Keeping water in the desert
Federal (or State) Level:
1) A national law that forces the states to connect surface and groundwater management, so that groundwater pumpers cannot rob riparian habitat, rivers, streams, creeks and springs of their water. [AZ is not the only state with denial of scientific reality in its water law.]
2) Federal law to protect water levels in National Forests and Parks to maintain surface water and stream flow levels for habitat and forage for animals, birds, fish, critters and creepy crawlers.
3) Subsidized cotton payments should be stopped in regions that do not have the water to sustain and maintain groundwater water levels.
State Level:
There are many “holes in the bucket” in Arizona law. The innovative “groundwater code” of 1980 patronized every special interest group in Arizona, totally leaving out people and nature.
Sustainability for humans and nature:
1) Identify specific riparian areas, rivers, creeks, springs and limit pumping adjacent to them to prevent draining of these areas that are essential to the well-being of humans and nature.
2) Replace 100 year water requirement for Assured Water Supply with a continuous supply.
3) Replace the pumping down to 1,000 feet for Assured Water Supply with maintaining the current groundwater levels. Groundwater pumping to 1,000 feet means
a) no surface water for animal and bird habitat or groundwater within reach of roots of even the largest tree.
b) increased water rates because water quality is poorer at deeper levels, especially in Arizona with its natural occurring heavy metals that are injurious to human health.
c) increased water rates because pumping at deeper levels increases the electrical use.
d) increased risk of subsidence and earth fissure as soil dries and compacts with receding water levels.
4) Allow AMA’s to create smaller management areas, needed in such areas as Arivaca, Saddle Brooke and Queen Creek.
5) Limit exempt wells in AMA’s, or at least subject them to impact rules on neighboring wells.
6) New mining operations and all industrial users should be subjected to mandated hydrological criteria and well-spacing rules.
CAP and other imported water management:
7) If there is a shortage on the Colorado River, the highest Municipal and Industrial (M & I) category of CAP water needs to be arranged intelligently. People should be the highest on the list, along with necessary industrial services. The two heavy water users, golf courses and metal mining (both in top M & I category), should be moved down the list, after food crop category.
8) Agriculture should be divided between food, animal food and non-food crops, such as cotton, and water should be dispersed on the CAP priority list accordingly in case of a shortage.
9) In case of a shortage on the Colorado, Indian CAP water should be subject to the same categories as the standard CAP allocations for the rest of the state, especially Indian subsidized cotton should be moved down the list.
10) Stipulate that Groundwater Replenishment District (GRD) water has to be delivered directly to water company, or recharged within three miles of user.
Replenishment obligations:
11) Industrial users and agriculture users should have replenishment obligations, at least a percentage of their use, with an escalating scale increasing in the future. This does not have to be with CAP water, but can be accomplished with stormwater recharge projects. The town of Chandler has done model work for everyone to use as an example.
Water rights:
12) Irrigation rights and Type two non-irrigation rights need to be addressed so that water rights stay with the property only.
Local Government:
1) Require nurseries to sell only low water native-type plants. Appropriate lists are available from ADWR, Tucson or Phoenix Botanical Gardens.
2) Fines for watering the sidewalks and streets.
3) Sane, scientific regulation of wastewater, which is now considered a valuable commodity. Wastewater plants should be located around the county in the areas where reuse of effluent is needed. Pumping groundwater for effluent recharge credits should be eliminated. (This is the case in Quail Creek in this region.)
4) Regulation to prevent the creation of new artificial ponds for decoration only, such as the 350 acre-foot pond at Canoa golf course in Green Valley in 2002.
5) Stormwater recharge facilities. Tens of thousands of acres of land in Sahuarita floods every year (gets worse every year) and nothing has been done by the County. First, the water flows down public washes and roads—so it should be a public concern. Secondly, the County should be proactive to get water into the ground for the good of all.
Other Resources:
General information and history on water management in Arizona: www.g-a-l.info
Report sent to PUG local water coalition by Groundwater Awareness League, Jan. 11, 2008
www.g-a-l.info/WaterReport.htm
Ideas? Comments? Contact Nancy Freeman, nancy@g-a-l.info, 207-6506