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?
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.
