skill in program design and development. Skill in both verbal and written communication. Skill in establishing and maintaining effective working relationships.
Working Environment	Activities are performed in an environmentally controlled office setting subject to extended periods of sitting, keyboarding and manipulating a computer mouse; required to stand for varying lengths of time and walk moderate distances to perform work. Occasional bending, reaching, lifting, pushing and pulling up to 25 pounds. Regular activities require ability to quickly change priorities, which may include and/or are subject to resolution of conflicts. Ability to clearly communicate verbally, read, write, see and hear to perform essential functions.
Department Statement	Morrison Institute for Public Policy is a statewide leader in examining critical issues for Arizona and the region, and is a catalyst for public dialogue. An Arizona State University resource, Morrison Institute uses nonpartisan research, analysis and public outreach to help improve the state's quality of life. Morrison Institute was established in 1982 through a grant from Marvin and June Morrison of Gilbert, Arizona, in response to the state’s growing need for objective research on public policy issues. Through its history, Morrison Institute has conducted important work on topics that span education reform, water resources, health care, human services, urban growth, government structure, arts and culture, technology, quality of life, public finance, environment, sustainability, and economic development.
ASU Statement	Arizona State University is a new model for American higher education, an unprecedented combination of academic excellence, entrepreneurial energy and broad access. This New American University is a single, unified institution comprising four differentiated campuses positively impacting the economic, social, cultural and environmental health of the communities it serves. Its research is inspired by real world application blurring the boundaries that traditionally separate academic disciplines. ASU serves more than 80,000 students in metropolitan Phoenix, Arizona, the nation's fifth largest city. ASU champions intellectual and cultural diversity, and welcomes students from all fifty states and more than one hundred nations across the globe. ASU is a tobacco-free university. For details visit www.asu.edu/tobaccofree Arizona State University is a VEVRAA Federal Contractor and an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer. All qualified applicants will be considered without regard to race, color, sex, religion, national origin, disability, protected veteran status, or any other basis protected by law.
Employment Verification Statement	ASU conducts pre-employment screening which may include verification of work history, academic credentials, licenses, and certifications.
Fingerprint Check Statement	This position is considered safety/security sensitive and will include a fingerprint check. Employment is contingent upon successful passing of the fingerprint check.
Instructions to Apply	Application deadline is 3:00PM Arizona time on the date indicated. Resumes should clearly illustrate how prior knowledge and experience meet the minimum and desired qualifications stated in this requisition. Only electronic applications are accepted. ASU does not pay for travel expenses associated with interviews, unless otherwise indicated.

McCann: Completing general stream adjudications a necessary step

Tom McCann

This comment is in response to Grady Gammage's Oct. 1 post:

Here is a framework for looking at the subject that came to me during the first meeting.  I don't know if others will find it useful or not.

If the question is adequacy of water supply (quantity, quality, reliability, etc.), then the answer will necessarily vary from one community/water provider to the next. Arguably, every Arizona community/provider falls into one of three broad categories:

(1)    Areas that have adequate water supplies to meet their needs today and into the reasonably foreseeable future.
(2)    Areas that have adequate water supplies to meet current needs, but not to satisfy projected growth.
(3)    Areas that do not have adequate water supplies to meet current needs, let alone future growth.

(Could there even be a fourth category: areas that have more water than they need for the foreseeable future? If so, it is unlikely that anyone would admit to being in that situation.)

A first step would be to determine which category each community/provider falls into. Much of that work has already been done by ADWR (Strategic Vision, AZ Water Atlas) and the WRDC.

The challenge then is to find a solution to the water supply needs for each community/provider without creating new problems or exacerbating existing problems for other communities/providers—i.e., to avoid picking winners or creating losers.

Potential solutions can include augmentation, conservation, watershed management, transfers (as long as the transfer does not create a problem on the other end), etc. The solution toolkit is generally well known, but not all solutions are applicable or economically feasible for all areas—i.e., it's not one-size-fits-all; individual solution sets will need to be identified for each area.  Virtually all solutions will require substantial funding.

To me, completing the general stream adjudications is not a "solution" per se, but is a necessary step in determining which of the categories above a community/provider falls into.

Help frame the conversation about water

Grady Gammage Jr.

Last week’s discussion was great, and we’d like to thank everyone for such terrific participation.  Obviously, this is difficult stuff.  Our goal at MI has just been to try and find a way to identify the major water issues facing Arizona, and then give those issues some sense of priority.  Figuring out the order in which we should face challenges is, however, not simple.  As we learned last week, it isn’t even easy to decide what an “issue” is, and how to separate issues from one another.

Several people in the meeting had framework ideas that might help all of us think about the structure of our conversation.  We talked about the need to separate “issues to be resolved” from “potential solutions to be explored.”  Steve Seleznow, for example, offered the suggestion that we think about separating our conversation into:  Guiding principles; Adjacent (to guiding) goals; aspirational ideas; out of bounds stuff.  Tom McCann had a different, and potentially useful framework (which I now don’t remember:  TOM—write up your concept for everyone!).

We’ll push out a summary of the meeting, and as we discussed, we’ll try to get everyone to weigh in digitally on potential prioritization of issues so that we can discuss it in the next meeting.  But we’d like all of you to suggest other ways in which we might seek to give some structure to our conversation.  So if you have ideas on how to bring order out of chaos, please submit your framework for everyone to think about.
 

Summary notes from Sept. 26 meeting

 

Morrison Institute for Public Policy

Arizona Water Policy Discussion

September 26, 2014

Rio Salado Audubon Center, Phoenix

Summary of Meeting

Welcome from Richard N. Morrison

Call to Action by Senator Kyl: 

1.              There are clear issues with regard to water policy in Arizona.  What are the top issues to resolve?  What needs to be done?

2.              What is the best way to discuss the possible resolutions to these issues?  A neutral forum is important, and leadership by the private sector has accomplished major policy changes such as the CAP.

3.              How can educating the legislature on these issues be accomplished?

4.              Who needs to be involved with this discussion?

ADWR Perspective by Director Michael Lacey:

Strategic Vision (2014):  http://www.azwater.gov/AzDWR/Arizonas_Strategic_Vision/

Main issues for this group is to prioritize and add structure to the water discussion.

Specific issues raised in the Governor’s Strategic Vision (above) include:

a.              Resolving Federal/non-Federal water rights

b.              Water conservation plan

c.               Direct potable re-use

d.              Need for data on specific water use in AZ (currently a “mosh pit”)

e.              Sea water desalinization – perhaps 20-30 years before needed but process needs to be put in motion

f.               Build coalitions to make these changes happen

g.              Prioritize and add structure to

Morrison Institute:  Online Survey Findings

Handout (attached)

Defining Arizona’s Water Priorities:

1.              “Process” notes:

 

a.              Words and phrases used in summary need to be defined

b.              This process will only work if everyone is cognicent and respectful of each other’s viewpoint

c.               Group needs to establish credibility

d.              Need to operate as a consensus

e.              Long and short term goals – all the items can have both

f.               Some of the topics are inextricably intertwined with others (such as “augmentation” and “infrastructure funding” and “water transfers”)

g.              Maybe divide priorities into “challenges” and “solutions”?

h.              Maybe have opening statement to any list with agreed-upon precepts (fairness and equity across the state, economics of water need to be revisited), then specific priorities?

i.                Some terms need to be avoided because of the politics involved (anything with “water transfer” in it would be DOA at state leg)

j.                Educating the state legislature is a key first step – how you do things is as important as what you do. 

k.              Needs to be balance between rural and urban, and other divisions of water users to make these prioritization decisions

2.              Priorities:

a.              Augmentation:  for municipal uses, and needs to be broader than just the Colorado River water

b.              Colorado River sustainability and reliability: (changed from “shortages” to reflect the short and long term issues related to it)

c.               Water rights uncertainty/Adjudication or other mechanism for clarifying/resolving water rights:  there needs to be clarity on water rights;  to a certain extent, augmentation would solve this issue. 

(1)          Why deal with this since these cases have been litigated for 40+ years now?

(2)          Settling the case outside of court, or using a consent decree following mediation/arbitration is most useful model (but courts still slow to grant consent decrees)

(3)          Wyoming (?) has a good model

(4)          Salt River case – AZ state administrator sat with small water users and settled claims, presented to court for consent decree to be issued

(5)          ADWR’s jurisdiction and funding to function as expert to the court is important (budget for ADWR cut in half since 2008).  ADWR needs to provide technical support to the court.

(6)          Senator Kyl has been a leader on resolution of these complex issues (sides agree to compromise, settle)

(7)          Idaho recently celebrated successful change to its adjudication process

(8)          Key issues:  lack of clarity between surface water rights and ground water rights (AZ uses 1/3 surface, 1/3 CAP, 1/3 groundwater)

(9)          ADWR seen as somewhat “threatening” to rural water interests

(10)      Kyl:  educating state on the need for state courts to be active in this area is key – if federal courts involved, federal water rights may then be fully served which would result in rural areas being cut off

(11)      Add full time “water judge” to state court with ADWR serving as technical experts?

d.              Develop a state water vision that is dynamic and diverse and addresses the state and region (combination of unclassified responses #3, 4, and 5):  need to get away from viewing water policy as a competition between rural and urban interests.  There needs to be management and a management plan for non-AMA areas (Yuma presents additional challenges).

e.              Watershed management:  if this is on a good track, issue is how this group can support it?  22 different planning basins in AZ – is that a good approach? 

f.               Financial concerns

g.              Infrastructure:  two types – maintaining present infrastructure + building new infrastructure

h.              Preservation of irrigated commercial agriculture

i.                Change ADWR’s jurisdiction, mandate or funding

j.                Education of leadership, business leaders, citizens

Next Steps:

Survey will be sent to everyone for additional time to review and comment on prioritization

Next meeting set for October 24, 2014 from 9:30 a.m. to noon at Arizona Community Foundation, 2201 E. Camelback Road, Phoenix. Phone: 602-381-1400.