From the article: [...] [...] [...] To me it sounds like Arizona is getting its act together, though there is a way to go. Cities buying out farms for their water is an old story in the western...
From the article:
The long-awaited report, announced by Gov. Katie Hobbs (D), projects that about 4 percent of the demand for groundwater, or 4.9 million acre-feet of water, will not be met over the next 100 years without further action.
[...]
To build a subdivision in much of Arizona, developers must show they have enough water to last 100 years. Phoenix and many of the cities around it, such as Scottsdale, Mesa, Gilbert and Goodyear, already have been designated by the state as having such “assured” water supplies that meet this threshold.
But many places in Phoenix’s outer ring that have been growing at a breakneck pace do not have these designations and this report has the potential to complicate future development in those areas.
In those areas — such as Queen Creek, Buckeye and others — there is still an ample pipeline of roughly 80,000 homes that have been approved for future development. But new projects based solely on groundwater in such areas would not be able to get approval to build.
To solve this problem, the town of Queen Creek, east of Phoenix, has been racing to import water from elsewhere in the state in an attempt to secure future supplies and satisfy its rapid growth. The town spent $27 million to buy Colorado River water from a farm in far western Arizona, which it expects to start arriving this month. And it made another $30 million deal for groundwater rights from the Harquahala Valley — but that water is still a long way from being ready to deliver, said Paul Gardner, the town’s water resource director. And prices for these distant supplies are only going up.
Gardner said Queen Creek has about 10,000 lots that are ready to build and won’t be impacted by any new assessments of the groundwater supply. But future projects, and a portion of current planned developments that don’t yet have their water certifications, could face problems, he said.
[...]
Reeb is optimistic about Phoenix’s long-term ability to manage its water shortages, but he believes the cost will rise to secure these supplies — something that could add $15,000 to $25,000 to the price of a home on average.
[...]
The Arizona Department of Water Resources has issued these types of findings before in other areas around Phoenix. In 2019, a study of Pinal County’s water management area, to the southeast of the city, found it was short 8 million acre-feet of groundwater, or about 10 percent of what was needed, to meet its demands over the next century. In January, Hobbs released another groundwater report that found a deficit over 100 years in an area west of Phoenix known as the Hassayampa sub-basin, which supplies the fast-growing Buckeye area. One acre-foot is about 326,000 gallons of water.
That determination has already resulted in major disruptions to the building industry, as large projects in these western suburbs have been halted until they can prove water supplies, according to building industry officials.
To me it sounds like Arizona is getting its act together, though there is a way to go. Cities buying out farms for their water is an old story in the western US. They're forcing this, and I can't say it's a bad thing. It makes sense since it's easier to import food than the water to grow it.
Previously we discussed an Arizona neighborhood where they didn't have the water but decided to truck it in. Not a great plan.
Water rights and availability is going to continue growing as a political issue in the coming decades. Relevant to the discussion is this historic deal between California, Arizona, and Nevada to...
Water rights and availability is going to continue growing as a political issue in the coming decades. Relevant to the discussion is this historic deal between California, Arizona, and Nevada to manage water usage from the Colorado river. I wonder if we will see water pipelines in the future where water is piped to areas of need. Although I wonder if the volume required to make a difference makes such a solution impracticable.
I think it's mostly been built already. Western states already have extensive systems of rivers and aqueducts (mostly) and pipes and pumps (sometimes), which is how water from rain and snow from...
I think it's mostly been built already. Western states already have extensive systems of rivers and aqueducts (mostly) and pipes and pumps (sometimes), which is how water from rain and snow from the mountains ends up in so many distant places. The Colorado river is part of that system.
It's not the volume but the energy cost of moving water uphill that makes it too expensive to bring it from further away. (Too expensive for agriculture, that is.) For cities, there are more promising sources of expensive water, like recycling and desalination. San Diego has both.
From the article:
[...]
[...]
[...]
To me it sounds like Arizona is getting its act together, though there is a way to go. Cities buying out farms for their water is an old story in the western US. They're forcing this, and I can't say it's a bad thing. It makes sense since it's easier to import food than the water to grow it.
Previously we discussed an Arizona neighborhood where they didn't have the water but decided to truck it in. Not a great plan.
Water rights and availability is going to continue growing as a political issue in the coming decades. Relevant to the discussion is this historic deal between California, Arizona, and Nevada to manage water usage from the Colorado river. I wonder if we will see water pipelines in the future where water is piped to areas of need. Although I wonder if the volume required to make a difference makes such a solution impracticable.
I think it's mostly been built already. Western states already have extensive systems of rivers and aqueducts (mostly) and pipes and pumps (sometimes), which is how water from rain and snow from the mountains ends up in so many distant places. The Colorado river is part of that system.
It's not the volume but the energy cost of moving water uphill that makes it too expensive to bring it from further away. (Too expensive for agriculture, that is.) For cities, there are more promising sources of expensive water, like recycling and desalination. San Diego has both.