The amount pumped from the Active Management Areas is regulated because of the Groundwater Management Act. The law, passed in 1980 by the Arizona Legislature and former Democratic Gov. Bruce Babbitt, is still praised as one of the most forward-thinking water laws in the country.
It requires developers of housing subdivisions in the Active Management Areas to prove a 100-year water supply actually exists on the land before they fire up the bulldozers.
One of its goals was to steer the state's fast-growing development into the Active Management Areas that have more water than other parts of Arizona. It also helped ensure the CAP canal would receive help from federal officials, who required a check on groundwater pumping.
...
Fraudulent land sales in Arizona led the state to pass a law in 1973 forcing developers to disclose if there’s an “adequate” water supply on land they sell. Arizona officials determined a few years later that “adequate” meant water “continuously available” for at least 100 years.
Critics at the time argued for 30 to 50 years, saying that would be more in line with the 30-year mortgage typically used in borrowing money to buy a home. A former land commissioner called the 100-year requirement "unrealistic, arbitrary and capricious."
State officials ignored their concerns and stuck with 100 years. The number was soon codified in the 1980 Groundwater Management Act, which banned development in the Active Management Areas where at least a century's worth of water could not be proven.
Kathy Ferris, a lawyer and one of the architects of the 1980 law, said that she and the late Jack DeBolske, former executive director of the League of Arizona Cities and Towns, pushed for the “adequate water supply” rule of “at least 100 years” to be included in their sweeping new law.
“We really didn’t discuss the number of years,” said Ferris, now a senior researcher for the Kyl Center for Water Policy at Arizona State University’s Morrison Institute.
Water expert Sarah Porter, executive director for the Kyl Center for Water Policy at Arizona State University’s Morrison Institute, agrees with Petersen that the number “100” isn’t validated scientifically. But she doesn't think it should be lowered.
If it were only 40 years, for example, it might be tougher to convince people that buying a home in metro Phoenix would still be a good investment decades from now, she said.
...
The latest modeling of the entire Phoenix Active Management Area shows a 4% deficit overall in the 100-year requirement, about 5 million acre-feet of water. That’s why in June, Hobbs put a halt to new subdivisions that can’t prove a 100-year water supply by means other than groundwater supplies.
So I read the article, but it doesn't explain what it means by a supply. Once a water supply for an area is depleted, is it like, gone? Is it a fixed water source that isn't replenished, or does...
So I read the article, but it doesn't explain what it means by a supply. Once a water supply for an area is depleted, is it like, gone? Is it a fixed water source that isn't replenished, or does it replenish and additional buildings would cut that replenishment into a net loss, and eventually there isn't any left?
I kind of need to understand that to understand the critics of the 100 year rule pushing for 30-50 because that's how long a mortgage is. Like if a house was secured for 30 years, is it like, boom you paid off your mortgage but there's no water left so you have to move, that house you invested in now worthless because you used up all the water? That seems pretty ridiculous. Houses shouldn't be disposable like a car.
Right, like this article clearly wants us to think the 100 yr rule is totally wacky, but I'm not sure it is. Do they not realize houses may be passed down through multiple generations?
Right, like this article clearly wants us to think the 100 yr rule is totally wacky, but I'm not sure it is. Do they not realize houses may be passed down through multiple generations?
I didn't get the vibe that the author was opposed to the 100 year law, just highlighting that it was an arbitrary number picked for no particular reason. Kind of like the 6000 steps a day thing....
I didn't get the vibe that the author was opposed to the 100 year law, just highlighting that it was an arbitrary number picked for no particular reason.
Kind of like the 6000 steps a day thing. There's no real backing for 6000 being "the number" of steps, it was just an arbitrary number picked by some company for their watch or app or something, and everyone was like "Sure, 6000 steps is good."
Off topic Minor correction, 6000 is actually a very good target for the average person that wants to be physically active. Originally, the number 10,000 was arbitrarily picked because a Japanese...
Off topic
Minor correction, 6000 is actually a very good target for the average person that wants to be physically active. Originally, the number 10,000 was arbitrarily picked because a Japanese pedometer maker used the character 万 in their branding which means 10k (source)
They don't care. The governor is blocking them from new developments using this rule, so they're trying to get the rule stricken. The eventual feasibility of those developments is irrelevant to...
They don't care. The governor is blocking them from new developments using this rule, so they're trying to get the rule stricken. The eventual feasibility of those developments is irrelevant to their current plans, they just want to develop the land they paid for and sell those homes to people for capital.
You're crediting them with being good-faith actors, but their interest starts and stops at the money.
The article is reporting about a political dispute and the opinions in it are those of other people, not the reporter. (Apparently, state Senate President Warren Petersen seems to think the rules...
The article is reporting about a political dispute and the opinions in it are those of other people, not the reporter. (Apparently, state Senate President Warren Petersen seems to think the rules are too strict, or so he said in a podcast.)
The reporter doesn't seem to be taking a side, just giving background.
I'd expect a 100 year rule to be arbitrary just because it's a round number. It's a way of saying that the water needs to last effectively forever (it's sustainable), but without requiring anyone to make predictions about the far future.
From the article:
...
...
So I read the article, but it doesn't explain what it means by a supply. Once a water supply for an area is depleted, is it like, gone? Is it a fixed water source that isn't replenished, or does it replenish and additional buildings would cut that replenishment into a net loss, and eventually there isn't any left?
I kind of need to understand that to understand the critics of the 100 year rule pushing for 30-50 because that's how long a mortgage is. Like if a house was secured for 30 years, is it like, boom you paid off your mortgage but there's no water left so you have to move, that house you invested in now worthless because you used up all the water? That seems pretty ridiculous. Houses shouldn't be disposable like a car.
Right, like this article clearly wants us to think the 100 yr rule is totally wacky, but I'm not sure it is. Do they not realize houses may be passed down through multiple generations?
I didn't get the vibe that the author was opposed to the 100 year law, just highlighting that it was an arbitrary number picked for no particular reason.
Kind of like the 6000 steps a day thing. There's no real backing for 6000 being "the number" of steps, it was just an arbitrary number picked by some company for their watch or app or something, and everyone was like "Sure, 6000 steps is good."
Off topic
Minor correction, 6000 is actually a very good target for the average person that wants to be physically active. Originally, the number 10,000 was arbitrarily picked because a Japanese pedometer maker used the character 万 in their branding which means 10k (source)
They don't care. The governor is blocking them from new developments using this rule, so they're trying to get the rule stricken. The eventual feasibility of those developments is irrelevant to their current plans, they just want to develop the land they paid for and sell those homes to people for capital.
You're crediting them with being good-faith actors, but their interest starts and stops at the money.
The article is reporting about a political dispute and the opinions in it are those of other people, not the reporter. (Apparently, state Senate President Warren Petersen seems to think the rules are too strict, or so he said in a podcast.)
The reporter doesn't seem to be taking a side, just giving background.
I'd expect a 100 year rule to be arbitrary just because it's a round number. It's a way of saying that the water needs to last effectively forever (it's sustainable), but without requiring anyone to make predictions about the far future.