A Saddlebrooke Water Primer. Bob Simpson, 2012

A SADDLEBROOKE WATER PRIMER
Revised March 2012
by Bob Simpson
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION
2
II. ARIZONA'S PROGRESSIVE WATER LAW
5
III. TUCSON ACTIVE MANAGEMENT AREA
7
IV. RENEWABLE WATER FOR TUCSON
The CAP and the CAWD
The CAGRD
State Versus Local Water Planning
The Key Role of Agriculture and Indian Water
Reclaimed Water
11
14
15
17
18
V. SADDLEBROOKE WATER
Groundwater
SaddleBrooke Water Companies
Assured Water Supply (AWS)
Water Deliveries and Groundwater Trends
Water Pricing
Water in Annual Property Taxes
18
21
24
26
29
30
VI. SADDLEBROOK'S WATER FUTURE
31
CONCLUSIONS
36
1
A SADDLEBROOKE WATER PRIMER
Revised March 2012
by Bob Simpson
Note: This revises a paper originally published in January, 2008.
For convenience, general references to "SaddleBrooke" are meant
to apply also to SaddleBrooke Ranch (SBR) unless information
specific to one or the other is indicated.
I. INTRODUCTION - WELCOME TO THE DESERT
Most newcomers to the Tucson area do not know that vast amounts
of water underlie parts of our arid Sonoran Desert. As the Santa
Catalinas and other mountains have eroded away, “basin-fill
aquifers” developed to great depths. For example in the central
area of Tucson a well (not for water) was drilled to a depth of
11,987 feet through water-bearing structures without encountering
bedrock. In the central part of Falcon Valley, just north of
SaddleBrooke, depth to bedrock ranges from minimal to more than
3,200 feet. Although the potential water quantity is vast,
recovering deep water would involve very high costs for extraction
and for treating higher levels of dissolved solids and possible toxic
contaminants. Under current Arizona law, extraction is not
contemplated at depths greater than 1,000 feet (see “AWS
Certificates” below).
Another possible surprise to newcomers is that high water tables
have historically supported local surface waters that met the needs
of a limited human population. Until the 20th century boom in
irrigated agriculture and urban expansion, the Santa Cruz River
flowed through Tucson year-round, nourishing rich riparian habitat
into the 1940s. Before that, local Indians farmed along the River,
and, after the railroad arrived 1880, local Chinese used the same
fields to raise fruits, and vegetables to sell in local markets. In the
2
1920s even the Rillito River had so much water that a Tucson
Mormon settlement, Binghampton, flourished near its banks,
drawing water through canals to irrigate farms on both sides of the
River.
In the past half-century things have changed dramatically. Ground
water levels have declined an estimated 150 feet at the site where
George Pusch established his hand-dug Steam Pump well in the
early 1900s.1 In Tucson’s central well fields, T14S, R14E,
measured groundwater declines have reached 225 to 250 feet since
the 1940s. Lakes Powell and Mead, crucial storage reservoirs on
the Colorado River, have been threatened by a decade long drought
that has reduced snow pack in most years (88% of the water in the
River come from precipitation and snow melt upstream of Glen
Canyon). By November, 2010, the water level in Lake Mead had
declined to an elevation of 1,082 (above sea level) -- just 7 feet
above the level of 1,075 that triggers a shortage declaration and
rationing to lower priority users such as the Central Arizona
Project (CAP).2 A much improved snowpack in 2010-11 resulted
in a revised forecast that first stage rationing is not foreseen until at
least 2015.
Another result of the over-use of groundwater in our region is that
Pinal County is a principal area where land has subsided and the
earth has fissured -- thousands of cracks, some of which have
damaged highways, canals, homes and other infrastructure. Some
agricultural land in the Eloy area subsided 18-20 feet (Figure 1).
Finally, there is now the issue of global warming and its unknown
long term effects on flows in the Colorado River and its users.
1
The location of the well is between Home Depot and the Steampump Village shopping center on Oracle.
At this level, "excess" CAP users (farms, mines, and others) could lose 288,000 acre feet per year.
Municipal users of CAP water would not be affected until the level in Lake Mead reaches about 1,025 feet.
Source: Arizona Daily Star; Nov. 17, 2010.
2
3
So, how secure should we feel about living in SaddleBrooke
which, except for its recaptured effluent, is entirely dependent on
pumped groundwater? As will be seen below, SaddleBrooke’s
short term water prospects seem good because there is no evidence
of any significant drop in local groundwater levels. With current
population density and rainfall patterns, annual local recharge of
underground water seems to still be not greatly out of balance with
pumped withdrawals. Future threats to our water supply could,
however, come from additional large residential developments
dependent on pumped groundwater from the same aquifer.
Figure 1
Eloy Land Subsidence 19521985
Source: Land
Subsidence and
Earth Fissures in Arizona
AZGS 1993
4
However, SaddleBrooke also has a stake in a healthy, viable
Greater Tucson metropolitan area. If the regional economy falters,
our home values are not likely to be immune. Thus, it is relevant
to SaddleBrooke residents that the economic viability of the entire
Tucson area will depend on slowing, and ultimately stopping, the
mining of area groundwater. Twenty years ago, Tucson was 100%
dependent on groundwater. Today, the CAP accounts for about
two-thirds of Tucson Water's deliveries, and the target is for 100%
within the next few years. However, with projected continued
increases in population growth, and with possibly declining future
CAP supplies, the city will almost certainly again face the need for
creative and expensive measures such as much greater
conservation, purchasing CAP allocations from Indian tribes,
engaging in "water farming" (buying up farmland for groundwater
pumping rights), and even, in the long term, purchasing water from
desalinization plants in California or Mexico (e.g., via CAP
swapping arrangements for more Colorado River water).
We will now look in more detail at the regulatory framework for
water in our region and community.
II. ARIZONA'S PROGRESSIVE WATER LAW
In a 2007 Arizona Law Review article (Vol. 49, No. 2), University
of Arizona Professor Sharon Megdal, and co-authors gave a brief
history of Arizona’s principal water statute as follows:
“In the late 1970s, a number of forces coalesced to produce the
perfect scenario for overhauling Arizona’s antiquated groundwater
law. The chronic overdrafting of the state’s …reserves posed a
threat to the state’s economic well-being. Secretary of State Cecil
Andrus threatened the state with loss of funding for construction of
the CAP [Central Arizona Project] unless the state reformed it
groundwater law. And the Arizona Supreme Court …threatened to
5
prohibit any transportation of water off the overlying land,
something …mines and major cities…had come to depend on.”
“The 1980 Groundwater Management Act (GMA) was truly
progressive. The GMA established a system of quantified rights
for all existing groundwater users within … Active Management
Areas (AMAs), made most rights transferable, restricted initiating
most new groundwater uses within AMAs, established strong
management by …the Department of Water Resources [ADWR],
and required conservation programs.”
Since the GMA was enacted, other players have become more
involved in the management of Arizona’s water. The Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) has restricted water
use in specific sensitive locations. Locally, ADEQ requires that
water company wells must be tested for water quality, and the
results sent annually to all user households. The Arizona
Corporations Commission has prohibited, or placed restrictions, on
providing water to irrigate future golf courses in the course of
awarding or extending certificates of necessity and convenience
(CC&Ns) – see e.g., Decision Number 69163 of Dec 5, 2006.
Private environmental and other organizations are supporting
legislation, and/or bringing court cases, to protect water supplies.
In 2007, for example, the State Legislature passed HB 2300
requiring election plans for a special water district for the upper
San Pedro Groundwater Basin. In November, 2010, creation of
such a district was narrowly voted down; another local vote could
be taken in 2012. The San Pedro, threatened by development, is
southern Arizona’s last continuously flowing river and a crucial
riparian habitat area and bird migration corridor.
These are only a few examples of the broader context within which
water could be viewed. For SaddleBrooke, however, the role of
the ADWR, through its oversight of the Tucson Active
Management Area (TAMA), is key.
6
III. TUCSON ACTIVE MANAGEMENT AREA (TAMA)
Arizona has five active management areas: Santa Cruz, Tucson,
Pinal, Phoenix and Prescott. SaddleBrooke is located in the
TAMA which covers 3,866 square miles and extends from the
Mexican border north to the Falcon Valley and Oracle. The
TAMA has an overriding statutory goal of achieving Safe Yield by
the year 2025. Safe Yield means that the amount of groundwater
pumped in the AMA does not exceed the amount of natural and
artificial recharge on an annual basis.
TAMA has two primary regulatory mechanisms governing “new
water”:
Permitting new wells. For non-exempt wells (wells producing
more than 35 gallons per minute) TAMA administers well spacing
requirements to address: “three types of unreasonably increasing
damage: (1) additional drawdown of water levels at neighboring
wells of record; (2) additional regional land subsidence; and (3)
migration of contaminated groundwater to a well of record.” It
also administers well construction standards. These regulations
involve fairly extensive and complex guidelines and will not be
presented here. The lighter statutory requirements for the
regulation of exempt wells have been criticized. However, outside
of active management areas, such wells are largely unregulated.
Assured Water Supply. Under Arizona law, new residential
developments located in an AMA cannot be platted unless the
developer has obtained a Certificate of Assured Water Supply
(CAWS) from the AMA, or has a firm supply commitment from a
water provider that has a Designation of Assured Water Supply
(DAWS). One of the five statutory criteria for acquiring an AWS
is demonstrating the “physical, legal and continuous availability of
the water supply for 100 years”. To meet "continuous availability",
7
well water levels must be maintained no lower than 1,000 feet
below the surface for the 100 year period. To qualify for a CAWS,
developers typically hire a hydrogeology firm to prepare an
analysis based on area hydrogeologic data and anticipated water
demand. The ADWR reviews such analyses using demand
estimates calculated at full build-out, and with different criteria and
formulas for residential units, golf courses, common landscaping
areas, commercial units, etc.
Since a 1995 strengthening of AWS Rules, applicants must also
demonstrate the use of renewable water, rather than groundwater,
to meet most of the demand of the development for 100 years.
However, recognizing that sufficient renewable sources may not be
available at the location of the development, an AMA permits this
requirement to be met if the developer becomes a member of the
Central Arizona Groundwater Replenishment District (CAGRD).
The CAGRD, a quasi-government entity, describes its role, in part,
as follows:
"Development, … is not necessarily stymied for those
landowners and water providers who have no direct access to CAP
water or other renewable supplies. If a water provider or a
landowner has access to groundwater and desires to rely
exclusively on groundwater to demonstrate a 100 year water
supply, it may do so, provided it joins the CAGRD. As a member
of the CAGRD, the landowner or provider must pay the CAGRD
to replenish any groundwater pumped by the member which
exceeds the pumping limitations imposed by the AWS Rules."
Replenishment means that the CAGRD recharges somewhere in
the same AMA the amount of renewable water needed to offset
most (currently about 90%) of the groundwater that the developer
will be pumping for 100 years. In other words, an AMA’s rules
aim at achievement of Safe Yield on a AMA-wide basis. This
flexibility is crucial. It enables new large residential developments
8
to rely almost solely on the pumping of groundwater which could,
over the years, result in significant drops in local water tables
while the CAGRD is recharging replacement water elsewhere in
the basin.
To illustrate how TAMA’s rules work, we may look at
SaddleBrooke Ranch . On February 6, 2003, the ADWR issued a
Certificate of Assured Water Supply to Robson Ranch Mountain,
L.L.C. for the SBR development. The certificate was based, in
part, on the following information which I have taken from the
developer’s application and the TAMA final approval:
Number of lots
Golf
Sewage utility
Type of water
5,619
three eighteen hole courses, three
clubhouses
50 room hotel resort
shopping center
Arizona Water CompanySaddleBrooke
Mountain Pass Utility Co.
groundwater and treated effluent
Consistency with
Management Goal
CAGRD enrollment 9/19/2000
Other
Other
Water provider
Total Water Demand, Acre Feet/Year (AF/yr):
Residential
1210.58
Non-residential 1510.25
Construction
1.72 (applies only during construction
phase)
Lost+Unaccount. 269.26
TOTAL/YEAR 2991.81
Total 100 Year Demand
265,457 AF
9
Basic Groundwater Allowance 23,934.48 AF (groundwater that
may be “mined”)
Percentage that may be mined 9% (23,934.48 divided by
265,457)
Percentage to be replaced
91% (by CAGRD + effluent)
Thus, SBR will be supplied almost entirely by new groundwater,
with CAGRD recharging in a distant location (e.g., Avra Valley)
86% of the total 100 year demand (assuming effluent provides
5% of SBR usage).
To further illustrate the flexibility of AMA rules, the SBR golf
course is being irrigated by a “recovery well”. This means that
the groundwater being pumped is not being recorded against the
Ranch’s groundwater allowance but rather against credits that
the developer obtained by recharging effluent elsewhere in the
TAMA. Also, because Arizona Water Company-SaddleBrooke
was originally “new” (it was incorporated separately by the
existing Arizona Water Company which serves Oracle) it was
held by TAMA to lower conservation standards until it qualified
as a “large municipal supplier” by achieving annual groundwater
withdrawals of at least 250 AF.
Finally, in becoming a member of the CAGRD the developer
commits future homeowners to paying for groundwater
replenishment. Thus, residents of SaddleBrooke Ranch pay in
their annual Pinal County Real Estate Tax bills an amount, based
on their water usage, at a rate that will increase as CAGRD's
future cost of obtaining replenishment water increases. This
"Pinal Groundwater Replenishment District (GRD)" tax is in
addition to the ad valorem "Central AZ Water Conservation"
property tax that all owners in Pinal, Maricopa and Pima
counties now pay to help amortize the financing of the Central
Arizona Project (CAP).
10
IV. RENEWABLE WATER FOR TUCSON
As previously stated, the future economic health and growth of
Tucson depends on halting groundwater mining and finding new
sources of renewable water.
The CAP and the CAWCD
In 1922 the seven basin states of the Colorado River and the
federal government negotiated the Colorado River Compact which
divided the states into upper and lower basins, and apportioned 7.5
million acre feet (AF) of water annually for each basin. Arizona
was the last to sign the Compact and obtained 2.8 million AF
compared to California’s 4.4 million. After 22 years of lobbying,
and finally winning in the Supreme Court a suit filed against
California, Arizona obtained Congressional approval for federal
funding of a project to distribute River water to Pima, Maricopa
and Pinal counties. Construction was begun in 1973 at Havasu on
a canal system that today brings water 336 miles to a terminus 14
miles south of Tucson.3 The Central Arizona Project (CAP) cost
was about $4 billion; Arizona's share, reimbursable to the Federal
Government was approximately 1.7 billion. As previously noted,
residents of the three CAP counties pay Arizona's share via their
property tax bills. CAP water is allocated to municipal,
agricultural, mining, and certain Indian community users.
The CAP canal system conducts about half of the total amount of
Colorado River water allocated to Arizona to agricultural and
urban users.. The other half goes from Yuma to users such as the
Colorado River Indian Reservation and the Gila Project
(agricultural irrigation districts). Tucson is at the end of the CAP
canal system. The City (Tucson Water) and other local holders of
3
The CAP also lifts the water about 2,900 feet, using 14 pumping plants powered mostly by the coal-fired
Navajo Generating Station near Page whilch is jointly owned by the Bureau of Reclamation, Tucson
Electric Power, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, Salt River Project and other entities.
11
CAP allocations are recharging CAP water in the Marana/Avra
Valley area and in South Tucson. Combined with other factors
such as the purchase and retirement of farmland, and re-charging
effluent into the Santa Cruz River bed, groundwater levels in
certain locations have made some recent recovery – e.g., a rise of
50-70 feet in the Marana area.
Unfortunately, CAP water as now allocated is almost certainly not
going to be sufficient to meet Tucson’s projected growing needs,
especially as other basin states’ demands on the River increase,
and especially during periods of reduced River flows. In 2007 the
ADWR website described its overview of the situation, in part, as
follows:
“When the Colorado River Compact was negotiated, average
annual flows were estimated to be about 18 million acre-feet.
Today a more accurate flow estimate is about 16.3 million acrefeet, however total Colorado River allocations, including the
Mexican Treaty obligation, total 16.5 million acre-feet. Annual
flows are highly variable ranging from a low of 6.3 million acrefeet to a high of 27 million acre-feet…”
Since 2007, scientific reports have been released raising the
possibility of severe shortages of water in the Colorado River. On
July 27, 2009 the Denver Post carried an article stating that
scientists at the University of Colorado found that “all reservoirs
along the Colorado River — which provide water for 27 million
people in seven states — could dry up by 2057 because of climate
change and overuse.” Specifically, one finding was that if
warming led to a 10 percent reduction in the river's flow, it would
create a 25 percent chance of depletion. This followed a 2008
study by scientists at the Scripps Institute of Oceanography in San
Diego indicating that climate change and increased demand for
water on the Colorado River could, with a 50% probability, "drain"
12
Lake Mead by 2021. The terms "dry up" and "drain" are from
press accounts and do not reflect the fact that the Colorado River
will continue to flow, but likely at some future time in quantities
insufficient to maintain lake storage levels without significant
cutbacks in water deliveries.
To plan to manage possible shortages, the Basin States agreed to
“Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages
and the Coordinated Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead”,
signed by the Secretary of Interior in December 2007. According
to the CAP website, these guidelines are especially important to
Arizona "because CAP holds a "junior" priority water entitlement to
Colorado River water among the Lower Basin states (Arizona, California,
and Nevada). Other low priority Colorado River contractors in Arizona, such
as the Mohave County Water Authority, also will be subject to reductions
during times of shortage".
Details of the Agreement and how CAP plans to manage future
reductions in its deliveries are found at http://www.capaz.com/PublicInformation/CriticalIssues.aspx.
Long-unresolved Indian water claims could further complicate
Tucson’s future access to CAP water. In its shortage planning,
CAP designates 475,000 AF of its High Priority water to "Tribal
Customers" -- an amount larger than designated to its Municipal
and Industrial Customers (450,000 AF). This amount for Tribal
Customers includes existing allocations (to 12 tribes) and foreseen
allocations pursuant to the settlement of additional claims.4
While the CAP takes no position on the reliability of climate
change estimates, or the outcome of Indian claims, in 2007 it stated
that “long term water demands in CAP's three-county service area
are projected to exceed currently available supplies.” Accordingly,
4
For example, the White Mountain Apache Tribe Water Rights Quantification Act was passed in 2010
affording the WMAT 25,000 AF/YR of Colorado River water. The Tribe is currently negotiating an
agreement to lease 2,500 AF/YR of that water for 100 years to the CAGRD for its replenishment program.
13
it has created the Add Water Program “to determine when new
supplies need to be acquired and what entities get those supplies”.
In November, 2010 the Staff presented a proposal, the Executive
Summary of which outlined a water acquisition plan:
Phasing. The program envisions six 50,000 acre-foot phases with the first phase beginning in
2015 and a new phase commencing every five years until a total of 300,000 acre-feet has been
acquired and developed or until water supplies targeted for ADD Water have been exhausted,
whichever comes first.
Types. ADD Water plans to target three water supply sources: Colorado River water, imported
groundwater and potentially, brackish groundwater. ADD Water will not target ocean
desalination.
The Proposal is currently undergoing discussions and revisions
which can be followed on the CAP website
www.projectaddwater.com/.
The CAP is managed and operated by the Central Arizona Water
Conservation District (CAWCD), a municipal corporation formed
to repay the federal government for the reimbursable costs of
construction, and to operate the CAP. Members of its 15 member
Board are elected from the three member counties served by the
CAP.
The CAGRD
Also operated by the CAWCD is the previously-discussed
CAGRD which makes developments like SaddleBrooke possible
by replenishing renewable water in the AMAs. In the past,
CAGRD has obtained excess CAP water for this purpose -- ie,
water not used by allocation holders. However, in 2009 for the first
time there were more orders for CAP excess water than was
available.
CAGRD has recognized that it will need to develop additional
supplies of renewable water5 and that possible sources are the
5
CAGRD currently believes that it can meet its projected 2035 recharge target of
227,000 AF, but, after that, additional sources will be needed.
14
Colorado River (agricultural), Indian leased CAP, effluent, and
“legally imported groundwater” (not truly renewable, but a “firm”
supply in the sense it is contractually purchased). These are some
of the same sources that are being considered in the CAP's ADD
Water planning.6
Because new water will be significantly more expensive than
excess CAP water, CAGRD will be forced to increase the property
taxes imposed on affected homeowners. In its most recent Rate
Schedule, the Assessment Rate for the Tucson AMA is $427/AF
for 2011/12, rising to $617/AF in 2016/16. Thus, affected
homeowners in SaddleBrooke will see their CGRD property tax
component increase by about 44% during this period unless they
reduce water usage.
State Versus Local Water Planning
Although state law provides the primary regulatory framework for
water in southern Arizona, local jurisdictions also can play a very
important role. In water conservation, for example, the state's
actions are pursuant to the statutory provisions of the 1980 GMA -i.e, achieving safe yield in the AMAs. The GMA provides no
authority to act to protect riparian habitat or sustain stream flows,
or otherwise to support a sustainable environment. Here, some
local governments have stepped in.
Conservation is the equivalent of finding renewable water.
Switching to a more efficient irrigation system, or installing a low
flow bathroom shower head are examples of the many permanent
changes homeowners can make that reduce water usage every year.
TAMA has rules for municipal water suppliers to reduce per capita
water consumption, or alternatively, adhere to “best management
practices” to achieve conservation. Farmers have been subject to
6
In the current version of the ADD Water proposal, the CAGRD would ultimately be
relieved of the task of finding new sources of renewable water; that function would be
folded into the ADD Water project.
15
non-expansion of irrigated acreage requirements, and limited
phased reductions of groundwater use per acre. Farmers must have
meters on their wells and report usage, while remaining free to
decide whether to plant lower water requirement crops, use watersaving irrigation techniques, etc.
Tucson Water recently increased its residential water rate by 10
percentage points, 2 and ½ percent of which is to provide revenues
for conservation (e.g. incentives for low water use fixtures). The
City of Tucson and the County of Pima have jointly initiated a
“Water Infrastructure, Supply and Planning Study” (WISP) in a
joint effort to plan water for a sustainable economic future for the
region.
Major new water policy initiatives have recently been taken by the
Town of Oro Valley which has been experiencing significant
declines in groundwater levels. On Feb. 10, 2012 it dedicated new
facilities to receive 2,000-4,000 AF per year of its allotment of
CAP water by paying for its treatment and delivery (to OV water
connections) by the Tucson Water Co. This process of contracting
with another party to convey water is known as "wheeling" and
will cost OV about $500 per AF delivered. By a combination of
wheeling and future investments in its own direct connection to its
10,000 AF/year CAP allocation, OV expects to reduce
groundwater pumping and be able to stabilize its groundwater
levels while still growing its population. Already in 2012, OV
expects that its groundwater pumping will be reduced by 37% from
its former peak because of its new CAP water combined with
locally-generated effluent to water golf courses.
Renewable water use is reflected in OV's plan, adopted Nov. 19,
2008, to govern the future annexation of State land known as the
Arroyo Grande project – a development that would eventually add
38,000 or more residents to the Town. In addition to requiring a
wildlife corridor and buffer protection of biologically-sensitive
16
areas of the County's Sonoran Desert Protection Plan, the Council
adopted the policy that the development will be served 100% by
renewable physical (CAP or reclaimed) water supplied by the
eventual developers:
It is significant that Oro Valley has apparently moved to deny
developers the right, under State AMA regulation, to meet
groundwater replacement requirements by CAGRD contracts – i.e.,
“paper water”. It remains to be seen whether the State Land
Department will concur in the negotiation of an annexation
agreement between the two parties, and whether there will be legal
challenges to such a provision.
Pinal County adopted a new Comprehensive Plan on November
18, 2009 which foresees major County population growth for
which existing water resources will be clearly insufficient.
However, the Plan cites the State's primacy in the role of
regulating development from the standpoint of water resources.
Unlike Pima County and Oro Valley planning, the Pinal Plan
contains no provisions for County regulation of water to preserve
riparian areas or a sustainable environment.
The Key Role of Agriculture and Indian Water
Agriculture represents a large factor in Southern Arizona’s water
picture. State-wide, it accounts for 75% of total water
consumption. In the TAMA agriculture consumes 26%, but in
Pinal County, over 95%.
However, agricultural acreage in southern Arizona has decreased
dramatically since the mid-1980s. A recent Morrison Institute
study notes that, to a large extent, farm land and water have been
converted to subdivisions in the same place.7 This has helped
7
Watering the Sun Corridor, Managing Choices in Arizona's Megapolitan Areas, The Morrison Institute
for Public Policy, Arizona State University, August 2011. P. 29.
17
sustainability since an acre of houses generally uses less water than
an acre of cotton, alfalfa or other high water-use crops.
The Morrison study also notes, "The AMA’s irrigation districts
(excepting the San Carlos Irrigation District) have been using CAP
water for the most part during the past 20 years." Thus expected
future declines of farm acreage are expected to free up substantial
quantities of both renewable and ground water for municipal and
industrial growth. "One large potential source—though one with
huge political ramifications— would be moving some Colorado
River water from western Arizona agriculture to the Sun Corridor.
There may be 200,000 acre feet or more available annually."
Water farming is not new. In the 1970s the City of Tucson
purchased some 10,000 acres of farmland in the TAMA for
groundwater rights. Phoenix has also acquired water rights in this
18
way. In California, the Imperial Irrigation District is transferring
agricultural water to the City of San Diego with payments to
Imperial Valley farmers for the diverted water.
Arizona Indian tribes have acquired substantial amount of water in
settlements of long-standing claims. For example, the Gila River
Indian Community (GRIC) has a settlement which will provide
653,500 acre feet of water annually from various sources,
including CAP allocations.8 Already, the CAP distributes over
333,000 AF per year as "Federal Water" (ie, Indian water), about
70% of which is leased to local municipalities, mining companies
or irrigation districts.9
Reclaimed Water
According to a 5/28/2010 TAMA draft study, reclaimed water
(used mostly on golf courses, parks, etc.) would account for about
5.6% of total water supply in 2025 (under base scenarios), up from
4.9% in 2006. Under an enhanced use scenario, reclaimed could
increase to about 11% and allow Safe Yield to be achieved.
(www.azwater.gov/AzDWR/documents)
V. SADDLEBROOKE'S WATER
Groundwater
SaddleBrooke is located in the Upper Santa Cruz Basin. Our
aquifer is often referred to as the Falcon Valley Aquifer because
we benefit from the southward movement of groundwater from
that Valley which is hydrologically bounded by the northern limits
of the TAMA. This southward flow is illustrated in Figure 2 which
shows the elevations of the water table -- over 3,000 feet in the
north descending to 2,200 feet as groundwater exits Oro Valley.
8
9
Morrison Report, p. 31.
CAP Water Deliveries, Calendar 2010 Report. WWW.CAP-AZ.com
19
Figure 2
Water Level
Elevations
in
WATER LEVEL ELEVATIONS IN TUCSON AMA FALL 2004
AND SPRING
2005
TAMA
2004/2005
The alluvial structures from which SaddleBrook's wells draw water
are relatively deep. Figure 3 shows the depth to bedrock contours
in the area. The SaddleBrooke and Mountainview clubhouses, as
well as Desertview are within the contours where depth to bedrock
is 3,200 feet or more. In some areas to the west, beyond the
Tortalitas, depths become even greater -- to 9,000 feet (purple).
20
Figure 3
Depth to Bedrock Contours in Feet
Water levels in these deep structures receive annual recharge,
largely from mountainside runoff -- the Catalinas and Tortalitas in
our area. Figure 4 shows color coded sources of recharge near
Saddlebrooke (blue star)-- green providing an historical average of
400-600 acre feet per mile per year, and purple 200-400.
Measured along the entire yellow line west of SaddleBrooke, Big
Wash historically recharged 1,400 af/yr. The dotted line at the top
marks the northern boundary of the Tucson AMA and of Falcon
Valley. The purple line to the right of SaddleBrooke is the Canada
21
del Oro, while the green/purple line further to the right is mountain
front recharge.
Figure 4
Historical Annual Recharge Along Mountain Fronts and Stream
Channels
Source: WR Osterkamp 1973
SaddleBrooke Water Companies.
Two companies serve SaddleBrooke with interconnections for
redundancy. SBR is served by a separate company.
22
Lago del Oro Water.
Lago is a “large municipal supplier” regulated by TAMA. The
Board of Directors consists of Edward J. Robson, Steven Robson,
Lloyd W. Golder, III, and Vicky J. Cox-Golder. The Company had
13 wells producing water in 2009 as shown in Figure 5.
Figure 5
Wells and Production (acre feet) 2009
GWSI Site ID
Legal Description
3.22941E+14
D11014023DCC
D10014033BDD
D10014033BDD
D10014027DBC
D11014003BCA
D11014022CBD
D11014022CB0
D10014027DDC
D10014023ACB
D10014034BAB
D10014027BCD
D11014009AAA
3.22935E+14
3.23043E+14
3.22748E+14
3.22732E+14
3.23135E+14
3.2293E+14
3.22941E+14
D11014010ADD
D10014035DCC
D11014023ACC
D11014023DBD
D10014027DDD
D11014011ABD
D11014009B00
3.23148E+14
D10014034BBD
Lago del Oro Water Company
Water
Well Depth
Drill Date
Level
(ft)
78.00
1/1/1981
240.00
260.00
6/28/2005
1340.00
380.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
504.00
310.00
367.00
222.00
64.00
90.00
78.00
45.00
260.00
385.00
220.00
3/5/1982
2009 Output
157.67
2/23/1996
1/17/1996
12/22/1995
9/11/1973
500.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
959.00
1109.00
1200.00
804.00
308.02
116.30
653.85
215.13
1/1/1950
6/1/1972
4/1/1981
6/1/1973
9/8/1987
3/1/1972
6/1/1971
300.00
225.00
609.00
241.00
805.00
495.00
310.00
18.57
13.52
1.86
0.00
687.22
14.20
5.52
370
5/19/1999
1210
450
1963
812
0.00
0
311.88
0
173.34
0
2677
Total Output
Top Two wells
Top Four wells
50%
73%
23
Ridgeview Utility Co.
According to Arizona Corporations Commission (ACC) on-line
records, Ridgeview Utility Company was incorporated on Feb. 2,
2000. Its officers include Edward J. Robson, Chairman; Mark
Robson, President; and Steven M. Soriano, Vice President. On
Jan. 17, 2005 Ridgeview informed the ACC that it was establishing
service to its first permanent customer. The company today is a
Large Municipal Provider, serving The Preserve and a few more
recent parts of SaddleBrooke (HOA#2). Three wells are registered
for Ridgeview as shown in Figure 6.
Figure 6
Ridgeview Utility Co.
Legal Description
D10014024CBA
D10014024CCB
D10014024BCB
Drill Date
1/22/1988
5/13/2001
11/2/2001
2009 Output
27.4
449.8
477.2
Well Depth (ft)
505.00
1210.00
1055.00
Water Level
360.00
360.00
500.00
Total Output
Indicating the interconnectivity between the two systems, in 2009
Ridgeview delivered 22.7 AF to Lago del Oro Water, and received
66.5 AF from Lago. At the end of 2009, Ridgeview had 139
residential connections.
Arizona Water Company
AZWC is a large company that serves more than 70,000 customers
in various parts of Arizona. A sub-unit, "AZWC-SaddleBrooke"
was the provider to SBR until 11/19/2007 when it was merged
with the AZWC-Oracle system. The last AZWC-SB annual report
to ADWR was for 2007; since then data for SBR are included in
AZWC-Oracle Reports, and not separated.
24
Assured Water Supply (AWS).
When SaddleBrooke began construction in 1986, AWS rules had
not yet been promulgated by the ADWR. Following the adoption
of rules in 1995, SaddleBrooke Development Company applied for
and received Certificates of AWS (CAWS) as follows:
10/24/2001 - Unit 21 (North Expansion) ADWR File #27400413
6/3/2002 - Units 42-45 File #27-400478
6/3/2002 - Units 46-50 File #27-400552
The CAWS application and review files are available as scanned
documents on the ADWR website: azwater.gov (data center,
imaged records). From these records Figure 7 shows that a hydrogeological study dated 10/13/2000 was used to support the
issuance of the CAWS for Unit 21 in addition to the CAWS for
Units 42-45.
The key determination the ADWR must make is that the 100 year
impact of the proposal will not lower the depth to water to more
than 1,000 feet below ground level. The chart shows that the
applicant's projection is a lowering of the Year 2000 depth of 500
feet to a depth of 681.9 ft. in 100 years. Of this 181.9 ft. decline,
100 ft. is attributed to a "regional groundwater level decline trend"
of one foot per year. Such an area trend decline is a conservative
factor required by the ADWR for relatively simple models such as
the one (Theis) used for these applications. The 100 year
projection takes into account, through "image wells" the combined
25
impacts of previously-built SaddleBrooke Phases I and II.10 The
Theis model used did not take into account any natural recharge
during the 100 year period; i.e., the projected water level
drawdowns were based conservatively only on water already in the
aquifer in year 1.
Figure 7
CAWS Application and Review by ADWR
SaddleBrooke Units 21, 42-45
Analytical Parameters
Analytical Model
Dwelling Units Demand
Golf Course Demand
Depth to Groundwater (well
16)
Bedrock Bounderies (Pirate
Fault and un-named western
boundary)
Number of Production Wells
Regional GW level decline
trend
SaddleBrooke Phase I and II
Impact - 100 years
North Expansion Impact 100 years
North Expansion 100 Yr
Depth to Water
CAGRD Membership
Letters of Objection
Received
Letters of Objection
Denied/Dismissed
Consultant Study
10/13/2000
Theis
Non-Equilibrium
525 units
136.4 af/yr
428.4 af/yr
500 ft
ADWR AWS Review
10/24/2001
(Unit 21)
Thwells (Theis
Method)
(215 units)
99.7 AF/YR
ADWR AWS Review
6/3/2002
(Units 42-45)
Theis Impact Analysis
510 feet
(525 units)
632.77 AF/YR
428.4
500 feet
2.14 Ft/Yr
1-2 Ft/YR
660-777 feet
582-682 feet
Yes
2
2
Yes
0
2 image wells
1
1 ft/yr
61 ft
16.9 ft
681.9 ft
The last two columns in the table show that, in some instances, the
ADWR reviewers used slightly different assumptions, but arrived
at a range of impacts consistent with that of the applicant.
10
The 681.9 number appears to be in error because 500 ft. plus 61 ft. plus 16.9 ft equals
677.9 ft.
26
An excerpt from the consultant's study for a CAWS for Units 4650 is shown in Figure 8. The 100 year depth to water estimate is
shown to be higher than those shown in Figure 7. This seems to be
explained largely by the different location of the reference well
(higher beginning water level) used for the analysis.
Figure 8
Excerpt from CAWS Application, Units 46-50
A CAWS for SaddleBrooke Ranch was obtained by Robson Ranch
Mountain, LLC on 2/6/2003. The ADWR's Analysis of Assured
Water Supply, dated 3/21/2002, states that a
"Water Availability Report was issued on July 21, 1995 that agreed with the
Hydrogeology Investigation Falcon Valley Ranch by Southwest Groundwater
Consultants dated April 17, 1995. Falcon Valley Ranch is the same area, minus 308
acres, as SaddleBrooke Ranch. The Report estimated that sufficient groundwater to serve
a total demand of 2,736 acre feet per year...is available for 100 years. This slightly
exceeds the potable demand estimate at build-out for SaddleBrooke Ranch..."
27
Water Deliveries and Groundwater Trends
Figure 9 shows water delivered by local companies, including the
Goodman Water Co. serving Eagle Crest.
Figure 9
2009 Water Deliveries SaddleBrooke Area
Groundwater
Lago del
Oro Water
Number of wells
Single family units
18
6134
Total GW delivered
- To single family
- To turf (Golf)
- To commercial
- To other
- To Lago del Oro
- To Ridgeview
Lost/Unaccounted
2629
1753
582
144
83
Percent family units
67%
Ridgeview SaddleBrooke Goodman
Water
Ranch
Water
2010
2
2
139
661
539
37
455
8
17
23
152
127
0
13
67
12
7%
84%
2009 SaddleBrooke Water Deliveries
to Golf Courses (Acre feet)
Total
LDO
SB
Courses
Mountainview
Total
Course
Ridgeview
SB
Ranch
Preserve
Groundwater
Percent GW of total
Golf delivered
582
56%
285
44%
297
75%
455
93%
28
Effluent
Percent effluent of
total Golf
Total Water to Golf
LDO
462
44%
SB
365
56%
Mtnvw
97
25%
Ridgeview
33
6%
1044
650
394
488
Trends in local groundwater tables are difficult to analyze.
Local water companies do not report depth to water in their wells
to the ADWR, it being optional reporting. According to a Lago del
Oro official, Lago does not report water levels because its wells
are pumped so heavily that reliable static water level readings
cannot be obtained.11 Limited evidence of water level stability in
the area does, however, exist. Figure 10 is a hydrograph showing
the water levels in an official Index Well tested annually by the
ADWR. The well is located adjacent to the corrals on left side of
SaddleBrooke Blvd., shortly after starting uphill from Oracle Rd.
The graph shows considerable fluctuations in water levels from
about 1950 to 2006. The steady down trend since 1990 may be
weather-related since it correlates roughly with official Tucson
rainfall measurements superimposed in black during 1994-2006.12
Another indication of a stable water table is reporting to the
ADWR by the Arizona Water Company on one well in the Oracle
Junction area. This well had November depth-to-water
measurements of 345 feet in 2003 and 344 feet in 2005. Spring
measurements were 342 feet for all three years, 2003-2005.
Anecdotal evidence also indicates relative stability in local
groundwater tables. For example, the owner of one privatelyowned well in Catalina located near Capstan and Edwin Rd., and
within the impact zone of one of Lago del Oro's primary producing
11
Providers with a AWS certificates (CAWS) are not required by ADWR to report well water levels; those
with designations of AWS (DAWS) are so required. A.A.C. R12-15-711(A)(4)
12
The rancher who uses the corrals states that the well has not been pumped for many
years; he obtains water from Lago del Oro.
29
wells (depth over 1,200 feet), reports no significant water level
changes. More generally, there apparently have been no reports of
well problems in the Catalina area.
Figure 10
Index Well SaddleBrooke Blvd.
30
Water Pricing
Because it has an older system, built at a lower cost, Lago del Oro
Water has a lower price structure for water than other local
utilities. At the SEIC-sponsored Water Forum at Desertview on
April 20, 2011, Steven Soriano, Vice President of Lago, presented
a summary of area company water rates and estimated monthly
costs for a typical user as shown in Figure 10.
Figure 10
Source: Steve Soriano Robson Communities
Water in Annual Property Taxes
As explained in Part V, the annual Pinal property tax bills of
SaddleBrooke residents contain a water conservation tax, and some
also contain a GRD (groundwater replenishment) tax. Information
for 2010 is shown in Figure 11.
31
Figure 11
Central AZ Water Conservation Tax
•
•
•
Assessed annually on homes in Maricopa, Pinal and Pima counties
to repay AZ reimbursable share ($1.65 billion) of CAP construction
($4 billion)
Rate is 6 cents/$100 of assessed valuation, plus 4 cents/$100 to
purchase water for AZ Water Banking Authority for underground
storage to confront future shortages
Typical charge in SaddleBrooke -- $30-40
Pinal GRD Tax
•
•
•
•
Applies in SaddleBrooke to homeowners in Units for which the
developer obtained a CAWS (Units 21, 42-50) and all of SBR
Proceeds go to Central Arizona Groundwater Replenishment District
(CAGRD) to meet developer’s obligation to replace a percentage of
pumped groundwater with recharged renewable water in the same
AMA.
Calculated on annual metered water consumption by residence
Typical charge in SaddleBrooke -- $97
32
VI. SADDLEBROOKE'S WATER FUTURE
As has been seen, the hydro-geological analysis submitted by
SaddleBrooke Development Co. for the most recent North
Expansion shows a groundwater decline from about 500 feet below
surface, to about 680 feet below surface in 100 years. One ADWR
reviewer of this study found a 100 year groundwater level of 660777 feet below surface.
Of course, these analyses do not take into account future area
development. From the experience of nearby Oro Valley, it is
clear that over-development can cause an acceleration of
groundwater decline. As shown in the map, the recent ten-year
decline in parts of OV was 50-70 feet. At this rate, the decline
would be 500-700 feet in 100 years, lowering groundwater well
below the 1,000 feet statutory minimum in the TAMA.
WATER SURFACE ELEVATION CHANGE 1995 - 2005
Red -70 to -50 Ft
Yellow -50 to -30
Dark Blue 50-70
33
This is, of course, not sustainable and is the reason Oro Valley
plans to spend $150 million or more (in two phases) for a pipeline
and other infrastructure to provide more of its 10,305 AF/YR
allocation of CAP water to residents by either re-charge or direct
distribution.
There are reasons that SaddleBrooke should never get into OV's
situation. It is located "upstream" in groundwater elevation and has
first access to annual recharges shown in Part V. Moreover, it is
protected by the requirement that any future area developments
meet the AWS requirements of the TAMA (requirements that were
not in place in time to protect Oro Valley).
At the present time, two new major developments in our area are
on the horizon (both temporarily at a stand-still due to a depressed
housing market).
Willow Springs is the site of a proposed community to be located
in Falcon Valley near the Black Mountains, some 8 miles north of
SaddleBrooke Ranch. Initially proposed as a large development
(80,000 people according to one report), the current plat,
tentatively approved by the County, is for only two units of
“Willow Springs South”, totaling 1,105 lots. Pinal County has had
no activity on the application for 3 years, and the current tentative
approval expires in August, 2012. On April 15, 2008 the ADWR
issued to Willow Springs Utilities, LLC. a DAWS in the amount of
2,875 AF/yr. This is about the same amount of water projected to
be used by SBR. Figure 12 shows that the three Willow Springs
wells could lower water levels in SaddleBrooke wells by 170-180
feet in 100 years, 100 feet of which is an assumed area trend and
not calculated from the analytical model. On 2/3/2011 the ADWR
issued a Notice of Violation of the terms of the DAWS, WS having
failed to submit annual reports and failed to demonstrate required
water rights. Since then, WS has come into compliance.
34
The other major development proposed for the SaddleBrooke area
is Arroyo Grande, previously discussed in Part IV. As noted, Oro
Valley has adopted Plan policies to require that this development
be supplied entirely by renewable water -- not local groundwater.
It remains to be seen whether the State Land Department will agree
to an annexation agreement on these terms. Skeptics also point out
that a future town council could change policy -- as it recently did,
with new elected members, in withdrawing its opposition to the
Rosemont Copper Mine project.
Figure 12
Willow Springs
35
In such an event, however, the project would still be under the
AWS provisions of the TAMA and, located adjacent to Oro Valley
which is already experiencing unsustainable groundwater declines,
could be curtailed by the 100 year supply requirement.
Discussion of groundwater in our area is somewhat handicapped
by the lack of hydro-geologic data. In 2001 a Water Roundtable
was held at Biosphere to assess the known facts about the basin
“surrounded by the Catalina Mountains, the Tortalita Mountains,
the Black Hills, and the Oracle Divide” (ie, “Falcon Valley”).
Participants included officials of the ADWR, and the TAMA, as
well as private hydrologists, geologists and other private interests,
including Robson Communities and the Arizona Water Company.
No consensus findings emerged, and the lack of hydrologic data
was clearly an issue.
A State groundwater modeling report issued in 200613 estimated
groundwater outflow from Falcon Valley to be relatively small,
probably about 500 AF/yr.14 In 2006, SBR pumped 700 acre feet
for its new golf course – a new withdrawal that alone exceeds the
estimated Falcon Valley outflow. In 2009 The Preserve Golf
Course and other turf accounted for 455 acre feet of new usage.
New withdrawals in the Valley may increase to an estimated 3,000
AF/yr at build-out for SBR, and to an additional 2,875 AF/yr at
build-out for the Willow Springs development (see Appendix).
Since these amounts are far in excess of the annual surplus of
recharged underground water that has flowed out of Falcon Valley,
the Valley will experience declining water tables in the future.
13
"Model Report #13, Arizona Department of Water Resources Regional Groundwater Flow Model of the
TAMA, Tucson, AZ, Simulation and Application" by Dale A. Mason and Liciniu Bota.
14 Modeling studies of this nature, primarily because of data deficiencies, are subject to
substantial margins of error – 30 to 40% in the judgment of some analysts.
36
This finding, of course, is not inconsistent with the hydrogeological studies discussed in Section V.3. above.
The rate of decline is difficult to predict. Water moves very slowly
and it may take many years for the effects of a new major well to
spread widely. More importantly, the total volume of water stored
in the Valley is difficult to estimate because most of the land is
undeveloped and there are relatively few wells from which data
can be taken. A further longer term unknown is whether future
heavy pumping in the Valley could lower water elevations and
trigger at least a temporary reversal of water flow – ie, a flow of
groundwater from the greater SaddleBrooke area back into Falcon
Valley. In this event, future housing developments in Falcon
Valley could have an enhanced impact on Lago del Oro wells.
Finally, some controversy has existed as to the future impact of the
Page-Trowbridge landfill located adjacent to SaddleBrooke Ranch.
PTRL was operated by the University of Arizona from 1962 to
1986 for low level radioactive and chemical wastes. The facility,
closed in August 1997, is subject to a post-closure Permit issued by
the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) on
Nov. 6, 2001. A monitoring program, involving a solar powered
air capture system and four 800 foot deep monitoring water wells,
is in place pursuant to the Permit. The Federal EPA also has
jurisdiction for the site. A detailed explanation of the monitoring
program is found on SaddleBrooke Television's website,
sightsnsounds.org. (Videos: Ongoing Series, Water Issues for
SaddleBrooke). The SaddleBrooke External Affairs and
Information Commission (SEIC) has also made a preliminary
inquiry into PTRL and is considering having an educational forum
on the matter in 2012.
CONCLUSIONS
1. SaddleBrooke’s Current Water Situation Looks Favorable.
37
Since 2000, the ADWR has issued several Certificates of Assured
Water Supply, for SaddleBrooke, Willow Springs, and other
developments, finding that there is sufficient groundwater to serve
developments in the greater Saddlebrooke area for 100 years, with
groundwater levels not declining below 1000 feet from surface.
Local index well performance and other anecdotal evidence do not
offer contradictory information. Annual water quality reports for
local water companies remain favorable and the PTRL site is being
carefully monitored..
2. Future Regional Water Risk Factors.
Major population growth is still projected for Pima and Pinal
Counties, after the current economic downturn ends. Groundwater
alone cannot support such growth. More than a decade of drought
has reduced flows on the Colorado River, and the ADWR
acknowledges that Arizona's existing CAP water will not be
sufficient to support growth with current per capita use levels by
consumers. Significant climate change, man-made or natural,
appears underway and likely to exacerbate future water problems.
The cost of obtaining and distributing additional renewable water
(from desalination, buying up agricultural and Indian rights, using
more reclaimed water, etc.) will be very expensive. How and
when water issues like these could affect property values and
quality of life in the Tucson region are questions without clear
answers.
3. SaddleBrooke's Long Term Exposure.
In its Five Year Action Plan for Water Sustainability, posted online
Oct. 2010, the ADWR states that "given current projections, the
TAMA will not reach safe yield by 2025". It continues: "Although
of critical importance, even if the safe yield goal were met, it
would not solve all the issues related to groundwater overdraft.
Under the 1980 GMA, development may continue to mine
groundwater through purchase of paper water recharge credits
from the Central Arizona Project. State law allows for withdrawals
38
in one part of the AMA to be offset by recharge in another,
hydrologically disconnected location. As such, safe yield applies
strictly on an AMA-wide basis and can result in continued
problems related to localized overdraft within sub-basins."
SaddleBrooke is in a sub-basin significantly disconnected from
existing groundwater recharge facilities (e.g., in Avra Valley). It's
water future will thus remain especially dependent on the validity
of ADWR's reviews of future groundwater supplies related to new
large area developments.
4. The Question of a Sustainable Environment.
In 2008 Pima County enacted an amendment of its Comprehensive
Plan to integrate land use and water resource planning. A County
report providing background to support this amendment stated,
"OroValley, Marana and Flowing Wells Irrigation District, have
realized that the state regulated system does not provide a
sustainable future for their customers. All of the areas have
experienced water level declines and realize that delivering
renewable water is the only sustainable path."15 The Report further
notes that “Reducing groundwater levels by much less than 1,000
feet could likely cause significant problems with subsidence and
water quality. The physical, environmental and economic costs
would be so great that it is unlikely that water providers would
actually draw aquifers down his low."
Thus far, Pinal County, unlike Pima, has not adopted in its Plan the
integration of land use and water resource planning to address
issues such as protection of wildlife and riparian habitat and other
sustainability issues.
5. State Trust Lands Pose An Issue.
15
Recently, the capital investment for extending to these providers their CAP allocations was
estimated at over $300 million.
39
As SaddleBrooke’s experience with neighboring Eagle Crest is
demonstrating, State Constitutional provisions requiring the
disposition of State trust lands at their highest value (to support
public education and certain other functions) poses a threat to
ecological and aesthetic values. Moreover, depletion of local
aquifers is a future issue. A glance at a map indicates that more
than 90% of Falcon Valley is Trust land as is almost all of the land
surrounding SaddleBrooke to the north and west to the Tortalitas.16
The extent of the threat to local groundwater of further State trust
land auctions to developers will be determined by the policies of
Pinal County and other local jurisdictions working with the State
Land Department to ensure that new developments have access to
sufficient “wet” (on-site) renewable water and preserve
environmental and wildlife values.
*
*
*
It is hoped that this presentation for SaddleBrooke residents will
heighten awareness of water as the underpinning of our long term
well-being in this community, and encourage participation in the
political process bearing on the sustainability of this desert land for
ourselves and for generations to come.
Bob Simpson
March 2012
16
Over 1,000 acres of SaddleBrooke itself was obtained by the SaddleBrooke Development Company at
auctions of State lands in 1994 and 2001.
40
APPENDIX
Long Term Water Issues
The present paper has pointed out that future water issues facing
SaddleBrooke cannot be separated from those facing the larger
Tucson region. But, equally important, our fortunes are, and will
always be, linked to water issues facing the state and the Colorado
River Basin states.
In 2011 the following three studies were among those released
providing treatments of these broader themes.
Watering the Sun Corridor, Managing Choices in Arizona's
Megapolitan Areas, The Morrison Institute for Public Policy,
Arizona State University, August 2011.
Arizona at the Crossroads; Water Scarcity or Water
Sustainability?, Grand Canyon Institute, Karen L. Smith, Fellow,
April 2011
Water Resources Development Commission; Final Report, Oct. 1,
2011, Arizona Department of Water Resources.
This latter study17 was a result of House Bill 2661. The
Commission is tasked with the following:
• Compile and consider the projected water needs of each
Arizona county in the next 25, 50 and 100 years;
17
(http://amwua.org/resource_documents/wrdc_final_rdln_110923.p
df)
41
• Identify and quantify the water supplies currently
available in each county;
• Identify potential water supplies to meet additional
demands in the next 25, 50 and 100 years and the legal
and technical issues associated with using those supplies;
• Identify potential mechanisms for financing the
acquisition, treatment and delivery of water supplies; and
make recommendations regarding further studies and
evaluations.
*
*
*
The following excerpt from the Sun Corridor Report addresses
population growth.
"This report will focus on the three big counties at the heart of
urban Arizona: Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal. The original Sun
Corridor report included Santa Cruz and Yavapai, and both of
those counties are likely to fit the megapolitan’s employmentinterchange factor in the near future. However, given the
current growth of central Arizona, its three principal counties pose
the biggest challenge.
From 2005 to 2010, the prices of homes in Metro Phoenix, for
example, fell by almost 50%. Arizona as a state went from
creating 121,000 jobs between October 2005 and October 2006 to
losing 183,000 jobs in 2009. The Sun Corridor’s traditionally
homebuilding-based economy saw housing construction plummet.
In light of the realities of the 2008 economic collapse, Morrison
Institute commissioned Marshall Vest, director of the Economic
and Business Research Center at the University of Arizona’s Eller
College of Management, to revisit the population projections."
42
43
44