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.