“There is no lack of water here, unless you try to establish a city where no city should be.” — Edward Abbey
Asked to write about Arizona and water, I fear I will disappoint. My take is now too idiosyncratic, too impossible for the state's residents to even contemplate or for the economic and political elites to allow. Still, a reader asks; I'll deliver and at least start a conversation/argument.
In its particulars, Arizona's water issues are complicated, making them inaccessible to a population with lower levels of education and civic involvement, as well as little connection to the state's history. They did not, as I did, grow up with water — my mother working as part of the effort to win the Central Arizona Project. In general, Arizona's water issues are stark and simple: The state can't sustain double-digit percentage population increases every decade, particularly in subdivisions apart from historic urban footprints. This statement is anathema to the Real Estate Industrial Complex and what passes for an "economy" that Arizonans keep looking to resuscitate. But wait... In reality, Arizona probably doesn't have the water to support its current population for long. Beyond these basics, it's all over but the shouting.
Here's what I don't trust: The state Department of Water Resources or its active water management areas. The risks of compromise to water rules by the development elite is too great, exacerbated by continued under-funding of state government. And the 100-year supply "rule" for new development? Even if it's enforced what does it mean? One thing it does, because water is divorced from land-use regulations, is to cause a land rush to lock up aquifers that have taken eons to create — all to provide the illusion of security so another "master planned community" can expand out beyond the White Tanks. Meanwhile, much of the state lacks even this suspect oversight. Mojave County, notorious for its lack of water, was a hotspot for wildcat exurban sprawl before the housing collapse.
Here's what I don't trust: Outsiders who want to throw down gravel and destroy the historic oasis of central Phoenix, claiming the moral high ground ("we live in a desert") while contributing mightily to the heat island, dehumanization and ugliness of the city. They are knowing or ignorant tools of the sprawl barons, who want the water for their new tract housing, lakes and golf courses. I don't trust the smug assertions that a square mile of tract houses uses less water than the same amount of agriculture. For one thing, it doesn't account for pools, golf courses and other residential water uses. Second, it doesn't factor in the added warming all those roofs and concrete add. I don't trust the prophets of cool sidewalks and all other technological elixirs that somehow always **poof** magically allow us to keep building single-family tract houses farther and farther out from city and town centers. Does Palo Verde, the only nuke plant not near a body of water and America's largest, just use treated wastewater? Do most of the solar panaceas offered for rural Arizona need no water? (And please don't tell me quality solar can work with little water — when does Arizona do anything quality or insist on regulation). How, exactly, will those saving-grace desalination plants of the future be paid for and what will be their environmental side-effects?
Nobody wants to know the truth about Arizona's water situation. It is the third rail. It was one of the biggest reasons that even my supposed powerful "friends" were happy to see, and perhaps hasten, the end of my column in the Arizona Republic.
Here's what I know: The Colorado River is oversubscribed. It can't support the population that depends on it now, much less added growth. The paralyzed federal government would not build a second CAP canal ("pork"), as some dream, even if the water was there. The Upper Basin states (and Mexico) will never allow themselves to get fleeced again by California, Arizona and (now) Las Vegas. The Pimas have gained substantial control over Gila River water and other rights, and they don't want to build subdivisions. The exurban boom of the 1990s and 2000s has left a quiet groundwater and stream water crisis in many parts of Arizona, particularly in the Verde Valley. Groundwater continues to be pumped out of Pinal County, as it has for decades, and yet that county's only economic development strategy is more sprawl. The water supplies to underwrite a massive Superstition Vistas or Buckeye of half-a-million people simply aren't there, even if the Growth Machine could magically heal its lethal wounds of debt, oversupply, etc.
I know another thing: The renewable water supplies of the Salt River Project are at risk from climate change and its effect on snow melt. It's obvious now that lacking American leadership, the world's strategy for addressing climate change is: Tough luck. Among the many ruinous consequences will be a rising number of extremely hot seasons in the American Southwest. While it would be nice to fantasize that the "change" might mean more snow and rainfall for the High Country, the opposite is far more likely. As this happens, the last bulwark of central Arizona's water starts to come under increasing pressure. (And one must wonder if the Sonoran Desert can retain its remarkable lushness and ecological diversity with less rain, or the future of the forests). Fortunately for the stand-patters, none of this will likely happen quickly. So the only fierce urgency will be of "no!" — to any meaningful effort to address the crisis bearing down on Arizona.
My solutions? 1) Stop all exurban development; 2) Stop all development outside the real urban footprints of cities and towns — that means no more Pinal or Buckeye sprawl; 3) Shrink the state's population through taxes, "anti-business" regulations and whatever other creative solution someone can reach (the heat may do this anyway); 4) Price water extremely high outside the SRP footprint and a few other quasi-sustainable areas; 5) Start to return much of metro Phoenix's fringes to natural desert — yes, tear down the crap; 6) Get a real handle on the state's water resources, based on science, not the venal appetite of the Growth Machine; 7) Fill in the old SRP footprint with high-quality dense development that includes plenty of shade tree and grass oases but also building based on Spanish and Moorish models rather than American tract houses with large expanses out front; also, with much less pavement 8) Tax the fringe areas to encourage migration either out of state or into the dense SRP footprint or other such areas. 9) Shut down any golf course built after 1970; 10) Have statewide, airtight water regulations. Not the least impediment to realizing these solutions would be building an economy based on more than sprawl. So...no chance.
I do miss an Arizona of choices and balance. When Phoenix had a lovely old city of trees and lawns, new development and golf within reason, and (cooling) agriculture. When Tucson was its own compact entity, so different and (to a Phoenician) exotic — and beautiful in its special desert way just as Phoenix was the green oasis. When the toffs in Paradise Valley had their expensive, authentic desert landscaping, which was beautiful too and not an excuse to throw down gravel everyplace without money. When rural Arizona was tiny towns huddled together against the wilderness and dependent on the railroads, ranches, mills and mines. All this required far fewer people for its perpetuation. And the poisons we keep pumping into the atmosphere probably might have doomed it eventually anyway.
It's extraordinary that we, in the valley, never discuss water issues and when they come up they are quickly dismissed.
For anyone living in Phoenix for at least the last 2-3 decades the change in temperatures has been noticeable, reaching uncomfortable highs, but the growth and hard pavement keep going, with never a sound of restrictions on water use.
Even the cost of water does nothing to impede wasteful use, quite the opposite.
Posted by: Artur Ciesielski | July 19, 2010 at 02:28 PM
"Major cities in the Phoenix AMA also use effluent for landscape and golf course watering."
http://www.adwr.state.az.us/azdwr/StatewidePlanning/WaterAtlas/ActiveManagementAreas/PlanningAreaOverview/WaterSupplyEffluent.htm
Effluent = reclaimed wastewater (non-potable but suitable for restricted use)
Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | July 19, 2010 at 03:19 PM
P.S. Effluent is also used in power generation.
It turns out that there's a lot of unused effluent:
"Since effluent production is tied directly to population, population growth generally leads to increased effluent supply. However, lack of infrastructure to deliver effluent to potential users is often a limiting factor."
So, another step in the right direction would be to invest in the infrastructure that allows full use of available effluent for non-drinking water needs such as power plants (including solar) and other industrial plants, golf-courses and landscaping, agricultural irrigation, toilet tanks, decorative fake ponds at apartment complexes, and so forth. (Effluent, Fountain Hills?)
Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | July 19, 2010 at 03:29 PM
Incidentally, the Stanford study Mr. Talton hyperlinks to is based on the assumption that increased carbon dioxide emissions will raise the Earth’s temperature by 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit (1 degree Celsius) between 2010 and 2039.
Just painting all the roofs White in Phoenix could reduce the city's temperature by almost 1 degree Fahrenheit. This would also decrease water usage.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35125043/ns/us_news-environment/
Note that Phoenix doesn't have to worry about increased winter heating use due to cooler building interiors.
Here's an alternative link to the Stanford study that works:
http://www.stanford.edu/group/knowledgebase/cgi-bin/2010/07/14/u-s-heatwaves-could-be-commonplace-by-2039-scientists-warn/
Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | July 19, 2010 at 03:40 PM
P.S. Infrastructure investment designed to increase effluent use would probably be possible under a number of federally funded grants. So, we needn't posit unlikely scenarios, such as the Kookocracy raising taxes, to make headway on this problem.
Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | July 19, 2010 at 03:47 PM
Another idea, this one a bit far-out but possible:
Arizona gets its freshwater from snowmelt. When the aquifers are full, vast amounts of freshwater are released to water the deserts via canals and washes. While some of that returns to the water table, much is beyond reclamation (e.g., by wells). Vast amounts of snowmelt are lost this way also.
Note that the issue is being able to make use of total snowmelt and rainfall when it becomes available, not the total amounts of snowmelt and rainfall. We sometimes see cyclonic downpours over short periods, but find ourselves unable to make use of it because storage capacity (then or later during snowmelt) is temporarily overwhelmed.
So, the idea is simple: increase storage aquifer volume. That's a mammoth project but could generate large numbers of jobs for years to come; and since much of the labor would be manual it could easily siphon off undocumented workers from urban areas where jobs are scarce (and likely to remain so), thus releaving immigration pressures to some extent.
Again, federal funding might well come to the rescue. Arizona keeps crapping out where stimulus funding is concerned. Roof-painting, effluent infrastructure, and aquifer creation projects are all good candidates for a well-written grant proposal. All could create large numbers of jobs. Of course, the Kookocracy would have to admit that the government is good for something; maybe that's asking too much from them.
Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | July 19, 2010 at 04:26 PM
Emil, I'm going to wing this but you really don't need to make a major project out of groundwater storage. During the last wet winter, over six hundred thousand acre feet of runoff was released from the Salt and Verde reservoirs, flowing down to the Painted Rock reservoir. About 80% of that runoff seeped into the water table before it even got there. http://www.azcentral.com/members/Blog/ShaunMcKinnon/tag/1630
Groundwater is a better place for storage than a reservoir since evaporation is not an issue. That's one reason why CAP water going to Tucson is used to recharge the groundwater. There's no need to engineer groundwater storage; farmers here have long relied on aquifers to irrigate their fields.
Posted by: soleri | July 19, 2010 at 05:10 PM
Hi everyone. Is it hot enough for you? Ha Ha. I've always loved that one. Too bad I'm usually not "packing" when someone askes me that question. Otherwise, I would be a long time guest at that facility in Florence.
People in AZ need to be subjected to an experience that I have on a regular basis. In my mountain hideaway, we have a water district. A few years ago we had a person in our water district abusing his water usage. (he was from Tucson, so probably a U of Hey grad, thus, low wattage brain) Anywho, we implimented a punitive rate schedule and we fixed him real fast. He is Mr. Water conservative now. All it took was a couple of huge water bills and he was, all of a sudden, a water conservationist. The sad part of the story is that my wife, accidently left a hose trickling for two weeks and we were hit with a $700 water bill. The point is that dollar pain hurts and it realigns water usage and water habits.
Now, being a long time Arizonan, I like Jon's plan, first, get all the damn people to leave. However, short of that, we have no choice but to use "pain in the wallet" to fix the blatant misuse of water in this DESERT.
I am not a "doomer" like my brother in law, but I am close. I foresee a time when I will have to shoot someone over the issue of me having water or them having water. I just hope it's a Californian, cause I think even God considers them to just be varmits, thus the Ten Commandments will still be unviolated. (Just kidding, but then again maybe not) (Seriously, just kidding, ..........maybe?) (you never know what a thirsty person will do) (After all, everyody behaved with calm and were civil after hurrican Katrina, right??)
Posted by: azrebel | July 19, 2010 at 06:00 PM
Arizonians, please:
1) stop heating water with natural gas and electricity. For every cup of hot water, another cup of water is consumed to heat the first cup. Get a solar domestic hot water system.
2) capture rainwater, gray water, and even black water for local use instead of needlessly consuming vast amounts of energy (and additional water) to push water around.
3) stop thinking of aquifers as monolithic storage containers. You're draining the *quality* of water storage as much as, or more than, you're draining stored water. One need only look at Arizona's record of geological subsidence to recognize this problem.
4) Use community pools. Close your backyard concrete pond and replace it with a garden.
5) listen to Jon Talton and follow his recommendations with all haste.
Posted by: Rate Crimes | July 19, 2010 at 07:13 PM
Another troubling part of the water situation is the complete lack of support the State of Arizona has for its two agencies charged with "protecting" our water resources. Both ADWR and ADEQ no longer receive any general fund monies and are supposed to be self-supporting. Permit fees collected by the agencies will replace the general fund money- however that seems unlikely with the current economic situation. There's also the possibility that DWR and DEQ will just become permit mills in order to stay alive and Arizona's water resources will suffer as a result. Due to the funding cuts, ADWR had to fire about 2/3 of its staff this past budget cycle, and DEQ lost about 20% (DEQ has the luxury of federal dollars whereas DWR does not).
An overlooked aspect of our water situation is water quality. I did some checking, and as far as "boots on the ground", the State of Arizona (DEQ) has 5 employees to monitor all the rivers, lakes, and aquifers in the entire state. I'm not sure how many we actually need, but I'm pretty sure 5 is not enough.
I fear the situation will only become worse and will require some sort of pollution catastrophe (or lawsuit) before the legislature supports the protection of our water resources.
Posted by: Omar | July 19, 2010 at 10:13 PM
Arizona 1980 Groundwater Code set a goal to attain "safe-yield" from Arizona's major urban aquifers by 2025. Is it only a coincidence that 2025 is the original decommissioning date of the third unit at the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station? All three PVNGS units will be recommissioned.
It may be a convenient and comforting delusion to talk about playing golf on reclaimed "wastewater", but the fact that the Phoenix aquifer has long been in annual overdraft by 250,000 acre-feet, and the fact that the final use of a quarter of that overdraft is to *evaporate* water to cool the PVNGS is an unsustainable practice that is rapidly approaching its horizon.
(Not to mention that the PVNGS waste heat is pumped into Arizona's increasingly hot environment upwind of Asphalt Phoenix.)
For many decades, Arizona used pristine aquifer water from Black Mesa to create a coal slurry to transport coal to the Mohave coal-fired plant on the Colorado River.
Arizona has a seemingly unbreakable habit of extraction. Combine that with a willful ignorance of 'Peak Water', and you arrive at the very definition of a Ponzi scheme.
Posted by: Rate Crimes | July 20, 2010 at 06:37 AM
As it has always been - "whiskeys for drinkin and waters for fighten." nothing changes but the faces.
Posted by: Roger Ramjet | July 20, 2010 at 07:42 AM
Having promised to get schooled on water issues, I have stored up some knowledge already, gained from a 2 year due diligence on a desalting project in Mexico. Shaun McKinnon of the Republic has also been of great help thru his series of columns. Here's what I've gleaned in a nutshell:
For starters, the tribes have water rights to nearly 50% of the Arizona's share of Colorado River water. Sen. Jon Kyl (former water lawyer)brokered this awful deal several years ago, resolving a decades old suit that had been bobbing around the courts. Gila River tribe is in the catbird seat where developers (Pinal for ex) must get a water lease from them before they can get their "assured 100 year supply" certificate. "Assured" does not mean GUARANTEED . . there are some weasel clauses.
Second: there is no really effective dialog about conservation. The "Water, Use it Wisely" campaign is toothless. Until there's a demand rate structure, there's little financial incentive to curb profligate use. Since irrigation and pools can consume well over 50% of a home's use, one would think there'd be a serious discussion about xeriscaping, for example. No dice! Low flow showers and low-consumption toilets are little more than a nicety. Gray water systems generally don't meet code. And so it goes . . .
Finally and perhaps most telling is that I know of NO strategic planning process that deals with long-term water issues . . same for air quality. Jon may know of some initiatives along these lines, but Morrison's landmark "9 Shoes Waiting to Drop" never mentioned water. The Republic has done a good job with Shaun Mckinnon's columns but they seem to have disappeared.
So the DNDK ("don't know/don't care") paralysis continues to grip us. This reminds me of THE WIZ (Afro vers
Posted by: Jim Hamblin | July 20, 2010 at 09:45 AM
The Wiz sang "Don't Nobody Bring Me No Bad News". This has been the big dogs' mantra and the Republic has generally obliged.
Posted by: Jim Hamblin | July 20, 2010 at 09:48 AM
Well, on the one hand, Rate Crimes writes that "the Phoenix aquifer has long been in annual overdraft by 250,000 acre-feet".
On the other hand, Soleri notes that from January to May of 2010 SRP released 668,061 acre-feet of pure, clean freshwater into the lower Salt River, writing that "80 percent" of this water seeped into the ground along the way, which the blog item Soleri linked to described as "rejuvenating riparian habitat along the Salt and Gila rivers". (I didn't see the 80 percent figure there, but I'm willing to use it as a working figure; deserts, especially dry washes, are thirsty, and so are desert plants that store up water when they can get it, for future use.)
If this method of "storage" is adequate, then why the massive overdraft? And that's just the overdraft in one area.
It's true that "farmers here have long relied on aquifers to irrigate their fields"; but farmers aren't the only ones relying on them these days. If there is any truth to Talton's thesis that Arizona doesn't have enough water to support future population growth, or even the current population, it suggests that there IS a need to engineer water storage.
The total January-May runoff into SRP's six reservoirs was 1,430,841 acre-feet; the overflow released was 668,061 acre-feet; that's a 32 percent loss rate. Even if some of it goes to good use, adding storage capacity (sufficient to prevent aquifer overdrafts, for example) makes sense; even more since we're positing a hotter future where rainfall and snowfall may be significantly less than at present: this means we need to be in a position to capture that water, when it becomes available, and not release vast amounts of it simply because it occurs in short but intense, and perhaps ever more occasional, precipitation, which overwhelms our holding capacity at the time.
As for absorption of that runoff by the ground, isn't there a difference between groundwater and usable groundwater (i.e., part of a water table accessible to water harvesting infrastructure)?
Also note that the portion of the water which was used in rejuvenating these riparian ecosystems along runoff routes is not usable groundwater: it's groundwater that is absorbed by wild plants and the portion of the surface ground accessible to their root systems; part of it immediately, and more still as subsequent dry conditions cause plants to absorb additional water from the ground.
As for evaporation, that applies to surface area, and I doubt that the amount lost to evaporation from reservoirs, over an annual cycle, is more than the amount lost to evaporation from water running in numerous dry riverbeds and washes, and surrounding ground surfaces, on the long trip to the Colorado after overflow release. Even excluding what the plants absorb and what goes deep into the ground, a great deal gets absorbed by upper layers, from which it will evaporate over time.
To Rate Crimes: "talk about playing golf on reclaimed wastewater" is a fact, not a "comforting delusion"; the aquifer overdraft doesn't logically refute this: it merely points out the inadequacy of the infrastructure used to collect and distribute effluent (which accounts for only 4 percent of the annual supply, but should account for a lot more), and the inadequacy of our reservoir storage system. I've suggested applying for federal stimulus funds to improve both; money already authorized and available, and both sources of plentiful jobs in projects lasting for years, as well as being environmentally sound.
Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | July 20, 2010 at 10:39 AM
Jim,
along the lines of your "no bad news" comment, let me quote the usual attitude of people I come across daily.
"We had a really wet winter, soooo the drought is over."
On a really cold day in January "Soooo where's this global warming?"
On a really hot day in July, "Wow, this global warming is for real"
Have you noticed when a person has the attention span and memory of a gnat, they don't have the same things to worry about that concern us?
P.S. The news says the highs this weekend will be down a few degrees, so thank goodness, global warming is over.
Posted by: azrebel | July 20, 2010 at 10:39 AM
The Tres Rios and Rio Salado projects are good demonstrations that could be expanded along the entire Salt River bed in Phoenix. Done properly, such a project could clean huge amounts of wastewater through natural processes, recharge groundwater and create a game changing, world-class park connecting Tres Rios to the Scottsdale greenbelt and east into Mesa.
Conservation (from a technical standpoint) is easy. Focus on high quality densification around light rail stations. Multi-family housing uses much, much less water per capita than single family.
Posted by: Kevin | July 20, 2010 at 10:51 AM
Emil writes "If this method of storage [groundwater]is adequate, then why the massive overdraft? And that's just the overdraft in one area."
As we're seeing, groundwater isn't adequate, nor in all likelihood will be reservoirs if Arizona continues to grow. We fought a fierce battle a few decades ago fighting Cliff Dam on the Verde River. It would have held back about 300,000 acre feet of water but destroyed a sensitive environment where eagles nested. There were dams planned in the Grand Canyon (Bridge Canyon, Marble Canyon) back in the 50s that would have flooded parts of the our state's treasure. They didn't make the cut but Glen Canyon Dam did, however, to the dismay and shame of nature/wilderness lovers.
One reason why it's possible to look at our economic implosion as a good fortune is that we won't have to agonize over despoiling this state to accommodate the vandals who currently rule this place. Major water projects are off the table because this country can no longer afford them. And the techno-utopians who can imagine nuclear desalination plants or diversion canals from the Columbia River are forced to explain how we would pay for them.
If we wanted to, we could probably pauperize ourselves and the future with some worthwhile projects while ignoring the flashing red light in front of us. Climate change is not going to be kind to this state. In all likelihood, it will result in population decline. Yes, we can manage the damage in ways that distribute the pain somewhat equitably. Will we do that? No.
Marc Reisner's Cadillac Desert is the most compelling book you can read on the subject of southwestern hydraulic civilization. It's over 20 years old now and beginning to show its age. I wish Reisner were still around to illuminate the paradox of a huge consumer society in one of Earth's most hostile environments. We are forced to ask ourselves if Arizona's gallant pioneers struggled to create this dreck. As it stands, we are writing one of the last chapters. Civilizations may do miraculous things but they can't repeal the laws of physics. That's the curse we must endure.
Posted by: soleri | July 20, 2010 at 01:04 PM
Soleri wrote:
"Major water projects are off the table because this country can no longer afford them."
Actually, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 budgets $275 BILLION for such things as grants to states, of which $125 billion has been paid out. That leaves $150 billion dollars.
http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/home.aspx
Just imagine what Arizona could do on the projects I suggested here (Kevin's idea sounds interesting also) with just a portion of that.
Soleri wrote:
"If we wanted to, we could probably pauperize ourselves and the future with some worthwhile projects while ignoring the flashing red light in front of us."
The money is already authorized. It's going to be spent on SOMETHING. What we can do is use it for worthwhile projects, NOW, while it IS available, not ignoring the "flashing red light" but actually paying close attention to it, using the money to secure Arizona's water future, by means of projects which increase the use of effluent (water recycling) and projects which increase reservoir capacity (cut water waste and provide greater resources).
Money is available. Improved water management and availability is a compelling and fundamental interest for the state of Arizona. It is a compelling federal interest insofar as Arizona is a key regional player. These projects are large scale and will boost employment hugely, for many years to come: that in turn is important to the state, to the federal government, and to the general population. This isn't a liberal make-work project, but one which will have tangible, lasting, measurable results that improve standard of living and cut long-term water costs. Yet, it has all the environmental hallmarks that will please the Greens.
The money is available, now, if Arizona will write up a compelling grant proposal, dotting all the i's and crossing all the t's. And make no mistake about it: the Kookocracy wants fed money provided there is no sociopolitical stigma attached and as long as it doesn't entail sticking our own fiscal neck out too far.
Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | July 20, 2010 at 02:24 PM
Emil, what projects are you referring to? Are there actual concrete proposals out there that have been vetted by the relevant agencies, stakeholders, and political class?
We're going to have to disagree about the underlying rationale for more water projects in Arizona. It might be different if we made serious attempts at long-term sustainability. Of course, we haven't and we won't. Those are cuss words in glibertarian Arizona.
About those unspent stimulus dollars: imagine our anti-pork, deficit-hawk senators expending political capital on behalf of federal largesse.
We only have the CAP because we had a senator, Carl Hayden, who spent the majority of his life in Congress with that as his primary purpose. Arizona is probably not going to elect any more Democratic workhorses. The next senator will probably be Jeff Flake, a pretty-boy grandstander.
Posted by: soleri | July 20, 2010 at 02:59 PM
Appropriate pricing and trading to induce more efficient agriculture (less alfalfa), less landscaping use.
http://aquadoc.typepad.com/waterwired/2009/01/is-dead-pool-dead-on-part-3.html
The solutions are neither new nor technically difficult but politically quite infeasible. Until the next crisis.
"It's a desert, stupid." -- unofficial motto of the City of Albuquerque's water conservation program, c. 1992
Posted by: AWinter | July 20, 2010 at 04:05 PM
There's another disappointing sub-theme here and that's Arizona's no longer being at the table with the WCI (Western Climate Initiative)which Napolitano & Co. supported wholeheartedly. As a symptom of Brewer's complete disregard for most all environmental factors, she recently appointed a former mining lobbyist as her Environmental Policy Advisor.
Bottom line: let's hope Terry Goddard prevails!
Posted by: Jim Hamblin | July 20, 2010 at 06:44 PM
Oh Oh !!??
We're talking water and one half of the Tempe Town lake dam collapses.
Would whoever is practicing voodoo on this blog, please step forward and identify yourself.
I am hoping that there were no transients in the river bottom in the path of the water.
Posted by: azrebel | July 20, 2010 at 11:17 PM
Thank you, soleri, for mentioning Marc Reisner. He is certainly a hero to be remembered.
Posted by: Rate Crimes | July 21, 2010 at 07:22 AM
If you haven't heard of Brad Lancaster (of Tucson), I recommend that you attend his next presentation. His books and classes are excellent.
http://www.harvestingrainwater.com/
Posted by: Rate Crimes | July 21, 2010 at 07:23 AM
"We're talking water and one half of the Tempe Town lake dam collapses." - azrebel.
Just wait until this happens with one of the dams on the Colorado River.
Posted by: Rate Crimes | July 21, 2010 at 07:27 AM
I contend that the clarion moment that signaled and confirmed the transition into decline was not peak oil, peak water, peak uranium, peak concrete, or peak anything: rather, it was the moment when the "forever stamp" was announced.
Whenever "forever" is promised, it'll all soon be over. That damned stamp is the harbinger. :)
Posted by: Rate Crimes | July 21, 2010 at 07:54 AM
In today's Republic:
"Climate shift poses threat to water supply" by Shaun McKinnon.
How timely! And the reader comments reflect their membership in The Flat Earth society.
Posted by: Jim Hamblin | July 21, 2010 at 08:54 AM
No, voodoo, just synchronicity.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/07/21/20100721climate-shift-to-hurt-water-supply.html
The article is a bit disappointing.
"Lashof said states and counties could avoid the worst effects of water shortages, such as rationing, by including climate change in long-term water-resource plans."
Not one suggestion as to how do to this, however. For that matter, no mention of Arizona's long-term water-resource plans (maybe it doesn't have any?).
P.S. A correction to a previous comment: $150 billion of those stimulus funds available for grants (for example) are unspent; but some of the unspent funds are obligating to existing projects. The amount of unobligated funds remaining is $75 billion.
Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | July 21, 2010 at 10:28 AM
Soleri wrote:
"About those unspent stimulus dollars: imagine our anti-pork, deficit-hawk senators expending political capital on behalf of federal largesse."
Arizona has already applied for, and been awarded, $3.9 billion in federal grant money from stimulus funds, as of May 31st of this year. As to what, if anything, our senators did, for or against, I don't know.
http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/RecipientReportedData/pages/RecipientReportedDataMap.aspx?State=AZ&datasource=recipient
Soleri wrote:
"Emil, what projects are you referring to?"
One project would increase water recycling through improvements and expansion of the effluent capture and delivery infrastructure.
Power plants and industry in general use a lot of water, as does landscaping and irrigation, not to mention toilets. At present, only 4 percent of Arizona's water use is met through effluent. That could and should be a lot higher. Why use freshwater straight from the mountain streams or the aquifers, for that?
The second project would increase reservoir capacity to provide Arizona with the ability to capture and use large quantities of rainfall and snowmelt that at present go to waste.
Soleri wrote:
"Are there actual concrete proposals out there that have been vetted by the relevant agencies, stakeholders, and political class?"
I'm certain that proposals exist for the increased use of effluent and the investment in water infrastructure this will require, made long before stimulus funds were available. The scale of funding available now would allow them to be expanded considerably.
Exactly who would NEED to "vet" them to actually get federal stimulus funds is a different question. I'm sure that the Governor's Office could assemble a broad working proposal with input from the state's water management agencies, who could also manage the project.
All of this should have been done as soon as stimulus funds became available, but I'm not convinced that it's impossible even at this late stage.
Soleri wrote:
"We're going to have to disagree about the underlying rationale for more water projects in Arizona. It might be different if we made serious attempts at long-term sustainability."
Reduced use of freshwater for non-essential purposes via expanded use of reclaimed wastewater (effluent) IS a serious attempt at long-term sustainability, both environmentally and in terms of water costs. So is an increase in the capture rate of precipitation, be it rainfall or snowmelt.
If potable freshwater becomes scarcer, whether because population growth reduces per capita portions, or because climate change decreases regional precipitation, or both, increasing water recycling is essential; so is increasing the effective capture rate of precipitation.
I don't understand why anyone would argue against increasing water recycling with already budgeted funds.
The idea to increase reservoir capacity is a bit more controversial and there is room for argument, though I've tried to make it clear why I think it makes sense instead of assuming that overflow runoff can be banked and used without larger losses through evaporation, plant absorption, and absorption by ground tables not accessible to existing water harvesting infrastructure.
It might be time to try lighting a couple candles instead of simply cursing the darkness. Burying one's head in the sand of pessimism is guaranteed to fail; proposed solutions might fail but also might succeed in ameliorating conditions.
Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | July 21, 2010 at 11:28 AM
P.S. Such proposals might carry more weight under a Gov. Goddard, but even Brewer might go for it if her advisors suggested that it was a way to increase employment, improve Arizona's water situation, and please Greens on both sides of the political spectrum, without really offending anyone and at no cost to the state.
Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | July 21, 2010 at 11:31 AM
Emil, since neither of us are experts in hydrology, it might be a good idea to simply make a virtue of our humility. We are not going to salvage Arizona with idiosyncratic suggestions, assertions masquerading as facts, or wishful thinking.
Pessimism is a melody some of us use to make sense of mad rhymes. Arizona's history has tilted us in this direction despite ourselves. While I respect your problem-solving instinct, I can't help but balance the challenge against the meager resources at our command. I wish it were different. But it isn't.
Posted by: soleri | July 21, 2010 at 01:17 PM
Water seeping into subsurface soils after a rainy season is not equivalent to recharging ancient, pristine aquifer water that is pumped from hundreds of feet underground.
Posted by: Rate Crimes | July 21, 2010 at 02:15 PM
I agree that neither myself nor Soleri is an expert in hydrology; but the experts in hydrology and environmental management agree that increased recycling and use of wastewater is sound water management and a sound investment for the long-term.
What I'm suggesting is that already authorized federal stimulus funds be used for this purpose. It might be worth pointing out that hydrology experts are not the ones who make state water policy: everyone else needs reminding, from politicians to the constituents who elect them and the activists who pressure them.
Rogue Columnist is not a peer reviewed science journal but is a fine blog likely to attract intelligent, engaged readers interested in Arizona water management from a political, activist, or environmentalist standpoint. I'm trying to add value by bringing a variety of political, activist, and envonmental considerations together in a single, hopefully cogent attempt to stimulate action.
Obviously, when the hydrology experts and others are consulted, as they inevitably will be, they'll be able to weigh-in on policy ideas and how best to carry them out. There may even be a variety of opinions. I don't know what the consensus view of, for example, adding reservoir capacity is, among hydrology experts in the state, vis a vis scientific rather than political principles.
What I DO know is that many of Arizona's reservoirs were engineered. Bartlett Lake and Saguaro lake were built by SRP during the New Deal. Roosevelt Lake was dedicated by Teddy Roosevelt. Apache Lake and Canyon Lake were built in the 1920s. Horseshoe Lake was built in the mid-1940s. Capacity increase projects have also been completed, the most notable being the enlargement of Roosevelt Lake by 20 percent, a work which was finished in 1996.
If run-off "into the water table" was adequate, why were reservoirs engineered? Why was capacity increased? They weren't all associated with hydroelectric projects. Arizona's population has increased hugely since the reservoir system was created; precipitation levels are projected to decrease as a result of climate change, while evaporation is expected to increase as a result of it.
Isn't it time to consider increasing catchment and storage capacity, so that intermittent (and perhaps increasingly rare) heavy rains and snowmelt can be captured and used instead of having to let it run-off due to inadequate capacity? Why not do it now, while federal funds are available and jobs are sorely needed?
I also know that catchment projects have provided freshwater to third-world communities that was not coming from wells tapping existing aquifers. If letting the rain soak into the ground is just as good or better, why did catchment engineering improve freshwater supply?
Humble silence is a fine policy for monks in monasteries, but American society in general already has too much disengagement from important issues. Encouraging more apathy and hopelessness seems counterproductive.
Soleri wrote:
"Pessimism is a melody some of us use to make sense of mad rhymes."
It's also an isolating wall, just as surely as those of any "gated community".
Note that I DO appreciate the need to criticize what needs criticizing -- one of the reasons I read Mr. Talton's blog -- because that can actually be productive; and even if it isn't, it's refreshing to see somebody stand up and actually say that the Emperor has no clothes.
I also enjoy a lot of Soleri's comments, which tend to be elegant and well-written. There is room for polite disagreement on the rest, I'm sure.
Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | July 21, 2010 at 02:50 PM
One additional point: reactionary politicians often stand in the way of progressive goals -- but not always.
One technique which progressives can use to maximize their effectiveness, is to propagandize and agitate for goals that have fairly broad appeal, can be done on somebody else's dime, and can be pitched apolitically. Only the most rabid conservatives will oppose them.
Successful efforts can be used to gradually lead the more open-minded elements to reason and social responsibility in other areas. "Hey, maybe government IS good for something?" is a realization with ripple effects. That's one reason why "starve the beast" conservatives do their best to underfund it at every turn: they're afraid of the threat of a good example.
Also, a correction: effluent is actually 4 percent of the annual supply in the AMA planning area, which should mean an even lower recycling use rate for the state at large. I erroneously cited this figure for the state as a whole.
"The Phoenix and Tucson AMAs generate the majority of the effluent in the planning area, which is used by agricultural, municipal and industrial sectors."
http://www.adwr.state.az.us/azdwr/StatewidePlanning/WaterAtlas/ActiveManagementAreas/PlanningAreaOverview/WaterSupplyEffluent.htm
Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | July 21, 2010 at 03:12 PM
Emil, let me start off by saying I agree with the idea that the oncoming crisis will necessarily restore the good name of government. There is no "free-market" solution here. My suspicion, however, is that the "free market" will simply use the crisis to divert more of the commons over to corporatons and concentrated wealth. Water is "blue gold" and it will be as neatly commodified as oil or any metal in the coming decades.
On the other hand, I have a difference with you about a fundamental idea, which we haven't really addressed. Central to this blog and the thinking of the small community that meets here is the sense that Arizona is unbalanced. It shows up in the way the main economic and political players promote cheap growth as a strategy (and even as a panacea for the failure of that strategy). It is so deeply ingrained that even in the midst of Arizona's worst-ever economy, there is little serious discussion about changing the "dominant paradigm".
From my point of view, we have to quickly change our relationship to the environment. Arizona is not going to thrive - or survive - through the continued application of unsustainable growth. That's why I reflexively shiver when I read about "solutions" involving more water projects. There isn't enough feasible engineering that can make the current Arizona model sustainable several decades out. This is why physics ultimately matters more than pluck and optimism. We are looking at reduced CAP water as Rocky Mountain snowpack dwindles. Arizona's own watersheds and snowpack will be similarly stressed.
I see no reason to spend vast amounts of money to finesse this coming catastrophe. In fact, I don't even see this as fiscally possible given the huge debt load this nation is carrying. It will certainly be interesting to see the political climate change once the new reality becomes evident.
I agree with Talton's "solutions" such as retrenchment to older settlements and urban footprints. I would suggest reading Jared Diamond's Collapse. We are not unique in the annals of hubris and blindness. Civilizations have consistently failed because of these human traits. Arizona's failure is following a very familiar pathway. This is less pessimism than simply acknowledging who we are as a species and why we deny what is blazingly obvious.
Posted by: soleri | July 21, 2010 at 04:02 PM
Soleri, you can't get everything you want immediately. You have to start somewhere. The place that you start is the place where you have the best chance of doing something effectively.
Nobody said that recycling and reclamation of wastewater is a total system solution to all the state's problems.
Unquestionably, however, using effluent in industrial, landscaping, and irrigation applications, among others, instead of increasingly valuable and scarce drinkable freshwater from mountain streams and aquifers, is part of responsible water management.
Similarly, increased catchment and water storage of rainwater and snowmelt is common sense in a state whose population has grown since the original reservoir system was created, and which faces additional future challenges due to climate change and regional population increases.
You continue to say that funding is not available, but it is, NOW, which is why it should be done, NOW.
Wishing us all back to small town America isn't a practical solution. Who is going to mandate that Arizona's population shrink? What happens when that population simply moves to other areas whose water supplies are already overstressed (or soon will be)? Can you mandate who will move, and to where? If not, you're just pissing in the wind. At least my suggestions CAN accomplish something useful, AND they're politically feasible.
Some of Talton's suggestions listed above are good. Some would be good if they were practicable, but they aren't, politically speaking. Others are questionable.
That said, there is NOTHING which makes my suggestions inconsistent with Mr. Talton's: nor are the suggestions appearing in this blog, by the author and in reader comments, comprehensive. There is plenty more that needs to be done, and can be done. But here's your choice: suck your thumb and refuse to move unless you get everything you want in one package, with a ribbon tied around it: or take a step; and another; and another.
If you're waiting for catastrophe to bring progressive solutions, especially in Arizona, think again. Fascism is just waiting in the wings to "restore order". There is no organized, funded Left political party or group capable of building society from the ashes of collapse. Anarchy tends to favor the strong, which in our society means those with control of the most resources (money, property, jobs). Are those individuals going to support your dream scheme, or are they going to take as much as they can and lock everybody else out, and devil take the hindmost?
Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | July 21, 2010 at 04:35 PM
Emil, under normal circumstances and with a rational citizenry, we would still be arguing from different perspectives. My judgment about Arizona is that its most salient characteristics are crushed and ruined by an economic paradigm that is simply rapacious. There's no reason why we should want to perpetuate the status quo or even reform it incrementally. It's too toxic.
Fortunately, I don't have to make that the object of my politics. If I lived in a place that valued not only economic activity but the environment, open spaces, wilderness, and human beings apart from their consumer power, the decision would be effortless. Yes, preserve, sustain, persevere, and caretake that place. It's the very definition of love.
I consider myself an old-fashioned conservative for that reason. There has to be a fundamental matrix of values apart from the market for human society to thrive. Once the market supersedes society, it's simply a sign of sickness unto death. That's Arizona's story for the past several decades. It's getting worse, not better.
At any rate, we've stated our positions here. I see myself as part of a quasi-Luddite tradition, a bit of Edward Abbey and Dave Foreman, some Bill McKibben, and maybe Wendell Berry. This is not a popular claque but then this is not a popular blog. All viewpoints are welcome here. If I disagree with you on "worldview", I still appreciate your sharp and agile mind.
Posted by: soleri | July 21, 2010 at 05:34 PM
There are only about nine of us on this thread, but I would still like to take a little survey to see if everyone who is talking the talk is also walking the walk.
So, here is the question, what is each of your household's water use per month, per household or per person. My wife and I use 2500 gallons per month. I don't know if that is good or bad, thus I am asking.
Posted by: azrebel | July 21, 2010 at 11:46 PM
My household use is way over 2500 gallons a month. I live in central Phoenix in an old house with tradition landscaping in the backyard.
Do I think that Phoenix lacks for water? No. We're not Tucson or Albuquerque. The Salt/Verde watershed is superb. Moreover, conservation as a policy needs to be married to urban policy that doesn't magnify the heat island (the price here is paid by central Phoenix residents). Historic Phoenix was an oasis for a reason and contemporary Phoenix is a hellhole for a reason.
At some point in the future, water conservation will become a necessity, at which point, I suspect, Scottsdale, Gilbert, Peoria, and other suburban redoubts will be oases while old Phoenix will be intolerably hot. There will not be an equitable sharing of costs and benefits since we'll apply "market principles" to our urban footprint.
I'm not a purist about either conservation or social justice. But once the two are split, it's obvious that you really can't have either. Real conservation conserves traditional habitat and settlement patterns. In the new Arizona, that will be the last thing conserved.
Posted by: soleri | July 22, 2010 at 07:53 AM
As I expected, Rogue's smart readers held an engaging and intelligent forum on this issue.
I remain opposed to "solutions" that either try to sustain the unsustainable, i.e. continued sprawl and population growth, or destroy what remains of the historic oasis character of central Phoenix. Soleri expressed this well.
By ignoring the chief problems, sprawl and an economy that relies on population growth, the rest is just a distraction or camouflage for continued destruction.
Thanks to all.
Posted by: Rogue Columnist | July 22, 2010 at 09:12 AM
Soleri wrote:
"I see myself as part of a quasi-Luddite tradition..."
Well, now I see where you're coming from. I thought it was odd that you kept repeating conservative deficit-hawk phrases such as "pauperizing ourselves and the future" like an advertising slogan -- a philosophy you normally characterize as penny-wise and pound foolish.
Now you're applying it to progressive proposals which will not only create countless jobs for years to come, but create something of lasting, tangible value as well as environmental benefit.
The money is already authorized and available, and will be spent on something regardless. And ten or twenty billion dollars, disbursed over a period of years, is not going to bankrupt a nation with an annual budget on the order of a trillion dollars.
If the country is going to hell in a handbasket, due to unstoppable fundamental forces involving energy, climate change, and so forth -- which you've previously characterized as "beyond our ability to slow, let alone stop" -- then it doesn't matter. The country will be bankrupted no matter what is done, and things must start from tabula rasa. So, it puzzled me to see you fret like a neurotic bookkeeper fearful of the displacement of a figure or two.
Pessimism is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Those who won't try, won't succeed. Those who do try, may or may not. Since the latter offers a chance of success, even if illusory -- and we don't know that it's illusory -- then why not try? Unless you fear, not failure, but success, because it interferes with neo-luddite fantasies. "The pace of this decline is vertiginous. It's almost fun", you wrote. Shockingly morbid, even ghoulish.
I've always felt that religions, whether secular or theological, demonstrate more about adherents' values than they do about universal verities. Doomsterism is a religion as surely as pollyannaism is, presuming, rather than proving, a future determined as much by unforeseeable future variables as it is by the present.
Why ignore, downplay, or misrepresent present developments and discourage corrective action (even if partial) in order to extrapolate worst-case scenarios of dubious validity? Somehow I'm reminded of Colin Wilson's experimental novel, The Mind Parasites.
What do you offer as an alternative, bearing in mind your statement quoted above that decline is "beyond our ability to slow, let alone stop"?
Apparently, a future of subsistence farming. A return to the soil for 300 million citizens. Honestly, you doomsters are the most unrealistic "realists" I've ever come across. It's exasperating.
In order to live that way, you need arable land, farming tools, seeds and other farm supplies, and WATER, not to mention agricultural expertise. Remember also, you're going to have drought years with inadequate rain -- huge but irregular downpours don't count since plants need regular watering in the right amounts at the right times -- so you'll need access to irrigation water from somewhere else, and probably alternative food sources if the heat and drought is really bad, to get you through that year, and potable water for drinking as well. Meanwhile, your upstream neighbors also want water, and unlike you sitting in your little shack, they may have the practical ability to divert or dam the flow upon which you cling, like a thread, for dear life.
Do you own arable land? Do any of your neighbors in Phoenix? How are you going to get it? Squatters get evicted in good times, and have their shacks burned or get shot in national emergencies when police are too busy quelling riots to worry about backwoods land theft and vigilante "justice". Do you have farming tools? Do you have access to farm supplies? Will this access continue in the "big emergency" you forecast? What about water? Are you well-versed in the problems of the local soil (wherever that might end up being) and prepared with enough expertise to sustain yourself and your family without access to modern fertilizers or insecticides? (Because, you know, insects like food too, and so do wild animals for that matter.)
More likely than not, the world will continue to stumble along. We can either take practical steps to move it in the right direction, even if these aren't fully and immediately sufficient, or we can toddle along whistling a "melody" of pessimism, like autistic children, lost in a world of fantasy, while abdicating our social responsibilities.
Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | July 22, 2010 at 10:49 AM
Emil, I grew up wanting to believe that Arizona was always going to get better. Call this an ideology of wishful thinking that delivered regular dividends up unto a certain point, say circa 1970. It was at that point that I realized Phoenix's middle-age spread wasn't doing much beyond making this place less interesting, less vital, less beautiful, and less loveable. I still wanted to believe despite that. I hoped that Mayor Goddard was going to galvanize a new civic consciousness that revived our declining civic spirit. I hoped Governor Babbitt was going to integrate environomental awareness into both our government-policy making apparatus and economic planning. I hoped younger people would flock here and transform the smug and often mean culture into something we could all be proud of.
Short story: I was disappointed. In the past 20 years, the nightmares increased to the point that I feared going to sleep. How do you Tuscanize psychosis? Look around you.
If you think positive steps can be taken that not only rescue Arizona's moribund real-estate hustle but the very landscape it would depredate, be assured that I will cheer on the inevitable destruction of you busy beavers. Better to doom this experiment in suburban-horrorscaping than blade one more irreplaceable acre of Sonoran Desert.
Humans (and probably all life forms) invariably overreach. That's all you need to know. Everything else is happy talk and self delusion. Human failure is not something I recently invented. Just ask the Hohokams lest you think we can reclaim the future with hyperlinks and chirpy strategies.
Please don't try to make Arizona "better". We've already done enough damage.
Posted by: soleri | July 22, 2010 at 01:26 PM
Well, an interesting discussion indeed. The state institutions have been utterly devastated by the Republican assault on government, but that doesn't change the facts on the ground.
What I find interesting is the omission of the wasteful agricultural practices of times past. The sad fact is the damming of the rivers resulted in an agricultural El Dorado of wasteful crops. The citrus industry wasn't bad- but cotton and midwestern crops are tremendous wasters of water in the desert- especially paired with the traditional flood irrigation- even using wells for the source.
The pricing of water in rural Arizona is going to be the real destroyer of property values, as the last few untapped aquifers get punched for large scale development, and the limits of development with local resources become apparent at long last. The Rim country is increasingly limited in water- with the land rush quietly going on for the last big parcels with water. The fight over the Big Chino is a great example. SRP wanted the rights essentially to the vast underground aquifer, and just lost the court case. Prescott and Flagstaff have both essentially reached their limits with regard to water.
The Red Gap Ranch project for Flagstaff is an example of preparing a water mine for exploitation, instead of telling people that the water use is unsustainable. The City of Flagstaff is going to build windturbines to pump water 30 miles uphill to provide a large scale water source. Now, they are going to have to blend the water with their fresh water supplies to get the total dissolved solids down to a usable level. This will be interesting to see in practice.
The fights with the State Land Department over the water rights for the Hopi ranch purchases will eventually be settled, and another large chunk of Northern Arizona will be off limits to future development, and the water will be gone from use. Well, the Hopi do tend to think in 100 year plans.
In other words, while everyone thinks the cities are going down first, it is fast becoming apparent that the water crisis is going to be felt first in rural areas. Southern Arizona is quite literally insane, as the amount of surface water left there would not support another ten thousand houses.
Posted by: Allen | July 23, 2010 at 08:24 AM
hnjrb Canada Goose fxix
pyfcl Nike Free Sko civpo
modtd Moncler Pas Cher evwqx
http://www.nikefreetilbudsskoss.com/ ftmss
http://www.doudouneemonclerpascherfrs.info/ rihyh
http://www.canadaa-goosejakkers.info/ vpypn
Posted by: DwereeShedDep | October 30, 2012 at 06:48 AM