I asked our builder if the water piping was insulated. Nope. Insulation would save on hot water usage and also colder water usage. You can not get cold water in the Summer. And you run the water to get hot water due to no insulation. In AZ, they use PEX tubing for water. PEX is cheaper and just about anyone can install it. Copper takes more skill, is more durable. and can be insulated which saves on costs. “We voted to create tough water management rules. Arizona ignored us” Opinion piece by an Arizona citizen who has concerns about water usage and policies. Last August, following a public hearing, the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) adopted its management goal for the citizen-approved Douglas Active Management Area. I
Topics:
Angry Bear considers the following as important: Arizona, law, politics, water
This could be interesting, too:
Angry Bear writes A Sense of Privilege
Bill Haskell writes Chief Justice John Roberts Almost Had Me Fooled
Bill Haskell writes Arizona State Senator got a Speeding Ticket. It does not Make Her a Martyr
Angry Bear writes U.S. Defense Spending in Historical and International Context
I asked our builder if the water piping was insulated. Nope. Insulation would save on hot water usage and also colder water usage. You can not get cold water in the Summer. And you run the water to get hot water due to no insulation. In AZ, they use PEX tubing for water. PEX is cheaper and just about anyone can install it. Copper takes more skill, is more durable. and can be insulated which saves on costs.
“We voted to create tough water management rules. Arizona ignored us”
Opinion piece by an Arizona citizen who has concerns about water usage and policies.
Last August, following a public hearing, the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) adopted its management goal for the citizen-approved Douglas Active Management Area.
I objected to the goal and subsequently filed a “Judicial Review of Administrative Decision” appeal. Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Scott Blaney is expected to issue a ruling soon, and the future of rural Arizona hangs in the balance.
The Story: Douglas AMA plan could set precedent
The case before the judge addresses two important aspects of groundwater management, and by ADWR’s arguments, would set major precedents. I’ll do my best to explain the situation as I see it.
As mentioned in a previous op-ed, Arizona’s 1980 groundwater code policy is to address problems caused when “withdrawal of groundwater is greatly in excess of the safe annual yield” and to protect “the welfare of this state and its citizens.”
Of Arizona’s five initial Active Management Areas (AMAs), three aimed explicitly for “safe-yield,” meaning a balance of water supply and demand.
Of the remaining two, Santa Cruz added a more specific target to “prevent local water tables from experiencing long-term declines.” The Pinal AMA targeted “the necessity to preserve future water supplies for non-irrigation uses” —which, of course, implies the eventual stabilization of groundwater levels.
Why not try to stabilize water levels?
Why no “safe-yield” or “stabilized water tables” for the Douglas Basin, as most residents requested? The agency’s answer was published in its summary of the public hearing:
“The proposed goal is tailored to the unique supply and demand conditions in the Douglas AMA.”
Not much of an explanation. But the department’s recent appeal filings gave a more revealing answer.
It referred to comments from the Arizona Farm Bureau and Nav Athwal, a California agriculture investor with holdings in the Douglas basin. Athwal requested that “the management goal for the Douglas AMA should allow for long-term depletion of the aquifer” because, he said, our basin doesn’t get Central Arizona Project or other surface water supplies.
Let that sink in.
Because our groundwater supplies are more limited than other AMAs, we should forgo efforts to stabilize our aquifer. And ADWR agrees with Athwal.
Locals should get to use our water first
In my first public comment to the Arizona Department of Water Resources, I asked about giving preference to local water users in an AMA. Ultimately, its goal was in service of “water users in the basin.”
The department made clear in its brief that it means “all water users,” regardless of residency and citizenship. Despite agency officials’ protest, it’s clear that they’re avoiding their statutory duty.
Roughly 50% of the irrigated land in our basin belongs to eight companies from California and Minnesota.
Why does it matter whether commercial water users are based locally or elsewhere? Because when our limited water resources are commodified, the profits should go to locals and support our local economies, not the pockets of shareholders in other states.
State can prioritize water use. It refuses to
Is it xenophobic to give preference to local water users? Ask that of Mexican farmers in Totalco currently protesting the extraction of groundwater by U.S. corporations in their basin.
Of course, it’s not.
Water resources are subject to the “public trust doctrine,” which gives each state the responsibility to protect those resources for their citizens.
As recently as 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed that “each State has full jurisdiction over the lands within its borders, including the beds of streams and other waters,” and the principle that “one State may not physically enter another to take water in the absence of an express agreement.”
It’s not that the Arizona Department of Water Resources cannot prioritize water access for Arizona growers and residents in our basin. Or that it cannot help us stabilize our water tables. They’re simply refusing to. And by their logic, it will be the same for the Willcox basin and much of rural Arizona.
If you’re wondering whether politics and corporate lobbyists are influencing their decisions, I’d say you’re asking the right questions.