Arizona State Government Publications
Growth on the Coconino Plateau: potential impacts of a water pipeline for the region 
|
|
GROWTH ON THE COCONINO PLATEAU
Potential Impacts of a Water Pipeline for the Region
march 2001
On the Cover: F L A G S TA F F ' S "NEW TOWN" CIRCA 1881 W h e n the railroad bypassed Flagstaff's original town site, a new business district was constructed along the tracks.
GROWTH
ON THE
COCONINO
PLATEAU
Potential Impacts of a Water Pipeline for the Region
march 2001
Rick Heffernon Principal Investigator and Senior Research Analyst Morrison Institute for Public Policy Mark Muro Senior Research Analyst Morrison Institute for Public Policy with Assistance from Rob Melnick, Director, Morrison Institute for Public Policy Christina Kinnear, Graduate Research Associate, Morrison Institute for Public Policy Special Contribution by John Kent Hill Timothy D. Hogan Tom R. Rex Center for Business Research, Arizona State University
Copyright �2001 by the Arizona Board of Regents for and on behalf of Arizona State University and its Morrison Institute for Public Policy.
BITTER SPRINGS OVERLOOK The Navajo community of Bitter Springs, located at the base of Echo Cliffs, would b e one of the beneficiaries of a regional pipeline proposed for north-central Arizona.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Purpose of Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Role of Research in Regional Water Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Features of the Pipeline Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Research Methods and Activities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Resources and Expectations: Views of Stakeholders. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Key Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Water Resources and Needs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Population Effects of Pipeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Land Uses and Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Regional Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Policies Regarding Growth, Infrastructure, and Water Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
A Development Wildcard: State Trust Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Critical Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Dynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Bottom Line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Water and Growth in Western States: Four Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Lessons Learned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Selection of Case Study Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Selection Criteria. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Canadian River Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . Background and Development. . . . . Growth-Related Impacts . . . . . . . . . Summary of Canadian River Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 26 26 27 28 28 28 29 30 30 30 31 32 32 32 33
5
Gillette-Madison Water Project . . . . . . . . Background and Development. . . . . . Growth-Related Impacts . . . . . . . . . . Summary of Gillette-Madison Effects Quail Creek Reservoir and Pipeline . . Background and Development. . . Growth-Related Impacts . . . . . . . Summary of Quail Creek Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Lower Gunnison Basin Unit Winter Stock Water Replacement Program Background and Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Growth-Related Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of Lower Gunnison Effects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
........... ........... ........... ...........
Table of Contents
Population on the Coconino Plateau: A Demographic Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Key Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Demographic Profile of Coconino County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Subregions of the Coconino Plateau Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Growth Determinants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Growth Management: How the Region Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Key Characteristics and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Analysis of Growth Management Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
A Statewide Approach: Growing Smarter Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Main Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Compliance with Growing Smarter Acts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Conclusions and Policy Choices: The Water-Growth Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Policy Choices: Moving the Growth Debate Forward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Appendices
Appendix A: Stakeholders Interviewed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Appendix B: Growth on the Coconino Plateau: A Demographic Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Appendix C: Growth-Related Plans Analyzed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Appendix D: An Arizona Growth Management Time Line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Appendix E: Highlights of the Growing Smarter Acts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Maps
1: Study Area: Coconino Plateau Watershed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2: Study Area: Proposed Pipeline Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3: Study Area: State and Private Land Ownership. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 4: Case Study Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 5: Study Area: Subregion Boundaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Tables
1: Entities and Organizations Represented . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 2: Population Change in Coconino County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 3: Age Distribution in Coconino County, 1990. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 4: Baseline Population Projections for Coconino Plateau Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 5: Population Projections by Scenario, Coconino Plateau Study Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 6: Analysis of Growth Related Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 7: Compliance with Growing Smarter and Growing Smarter Plus General/Comprehensive Plan Requirements . . . . . . 43
6
G r o w t h on the Coconino Plateau: Potential Impacts of a Water Pipeline for the Region
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Purpose of Study
Morrison Institute for Public Policy was asked by the Arizona Department of Water Resources to study potential growth impacts of a proposed new water pipeline for the Coconino Plateau Watershed in north-central Arizona, an area that is p r o j e c t e d to nearly double in population over the next 50 years. The area of study extends from Page and Grand Canyon in the north, to Flagstaff and Williams in the south. (See Map 1, page 10.) It includes three cities, portions of two Indian reservations, one national park, two nationals forests, and roughly 1.5 million acres of mixed private and state lands primarily arranged in an alternating, one-square mile checkerboard pattern. The great majority of residents in the region currently rely on groundwater to meet their water needs. region, field trips, consultation with experts, case studies, demographic analysis, appraisal of growth-related plans of governing bodies and agencies in the region, and evaluation of statewide growth management laws and their effects on regional planning.
Summary of Results
Key observations of stakeholders: � Groundwater is the most relied-upon source of water in the study area, but resources and needs vary tremendously. While Flagstaff and Page have enough water to meet near-term demand, Williams and most Navajo communities in the study area face critical water shortages. Most areas could see their water sources or systems affected by acts of nature, policy decisions, or legal action. � Expectations differ regarding local impacts of a water pipeline. Flagstaff is expected to grow regardless of new water sources, while Navajo communities hope pipeline water will stimulate economic development. Growth prospects in the western portion of the study area are widely debated. � Substandard rural development is feared in the western portion of the study area. Stakeholders worry that new water could accelerate "wildcat" and strip-type development along the gateway to Grand Canyon National Park. While some development there is inevitable, they want to preserve the sense of open space. � Regional infrastructure has limited capacity to accommodate growth. Highways, streets, schools, and phones n e e d upgrades to keep pace with regional growth, though some stakeholders want to preserve the highway approach to Grand Canyon as it is. Some also noted the need for water distribution lines to serve low density areas, and increased sewage treatment capacity. � A water pipeline could be used to manage growth in conjunction with other measures. Among the collateral m e a s u r e s : 1) state legislation prohibiting any new groundwater uses in the study area, 2) legislation providing counties with greater power to regulate subdivisions, and 3) some type of management authority that could limit access to pipeline water in unincorporated areas. � Strong water conservation efforts could enhance existing water supplies. Some believe that water conservation has been discouraged, rather than encouraged, by outdated county and local ordinances. Nevertheless, Tusayan currently reclaims a substantial portion of its water. Critical issues regarding state land dynamics: � State trust lands in the region could be developed in the future, with the market deciding where. Current law requires that state trust lands be managed for maximum public benefit, therefore, the real estate market
Pipeline Proposal
In 1999, a water pipeline from Lake Powell was proposed to meet regional water demand up to the year 2050. This prop o s a l grew out of regional efforts to plan future water resources, a water demand and resource analysis published by Arizona Department of Water Resources, and concerns over the effects of increased groundwater pumping on seeps and springs at Grand Canyon, the Havasupai Reservation, and elsewhere. The pipeline as proposed would draw water from Lake Powell and deliver it to a number of communities and entities across the region. From north to south, they are: � City of Page � Six western Navajo communities � LeChee � Coppermine � Bitter Springs � Cedar Ridge � Bodaway/Gap � Cameron � Grand Canyon National Park � Tusayan � Valle � Red Lake � Kaibab National Forest (Kaibab Lake) � City of Williams � City of Flagstaff The proposed pipeline would be designed to supply some or all of the anticipated new water demand for these areas until 2050, a volume that currently ranges from less than 10,000 acre-feet per year if new groundwater development is allowed in the future, to over 20,000 acre-feet per year if it is not. To determine the growth effects of a potential regional pipeline, both quantitative and qualitative data sets were gathered. Research included interviews with key stakeholders in the
Executive Summary
7
will effectively determine which lands are reclassified for development. � Development "hot spots" will be along the north-south highways. Commercial development of state land in the r e g i o n has been historically slow. But if conditions change, the action will likely follow major road corridors along which the proposed water pipeline might run � particularly State Highway 64 north from Williams, and U.S. Highway 89 north of Flagstaff. � C o n s e r va t i o n efforts could preserve key state lands. Existing and pending land preservation efforts could l i m i t development in sensitive areas, but they will require substantial funding. Potential changes in state l a w may also alter Land Department mandates and allow no-cost conservation set-asides. Lessons learned from other regions with water supply projects: � Water tends to flow toward economic growth, but does not, alone, create growth. Where economic performance h a s led to population growth that strains water resources, an augmented water supply tends to facilitate further growth. But water has little growth effect in economically depressed areas unless combined with some other factor that triggers economic improvement. � I n f ra s t r u c t u r e and the decision on who gets water affects where and how a region grows. If water access is tightly controlled by, or restricted to, urban areas, the region will tend to grow through urban infill or contiguous development on the fringe. If water is readily available across a region, development may leapfrog to more remote and unincorporated areas where land and development fees are less expensive. � Water projects can produce long-term economic benefits, and they can protect regional aquifers. Reservoirs and other uses of project water can attract a recreation industry that contributes to the region's overall economy. P r o j e c t s that use renewable water sources to meet demand can also reduce pressure on local groundwater sources, at least in the short term. � Surface water projects can damage downstream resources and undercut water conservation efforts. Projects that divert streams or reduce stream flows can substantially alter natural resources. New water supplies also tend to reduce immediate resource concerns so that conservation efforts lose their impetus. Key points regarding the region's growth prospects: � Coconino County has experienced high growth rates � and this is expected to continue. Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES) projections rely on historical patterns to forecast future results, therefore population growth is projected to persist into the future, albeit at a somewhat reduced rate. � Coconino County has an unusually youthful profile. With a high proportion of residents less than 25 years old and a low proportion over 50, the area is not considered a retirement haven.
8
� Growth projections assume that current economic and demographic forces will continue. But if growth drivers change, the regional growth trajectory will follow. � Tourism is the most important economic factor affecting growth in the region. Because tourism leads all economic activity in north-central Arizona, it is likely to create the most jobs � and growth � in the future. � Pipeline water will have little impact on total projected population growth for the region. DES projections tacitly assume that the region's ability to meet water demand in the future will not differ substantially from its ability to meet demand now, so overall growth figures should not be affected by the source of water. � Pipeline water and tourism expansion will have greatest effect in the western portion of the study area. The western portion of the study area currently faces economic constraints that are influenced by a lack of available water. An improvement in either tourism visitation or water supply would stimulate growth in the area; an improvement in both would produce substantial gains. Key characteristics of the region's growth-related plans: � Many plans are getting old. Almost half were adopted more than 10 years ago, but some are scheduled for update. Analysis of the Flagstaff update-in-progress s u g g e s t s a future trend toward greater specificity regarding growth management. � Wa t e r availability, a d e q u a cy of infrastructure, a n d transportation are addressed in nearly every plan, while other growth management tools appear in only a few. Among the plans, Flagstaff, Page, Grand Canyon, and two county areas � Tusayan and Valle � tend to contain the most detailed growth management policies. � The verdict is out on the region's readiness to manage growth. Due to the conflicting missions of some planning entities, and the age of some plans, it is difficult to predict how the region will collectively manage future growth. Moves toward cooperative planning efforts, the wide-spread use of county area plans, and anticipated updates to county and municipal plans promise reasonable preparation for the future. Main impacts of the Growing Smarter acts: � City and county governments must update their general/ c o m p r e h e n s i ve plans every 10 ye a r s , a n d then they must conform to them. New plans must be ratified by voters, and changes can be made only with approval of a supermajority of the governing body. � The cities of Flagstaff and Page must address new elements in their future general plans, while Williams and Coconino County probably don't. Based on population and growth rate factors, future Flagstaff plans must include five new growth-related elements (open space, growth areas, environmental planning, cost of developm e n t , and water resources), while Page plans must i n c l u d e just the first four. Williams and Coconino County appear to be exempt from the five elements at this time, but the county may have to add a water element if its Census 2000 population exceeds 125,000.
G r o w t h on the Coconino Plateau: Potential Impacts of a Water Pipeline for the Region
� Some state and private lands regarded as "open space" may be preserved for conservation purposes. New state funding sources will be able to grant monies to governm e n t s and other organizations to help them obtain development rights from state and private lands.
Policy Choices: Moving the Growth Debate Forward
Conclusions: The Water-Growth Equation
The Coconino Plateau region is projected to nearly double in population over the next 50 years, and water demand will increase accordingly. Because population projections assume that additional water supplies will be available to meet that demand, a water pipeline designed to accommodate projected growth should have little effect on what is projected. The fact is, economic and demographic factors, not water per se, are the most significant drivers of population. But the water-growth equation is not simple. State population projections do not consider potential changes in economic or demographic growth factors that might be supported by an assured water supply, nor do they consider any effects that might accrue if the region is unable to develop water unconditionally. Either could affect actual growth. Moreover, while growth number may hit projections, the pattern of growth could vary depending on the water's source and distribution. Increased development of groundwater would favor growth in established communities. These places tend to have more growth management tools at their disposal and better, more comprehensive infrastructure to accommodate that growth � positive circumstances from a regional planning perspective. But future groundwater supplies are not assured due to uncertainties regarding the nature of local aquifers and the complexity of groundwater rights in the region. Already, national parks, Indian tribes, and even downstream water users are questioning whether deep wells on the Coconino Plateau impinge on their surface water rights, and well permits on national forest land are being scrutinized more carefully to determine their impacts on other water resources. The beauty of a water pipeline is that it might sidestep most of the difficult groundwater issues. It would also be welcomed in parts of the region where water is especially short. But a regional pipeline could alter how growth occurs � and where. One area likely to grow with a pipeline is the western portion of the Coconino Plateau between Williams and Grand Canyon. This is a landscape of wide open spaces, but it is comprised of a mix of private land and state trust land, both of which are potentially developable. Weak economic factors combined with a lack of available water in this area have constrained growth in the area, but that could change dramatically with a rebound in tourism and an assured pipeline supply of water. Those who want to preserve a scenic approach corridor to the Grand Canyon, may demand some type of protective action for this area.
T h r o u g h o u t Arizona, growth and its impact on natural resources has become the centerpiece of public policy debate. While much of the discussion has focused on the state's major metropolises, rural areas such as the Coconino Plateau region face many of the same policy choices. Most prominent among these choices is how best to balance the perceived value of development against its impact on the environment. As the only regional governing body in a regionwide decision-making p r o c e s s , Coconino County is in the best position to lead consensus building on a number of growth-related matters. Among the most critical growth-related issues that must be decided regarding a regional pipeline: � Who will get pipeline water and how will it be treated a n d distributed? T h e time to determine access to pipeline water, as well as its distribution and treatment, is before construction begins. That decision will strongly affect future growth patterns in the region. A more restrictive policy will channel growth toward places where infrastructure and growth management tools are at their most robust, thereby discouraging sprawl. � H ow much protection will the aquifer receive? O n e major selling point for an outside water source for the region is the potential protection it affords regional a q u i f e r s . But if groundwater production increases regardless of the pipeline, political support for the proposal could be undermined. To keep all stakeholders on board, some type of restriction on groundwater use o r development may be necessary as a corollary to pipeline construction. � How big should the pipe be? The diameter of the pipe will determine the maximum number of people that can be served, therefore decision-makers need to decide early on how much growth they want to accommodate. � What growth management powers will the county wield? Counties currently possess relatively few tools to manage growth in their unincorporated areas, part i c u l a r l y when it comes to regulating small and/or l o w density wildcat subdivisions. Because timing c o u l d be critical when it comes to protecting lands considered sensitive to development in the study area, concerned stakeholders may want to push for faster action in the state capitol, and/or develop a regional plan for protecting sensitive lands through purchase, lease, or regulation. � Who will manage the pipeline? The legal and management structure for administering the water pipeline will play a significant role in determining how water is allocated. Whoever controls those allocations � particularly for any unencumbered water � will have power to regulate new subdivisions in unincorporated areas of the county, thereby influencing how much population growth can occur there.
Executive Summary
9
MAP 1 STUDY AREA: COCONINO PLATEAU WATERSHED
Source: Morrison Institute for Public Policy, data from Arizona Department of Water Resources.
10
G r o w t h on the Coconino Plateau: Potential Impacts of a Water Pipeline for the Region
INTRODUCTION
Purpose of Study
Morrison Institute for Public Policy was asked by the Arizona Department of Water Resources to study potential growth impacts of a proposed new water pipeline for the Coconino Plateau Watershed in north-central Arizona. This is a rapidly growing region that expects to need additional sources of water to meet anticipated growth over the next 50 years. Currently, the main source of water in the region is groundwater, primarily from deep wells. Reliance on groundwater would likely increase if the region continues to grow and if an outside source is not available. Concerns have been raised that pumping of groundwater in some parts of the region could lead to the decline of seeps and springs elsewhere, such as at Grand Canyon and the Havasupai Reservation. In response, a regional water pipeline was proposed in 1999 that would run from Lake Powell to several communities across the region. The pipeline would likely resolve most concerns about seeps and springs (only complete cessation of groundwater pumping would resolve all concerns), but it has raised two new concerns: 1) that it might stimulate population growth beyond what the region was already expecting to accommodate, thereby increasing water demand beyond what the pipeline was designed to carry, and 2) that it might stimulate growth in areas where it is not wanted. Consequently, Morrison Institute was commissioned to examine the potential population growth impacts of the water pipeline, as well as the readiness of regional and local governments and service agencies to manage such growth. The planning process for the Coconino Plateau region grew o u t of Arizona's Rural Watershed Initiative. This is a statewide program in which the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) works with rural communities to help them develop locally-driven solutions to their water needs. Under the Rural Watershed Initiative, planning areas are identified by their watersheds, not by geopolitical boundaries. Two planning groups currently operate in the Coconino P l a t e a u Watershed. One is the Coconino Plateau Water A d v i s o r y Council, which was formed by the Coconino County Board of Supervisors in late 2000 as an oversight and policy-making group. The Water Advisory Council is composed of elected and executive-level representatives of various entities and interest groups throughout the region, including Coconino County, the cities of Flagstaff, Page, Sedona, and Williams; the Havasupai, Hopi, and Navajo tribes; the Kaibab and Coconino national forests; Grand Canyon National Park; Arizona State Land Department; Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR); Northern Arizona University; Grand Canyon Trust; Coconino Bar Association; Coconino Natural Resources Conservation District; Northern Arizona Home Builders; and a private water and drilling company. Meanwhile, a "technical committee" for the watershed has engaged in discussion and research dating back more than two years. Among those who have participated in this group are representatives of a number of stakeholders and interested parties. Several of the entities represented on the technical committee � including ADWR, Havasupai Tribe, Navajo Nation, City of Flagstaff, City of Williams, Hydro Resources of Tusayan, Coconino County, City of Page, and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation � signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to "cooperatively develop regional water plans and/or cooperative programs that identify future water supplies and water development scenarios that best serve public needs and p r o t e c t nationally and locally significant resources" (Memorandum of Understanding Among the Participants of the North Central Arizona Regional Water Study, 2000). The Water Advisory Council, however, is expected to replace this MOU with a new agreement reflecting the more comprehensive role and mission of the policy-making group. As a basis for a cooperative regional water study, ADWR prepared a report in 1999 titled "Phase 1: North Central Arizona Regional Water Study." This report calculated future water demand in the Coconino Plateau region, analyzed possible water sources to serve those demands, and outlined future research tasks. Among the conclusions of the Phase 1 report was that a water pipeline from Lake Powell "may be a cost and environmentally effective alternative that would provide t h e region a firm, reliable water supply to meet future demands and deserves further study" (Arizona Department of
Study Area
The area of study for this report is defined as the Coconino Plateau Watershed (formerly called the North Central Arizona Regional Watershed). This region, which is located in northcentral Arizona, is wholly contained within Coconino County, extending roughly from Page and Grand Canyon in the north, to Flagstaff and Williams in the south. (See Map 1, page 10.) The study area includes three cities of greatly varying size, and encompasses portions of two Indian reservations, one national park, and two nationals forests. Overall, the region is largely composed of open space, including a wide swath of private and state lands that are arranged in a checkerboard pattern across the mid-section of the study area.
Role of Research in Regional Water Planning
Morrison Institute's research is one part of a comprehensive research and planning project referred to as the Coconino Plateau Regional Water Study. This project is an effort to prepare for the region's water resource needs over the next 50 years. Other research aspects of the project include analysis of r e g i o n a l water demand and sources, technical study of pipeline routes and costs, and regional groundwater study. Related independent studies, such as ongoing monitoring of wells and springs in the region, will also be incorporated into the planning effort.
Introduction
11
Water Resources, 1999). The report included in its appendix a technical memorandum from the Navajo Nation Department of Water Resources that presented route options for a regional pipeline as well as preliminary cost estimates.
RESEARCH METHODS AND ACTIVITIES
Both quantitative and qualitative data sets were gathered and analyzed for this study. Among the research activities that were conducted are the following: Stakeholder interviews were individually conducted with 58 representatives from a range of Coconino Plateau interests i n c l u d i n g governments, businesses, utilities, community groups, and state and federal agencies. (See Appendix A for a complete list.) The interview content was then analyzed to determine the views of stakeholders regarding the availability of water resources, potential effects of the proposed pipeline, and measures that should be taken to manage the pipeline's water supply and any growth impacts it might produce. Field trips throughout the study area were carried out to familiarize researchers with the study area, observe locales of particular concern, meet with stakeholders difficult to interview by telephone, and make a photographic record of the study area. Research and consultation with experts was conducted regarding topics of special interest, including planning issues, growth management, master-planned communities, the effects of water on population growth, and the dynamics of state and private grazing lands. These data provided further background and analysis of issues raised during previous phases of the research. Case studies were conducted to understand the growth experiences of similar regions with regional water projects already in place. The case study sites were selected based on their similarity to the Coconino Plateau study area and their length of operation. A demographic study was commissioned to review population projections for the region and analyze their assumptions and weaknesses. The demographic study also assessed the potential growth impacts of various reasonable economic and growth scenarios and their possible interaction with the introduction of a new, assured water source through a pipeline. General plans and/or related planning documents (e.g., economic development plans, water resource strategies) were acquired from city and county governments, unincorporated p l a n n i n g areas, the Navajo Nation, and federal agencies such as the National Park Service and U.S. Forest Service. (See Appendix C for a complete list.) These planning documents were then analyzed to determine the region's readiness to manage or accommodate any changing growth patterns associated with a pipeline. Results of these research activities are presented in following sections.
Features of the Pipeline Proposal
The proposed pipeline as it was envisioned in the Phase 1 report would draw water from Lake Powell near Glen Canyon Dam and deliver it to a number of communities and entities across the region. Based on updated information provided by a more recent review of pipeline routes and costs by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (September 2000), the current potential beneficiaries of this water are, from north to south: � City of Page � Six western Navajo communities � LeChee � Coppermine � Bitter Springs � Cedar Ridge � Bodaway/Gap � Cameron � Grand Canyon National Park � Tusayan � Valle � Red Lake � Kaibab National Forest (Kaibab Lake) � City of Williams � City of Flagstaff Several different routes have been considered by preliminary engineering studies, but most are variations on the one presented in Map 2, page 13. The volume of water that the proposed pipeline would carry was estimated in the Phase 1 Report based on Department of Economic Security and Navajo Nation population projections. By 2050, the region's total water demand was forecast to reach 26,350 acre-feet per year. Of this amount, 16,900 acrefeet per year were expected to be met by existing and future development of groundwater sources. The remaining 9,450 acre-feet would be delivered by the pipeline. Since publication of the Phase 1 Report, the pipeline demand figure has been adjusted to reflect desired increases for some b e n e f i c i a r i e s and reductions for others (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 2000). Demand could rise higher, however. Under one scenario suggested by a number of stakeholders in the region, new groundwater pumping would be restricted upon completion of the pipeline. In such a case, estimated demand for pipeline water would likely double.
12
G r o w t h on the Coconino Plateau: Potential Impacts of a Water Pipeline for the Region
MAP 2 STUDY AREA: PROPOSED PIPELINE ROUTES
Source: Morrison Institute for Public Policy, data from Arizona Department of Water Resources and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.
Introduction
13
T H E RESERVOIR U n d e r a proposed pipeline, Colorado River water backed up by Glen Canyon Dam would be d i v e r t e d to several north-central Arizona communities, including Page (on horizon, upper right).
14
G r o w t h on the Coconino Plateau: Potential Impacts of a Water Pipeline for the Region
RESOURCES AND EXPECTATIONS: VIEWS OF STAKEHOLDERS
Stakeholders, by definition, are those who have some interest or share in the well-being of an enterprise. In the Coconino Plateau region they hold an interest in the future growth and development of the area. In order to identify key issues surrounding the possible construction of a water supply pipeline across the Coconino Plateau, interviews were conducted with 58 individual stakeholders from a cross-section of community, government, and business interests. These individuals were selected on the basis of their involvement with water or growth issues in the study area, management of lands potentially affected by the proposed water pipeline, government or community positions, business interests, or their role as infrastructure providers. Table 1 shows the entities and communities represented. A full list of all stakeholders interviewed appears in Appendix A. Stakeholders were interviewed primarily by telephone or in person, but also by E-mail when necessary or for follow-up questions. The interview format varied depending on the type of entity or community represented by the stakeholder. Questions generally addressed their views on the status of current water resources in the region; the need for a water pipeline; the effects of a new water supply on population growth and land uses; the parts of the study area most likely to be affected by water-related growth; the type of management needed in conj u n c t i o n with a new water supply; and the ability of the region's infrastructure to accommodate growth.
Table 1: Entities and Organizations Represented
Entity Gover nment/Community Arizona Department of Water Resources Arizona Governor's Office Canyon Forest Village Coconino County Flagstaff, City of Page, City of Parks Area Tusayan Area Valle Area Williams, City of Land Managers Arizona State Land Department Babbitt Ranches Coconino National Forest Grand Canyon National Park Kaibab National Forest Indian Tribes Bureau of Indian Affairs Havasupai Tribe Navajo Nation Conservation Organizations Grand Canyon Trust The Nature Conservancy Infrastructure Providers Arizona Department of Transportation APS Bellemont Water Co. Citizens Utilities Co. Coconino County Superintendent of Schools Doney Park Water Co. Maine School District Qwest Communications Williams School District
1
Elected Official or Chief Administrator
Private Sector Executive
Planning or Water Resources Specialist
Other Professional S t a ff 1
Community R e p re s e n t a t i v e
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
� �
� � � � � � � � � � � � � �
�
�
� �
� �
Includes land management, intergovernmental relations, forestry, public relations, grazing, engineering, natural resources, program management, and other areas.
Source: Morrison Institute for Public Policy.
Resources and Expectations: Views of Stakeholders
15
Key Observations
� Groundwater is the most relied-upon source of water in the study area. Little usable surface water exists, and in many cases it has proven unreliable. � Water resources and needs vary tremendously across the region. While Flagstaff and Page possess adequate water resources to meet near-term demand, Williams and most of the Navajo communities in the study area face critical water shortages. Other areas could see their water sources or systems threatened by acts of nature, policy decisions, or legal action. � Expectations differ regarding local impacts of a water pipeline. For example, Flagstaff-area stakeholders anticipate little growth impact of a water pipeline on Flagstaff, since they expect the city to grow regardless of new water sources. Navajo stakeholders, by contrast, hope pipeline water would stimulate economic development. Opinions vary regarding the likelihood or amount of pipelinerelated growth in the western portion of the study area. � The western portion of the study area is feared most vulnerable to substandard rural development. Stakeholders worry that new water could accelerate "wildcat" and strip-type development along the gateway to their crown jewel, Grand Canyon National Park. While some development is inevitable there, they want to preserve the sense of open space. � Concerns exist over the capacity of regional infrastructure to accommodate substantial growth. Highways, streets, schools, and phones led the list of infrastructure items needing upgrade to keep pace with regional growth, though some stakeholders want to preserve the highway approach to Grand Canyon as it is. With additional water flowing to the region, stakeholders also mentioned the need for water distribution lines in low density areas, and increased sewage treatment capacity.
WAT E R UNDER THE BRIDGE The Transcanyon Pipeline, suspended
b e n e a t h this bridge over Bright Angel Creek, carries drinking water to t h e South Rim of Grand Canyon National Park.
KAIBAB LAKE IN DROUGHT Extremely low water levels in Kaibab Lake, a water source for Williams, exposed most of the water intake structure ( u p p e r left) and stranded a floating dock (lower left).
� A water pipeline could be used as a growth management tool in conjunction with other measures. Among the collateral measures mentioned were: 1) state legislation prohibiting any new groundwater uses in the study area, 2) legislation providing counties with greater power to regulate subdivisions, and 3) some type of m a n a g e m e n t authority that could limit access to pipeline water in unincorporated areas. � Strong water conservation efforts could enhance existing water supplies. Several stakeholders argued that water c o n s e r v a t i o n has been discouraged, rather than encouraged, by outdated county and local ordinances. Nevertheless, Tusayan currently reclaims a substantial portion of its water.
Water Resources and Needs
Stakeholders identified groundwater as the most significant source of water supplies for the great majority of the study area. It provides most of the water supply for Flagstaff, the majority of the water supply for Navajo residents in the study area, a substantial portion of the Williams water supply, all of the water supply for the Valle area, the majority of water for the Tusayan area, and a small portion of the water consumption of the Parks area. In addition, many residents in unincorporated areas of the county haul groundwater from wells in Valle, Bellemont, the Flagstaff area, or the Navajo Reservation. Other sources play a lesser role in regional water supplies. Surface water is the sole source for Page, LeChee, and Grand Canyon National Park1, and it has been the sole source of water for Williams until recently. In late 2000, however, a
1 Water sources for this study are classified based on their legal definitions under water rights law. These classifications may vary when using different standards. Using criteria established for water quality standards, for example, Grand Canyon's water source is considered to be groundwater.
16
G r o w t h on the Coconino Plateau: Potential Impacts of a Water Pipeline for the Region
n e w large-production well was drilled and incorporated into the Williams water system, and in 2001 another new large-production well is expected to come online. Nevertheless, surface water will likely remain a significant source for the future. Other users of surface water include Tusayan, which augments its supply from the Grand Canyon water system; and Flagstaff, which has a seasonal source of water (Lake Mary) that is primarily used to meet peak summer demand. In addition, many residents in unincorporated areas of the county haul water from Williams that originated as stored surface water. And captured surface water � usually in stock ponds � is widely used for livestock watering and other purposes across the study area when available. Tusayan also uses a significant amount of reclaimed water for non-potable domestic purposes.
new deep well drilled by the city on national forest land southwest of town gave some relief by meeting about 40 percent of the city's summertime consumption needs, and another high volume well located within the city limits is expected to add at least as much water to the city system in 2001. Other subdivisions outside of Williams, such as in the Parks area, tend to rely primarily on hauled water, though some residents possess wells that are characterized as relatively shallow and drought-sensitive. The eastern portion of the study area is almost as sparsely populated as the west but � outside of Page � has fewer well-defined communities. Water for Page and nearby LeChee is drawn from Lake Powell and handled at Page's treatment f a c i l i t y prior to distribution by local water utilities. This source is relatively secure and adequately meets current demand. However, both recipients would like an additional source to meet future growth and provide a backup in case of failure to the current system. In outlying areas of the LeChee C h a p t e r, residents haul treated Lake Powell water from pay-for-service public hydrants.
Water supply needs and reliability vary tremendously across the region. In the sparsely populated western portion of the study area, population tends to cluster around a number of small, defined communities, therefore, most water needs a r e currently addressed Other Navajo chapters in within those communities. t h e study area have less Grand Canyon Village has reliable water service. For s u f f i c i e n t supply for its e x a m p l e , many Bodaway/ n e a r - t e r m demand, but G a p residents haul water relies entirely on the f r o m Tuba City due to a Transcanyon Pipeline from lack of reliable local wells, below the North Rim. This while residents in Cameron p i p e l i n e has some signififear their wells are contamcant drawbacks: it has been inated by uranium tailings. proven vulnerable to flood (Only one well in a uraniumand rockslide, it would be bearing formation has been difficult to expand or s h u t down, according to replace, and it alters natural W I N D M I L L NEAR COPPERMINE I n drought conditions, this windmill Navajo Nation Department e c o s y s t e m s on both sides represents one of the few potential water sources for livestock on the C o p p e r m i n e Chapter of the western Navajo Reservation. of Water Resources). Even of the Colorado River. when water is available in Immediately to the south of t h e Navajo chapters in the national park, Tusayan the study area, relatively little of it is distributed directly receives some of Grand Canyon's pipeline water, but relies to homes. A large portion of the residents live at least part primarily on very deep groundwater wells, as does Valle. The of the time in remote areas where utility pipelines are Tusayan and Valle wells tend to be drought resistant and of unlikely to reach them anytime in the near future. They fairly good quality, but they are risky to drill, expensive to must haul their drinking water over miles of poor roads, develop and operate, and of unknown sustainability. In addiand in times of drought, must also haul water for livestock tion, a number of hydrologists familiar with the area believe and agricultural fields. that wells in this area could affect spring flows in Grand Canyon and on the Havasupai Reservation. In the Flagstaff area, groundwater resources vary in depth, with the deeper wells generally providing the most drought resistance. Williams has historically relied entirely on surface water that Current capacity meets demands without any significant strain, collects in five small reservoirs, mostly outside the city on but near-term growth is expected to be met through expansion national forest land. After a recent period of drought, however, of well fields, most of which are on Forest Service land. While Williams faced a serious shortage of stored water in 2000. A
Resources and Expectations: Views of Stakeholders
17
Lake Mary provides a backup source of water for the city of F l a g s t a f f , this source is drought sensitive and, therefore, unreliable in time of greatest need. One potential variable for Flagstaff, Williams, and others reliant on wells on public lands is the status of their well use permits. The Forest Service has announced it will scrutinize well permits more closely in t h e future to consider their impact on surface water and other wells in the area.
f r o m having to migrate elsewhere. The water would also encourage retiring, better educated Navajos to return home. Many have left the reservation to find jobs and have come to expect basic services, such as running water in their homes, according to stakeholders. An assured water supply would also allow more gardening or limited farming to take place, according to some stakeholders, providing a better standard of living for those in remote locations.
Population Effects of Pipeline
Land Uses and Development
Nearly every stakeholder indicated that a new water pipeline Stakeholders' greatest land use concerns focused on subdiviwould provide a stimulus to population growth in the region. sion and development of the western portion of the study The greatest potential impacts, according to most stakeholders, area. Because much of that area is considered the gateway to would be felt in the western part of the study area, between Grand Canyon National Park, and most of it currently exists Williams and Grand Canyon. This area has been historically as open space, many expressed alarm that a pipeline might water-short, contains a vast accelerate growth there. a m o u n t of private land, T h e s e stakeholders said c o n t a i n s an almost equal they did not want to see amount of state trust land strip development along that could be converted to S t a t e Route 64, nor did private land, and has some t h e y wish to see existing potential to grow along with u n d e v e l o p e d private and any economic expansion of state trust lands in the area G r a n d Canyon National carved up into ranchette Park, Williams, or Flagstaff. developments � particularly L i s t e d as the most likely wildcat subdivisions with centers of growth associated n o electricity, sewer, fire with a pipeline were Williams, protection, schools, or other Valle, and Tusayan. The Parks basic services. Most cona r e a was also considered ceded the need for some a likely growth area if growth in the Tusayan and pipeline water ever reached Valle areas, but only if it LECHEE GROWTH W i t h a reliable water source and economic growth it; but there was much doubt w e r e well planned and o c c u r r i n g in nearby Page, LeChee has grown more than other Navajo about this occurring because m a n a g e d . As one stakec h a p t e r s in the study area. of the distance of its subdih o l d e r put it: "We don't visions from the proposed w a n t Gatlinburg-type pipeline routes. Little effect from a pipeline was anticipated development outside the park entrance," � referring to the in Flagstaff. w i d e l y disdained "tourist trap" ambience of Gatlinburg, Tennessee, a prominent gateway to Great Smoky Mountains A few stakeholders, however, questioned whether the pipeline National Park. would actually alter growth in the western portion of the study area. They argued that the cheapest water option for a Little concern was expressed over the proposed pipeline's developer would be to drill a well and create a private water i m p a c t on land uses in the Flagstaff area. As the region's company to serve a subdivision. Few have done so, leading largest city, Flagstaff is expected to grow regardless of new these stakeholders to believe that other factors � such as jobs, w a t e r sources. Quite the opposite is true on the Navajo services, and infrastructure � have not been in place to support reservation. There, most stakeholders said they hoped the area growth. pipeline water would stimulate economic development, which is sorely lacking, and lead to increased retail opportunities On the Navajo Reservation, most said that an increased water and services. The only land use concern was over a recent supply from a pipeline would support a few needed basic trend toward conversion of agricultural land to home sites on retail services such as laundromats, gas stations, and stores in the reservation. If the pipeline made farming more attractive, some of the chapters, and possibly support some manufacturing. These businesses would provide jobs to keep some residents loss of fields and pastures could become an issue.
18
G r o w t h on the Coconino Plateau: Potential Impacts of a Water Pipeline for the Region
G O O D VIEWS, FEW AMENITIES M a n y low-density subdivisions in the study area, such as this Government Prairie community, provide few basic
s e r v i c e s or supporting infrastructure, such as paved roads, fire protection, drinking water, or sewage treatment facilities.
Regional Infrastructure
A number of concerns were raised regarding the capacity of regional infrastructure to accommodate substantial growth in the future. Stakeholders pointed out that main highways and some city streets were already crowded during peak tourist s e a s o n , phone service was spotty or nonexistent in many areas, and that school space was short in at least one district. They further noted that some proposed projects requiring large amounts of electrical power or natural gas fuel have had to be tabled due to lack of capacity. Regional highways were considered to be in need of substantial upgrades, according to most stakeholders. U.S. Highway 89, a main north-south artery running across the western Navajo Reservation and connecting to Utah and other western states, was depicted as overcrowded and dangerous, particularly during peak summer season. But not all of its traffic is due to tourism. "The reservation is growing faster than most people realize," s a i d one stakeholder. Similarly, State Route 64 and U.S. Highway 180, the two main routes to the Grand Canyon, were also deemed inadequate. Said one, "If we're going to call this `the Grand Canyon State' on our license plates, we should have a better road as gateway." Some, however, said they prefer to keep a two-lane approach to Grand Canyon for scenic and environmental reasons. While a project is underway to widen U.S. Highway 89 to four lanes for about eight miles north of Flagstaff, and add some passing lanes elsewhere, five-year plans by the Arizona Department of Transportation project no other major highway upgrades in the region. Considered more of a quality-of-life issue than a safety concern was congestion on Flagstaff city streets, particularly near the downtown area. Officials have worked on many transportation plans over the years, said stakeholders, but traffic growth has outpaced mitigation efforts. Said one stakeholder,
"It doesn't matter what we do, we will always have a traffic problem in this city." Lack of phone and internet service in rural areas was a big concern of residents and businesses there. The main service provider, Qwest Communications (formerly U.S. West), was characterized by stakeholders as indifferent to rural needs and uncooperative about expanding coverage. Most hoped that wireless phone service would eventually provide a cost-effective substitute. The area's main electricity provider, APS, was perceived as keeping up with growing demand for the most part. Upgrades were said to have been made recently in Valle and Red Lake to meet anticipated needs for the next several years, and new lines had also been installed in Howard Mesa and elsewhere. A proposal to run an electric rail service from Tusayan to Grand Canyon, however, was scrapped because of the cost of providing such a large increase in electrical capacity to the area. On the Navajo Reservation, a problem for its main utility N T U A (Navajo Tribal Utility Authority) was that most residences were so widely separated that it was often costprohibitive to install the infrastructure needed to provide service to individual homes. Schools also face a difficult task when it comes to expanding capacity, according to stakeholders, but their problem is their f u n d i n g stream. Because they are funded primarily on the basis of enrollment, and because they receive no impact fees from developers, they must wait until they are overcrowded b e f o r e they can build new facilities. The Grand Canyon School District currently has more student applicants than space, said stakeholders, and the school system is unlikely to expand inside the park. Consequently, some parents who live and work in the area currently have to send their children many extra miles to Williams. Some of these parents were
19
Resources and Expectations: Views of Stakeholders
counting on a new school facility to be built in the Tusayan area as part of the proposed Canyon Forest Village, but since voters rejected the zoning change necessary for that development, many Tusayan and Valle area students will continue to travel to Williams.
Policies Regarding Growth, Infrastructure, and Water Management
Several stakeholders suggested that a pipeline could be used to manage growth and development in the study area if it were accompanied by other management tools. The three tools most often mentioned include: 1) state legislation prohibiting any new groundwater uses in the study area, 2) state legislation providing counties with city-like power when dealing with subdivision proposals, and 3) some type of management authority over the pipeline that could limit access to pipeline water in unincorporated areas. A combination of these tools would be expected to provide three main growth management benefits, according to stakeholders. First, it would protect the aquifer from increased pumping, thereby ensuring relatively natural flows of seeps a n d springs in Grand Canyon and the Havasuapai Reservation. Second, it would allow the county to regulate wildcat subdivisions and thereby reduce the number of new subdivisions without services. And third, it would restrict water delivery to existing communities � thereby channeling n e w growth toward those places while, at the same time, reducing pressure to have development sprawl onto lands that are now open spaces. One of the most frequent concerns from stakeholders in lowdensity areas such as Parks or the Navajo Reservation was how water might be distributed from a regional pipeline to individual homes. Residents of non-Indian rural lands fell on
two sides of the issue � some preferred to continue hauling water and thereby keep population growth low; others hoped to someday see "city-style" running water in their subdivision. Similarly, these residents fell on both sides of the funding issue: some favored a water district that could issue bonds to finance new water lines to their subdivisions; others strongly opposed any tax increase to pay for infrastructure. On the Navajo Reservation, few believed that water pipelines would ever reach seasonal "sheep camps" or other remote residences. Most, however, felt that pipeline water could be trucked to stock ponds or holding tanks in outlying areas, particularly in times of drought. Some stakeholders also raised the question of how a large volume of new water would be treated, both before and after u s e . Unlike most ground water, the pipeline water would require purification to become potable. But while the region's c i t i e s have water treatment plants, other areas do not. Moreover, an increase in water consumption in the region w o u l d lead to increased disposal of waste water. Several feared that existing septic systems would prove inadequate, especially in more densely populated subdivisions or commercial areas. Water conservation issues were also raised by a number of stakeholders. They recommended measures be enacted to reduce water needs in the future. While Tusayan reportedly u t i l i z e s reclaimed water for more than one-fourth of its d o m e s t i c supply, no water conservation measures were required in most parts of Coconino County, according to stakeholders, and certain measures � such as gray water reuse � were actually discouraged at the county level, a situation they would like to see changed. A study has been proposed to assess the degree to which water conservation and reuse could improve the region's water supplies.
20
G r o w t h on the Coconino Plateau: Potential Impacts of a Water Pipeline for the Region
A DEVELOPMENT WILDCARD: STATE TRUST LANDS
Coconino County encompasses state trust lands totaling more than 1 million acres, an area larger than the state of Rhode Island. Approximately three quarters of these lands lie within the Coconino Plateau study area, the majority in the western subregion. (See Map 3, below.) Most occur in one-mile-square sections interspersed with comparable sections of private land in a vast "checkerboard" pattern. Because these state lands can be purchased or leased for commercial development, they represent a potential wildcard in the future of the Coconino Plateau. And because they are checkerboarded with private land, they have the potential to multiply the amount of private land available for development in many areas. The amount and nature of state land that is sold or leased for development purposes is a largely uncontrollable variable that may affect future growth of the region. This suggests several critical issues for consideration. At the onset, provisions regarding trust lands were written into the Arizona Enabling Act and the Arizona Constitution. These provisions mandated quite specifically how the lands should be administered for the benefit of the trust. Additional direction was later furnished by the U.S. Supreme Court which, in 1967, ruled that lands granted to the state should "provide the most substantial support possible to the beneficiaries." Consequently, the Arizona State Land Department sees its mission as producing the maximum financial yield from state lands. Most often the Land Department chooses one of three options for generating income from its lands: leasing land for grazing purposes, collecting fees for public access, or selling mineral resources on state lands. When it is fiscally advantageous, however, the department also may lease or sell land for development projects. Revenues derived from these transactions are then deposited in the Permanent Fund, and the interest earned is made available to the trust beneficiaries. While the option of converting state lands into large-scale developments currently affects only a small minority of state lands, it is the possibility of conversion that makes them a potential source of new development in areas currently thought of as open space.
Critical Issues
� State trust lands in the region could be developed. State law currently requires that these lands be managed for maximum public benefit. That means the Arizona State Land Department can lease or sell parcels whenever the market is "right." � The market will decide which trust parcels are developed. The land commissioner's discretion is strongly conditioned by the mandate to maximize each parcel's economic yield. That means that the real estate market will effectively determine which lands are reclassified. � Development "hot spots" will be along the north-south highways. Commercial development of state land in the region has been slow to date. But if conditions change, the action will likely follow major road corridors along which the proposed water pipeline might run � particularly State Highway 64 north from Williams, and U.S. Highway 89 north of Flagstaff. � Conservation efforts could preserve key state lands. Existing and pending land preservation efforts could limit development in sensitive areas, but they will require substantial funding. Potential changes in state law may also alter Land Department mandates and allow no-cost conservation set asides.
Map 3: Study Area: State and Private Land Ownership
Darkened area indicates state and private land ownership.
History
The state's trust lands are a legacy of land grants made to Arizona by the federal government. These grants took place on two occasions: first upon Arizona's establishment as a territory in 1863, and later just prior to statehood in 1912. Altogether, Arizona received more than 9.4 million acres (13,500 square miles) to be held in trust for specified beneficiaries, principally the state's public schools.
Source: Morrison Institute for Public Policy, data from Arizona Department of Water Resources and Arizona State Land Department.
A Development Wildcard: State Trust Lands
21
Dynamics
The vast majority of state holdings are currently classified as grazing land. Other classifications include urban, commercial, mineral, and agricultural. But the classifications are not static. At any time, changes can be made in response to local condit i o n s . For example, grazing or agricultural land may be reclassified as commercial land � and made available for lease or purchase � if the land's market value comes to exceed the value of its current use. S o m e t i m e s reclassifications are initiated by the Land Department, but typically they occur at the behest of local applicants who anticipate a development opportunity near a growing urban area. The actual decision to reclassify is a discretionary call made by the land commissioner after staff study, appraisal, consideration of department conceptual plans in urban areas, and consultation with local jurisdictions. Nothing in the decision-making process bars the state from reclassifying actively-used grazing land. The guiding concept for the Land Department is that the reclassification provide a "higher" use, economically speaking, for the parcel. The applicants for a reclassification must, therefore, demonstrate t h a t their proposal to lease or buy state land promises a greater revenue stream for the trust. While an existing lease holder can appeal a proposed reclassification, the lessee has little likelihood of blocking this conversion in a robust local real estate market. In this way the real estate market l a r g e l y determines where l a n d will be reclassified and, thus, where development will spread.
is Forest Highlands, a gated golf community southwest of the city. County and city officials suspect that Flagstaff's urban service boundary, which bars city water service connections outside the city limits, has dampened developer enthusiasm for more such projects. Outside the Flagstaff Area Regional Plan boundaries, service constraints have also limited development. While thousands of sections of state trust land � checkerboarded with private sections � arc across the county's midriff, relatively few of them possess significant development potential at this time. Most of these tracts remain primitive, distant from improved r o a d s , and without easy access to water. Furthermore, Coconino County actively discourages wildcat subdivision with its permit fee schedule, and the Land Department won't break up its properties for homestead purposes because that leads to piecemeal development, which complicates subsequent disposition of trust property and the delivery of infrastructure. Nevertheless, nothing precludes new circumstances � such as continued population growth, or new sources of water � from stimulating development of these more remote state lands in the study area. Most likely to gain value in such circumstances would be parcels located near major road corridors along which the proposed water pipeline might run, particularly in two broad reaches: first, the 25 mile stretch of State Highway 64 that runs from Cataract Creek near Williams through Valle to Red Butte; and second, the 12 miles of U.S. Highway 89 that run north from Wupatki N a t i o n a l Monument to Gray Mountain.
Already along Highway 64, a total of 19 sections of I n Coconino County, the checkerboarded private land Land Department has comknown as the Howard Mesa pleted few reclassifications Ranch have been purchased L A N D FOR SALE M u c h of the scenic open space between Williams and of grazing land as commerby Arizona Land and G r a n d Canyon consists of private and state land that is potentially c i a l land. This is due, in R a n c h e s , Inc, a Prescott d e v e l o p a b l e in the future. p a r t , to the fact that the d e v e l o p m e n t company. approximately 1,000 acres This area is zoned for very of state land already reclassified as commercial have generated low density use, thus the subdivision is being developed for little interest from buyers. the second-home and "ranchette" market, with limited infrastructure and no water. But county officials wonder if the In the Flagstaff vicinity, for example, only a handful of comaddition of water to this area might not stimulate a major mercial developments have been pursued, though 23,000 acres developer to buy up both private and state parcels for a largeof attractive state lands lie checkerboarded with national forest scale master-planned development. or private lands within a few miles of city limits. In fact, just one project outside city limits has been undertaken recently within the 525 square mile Flagstaff Area Regional Plan A number of options for protecting state land from future boundaries, a city-county joint planning area that encircles commercial development have emerged in recent years. Some much of the populated area in the Flagstaff vicinity. That project subdivision developers have set aside scenic parcels they pur-
Impacts
Protection
22
G r o w t h on the Coconino Plateau: Potential Impacts of a Water Pipeline for the Region
RANCHETTE ACREAGE The private holdings of Howard Mesa Ranch along State Route 64 south of Grand Canyon are being converted to minimum 10-acre subdivisions. Some fear the same outcome for state trust lands in the area.
chased from the state in a deal with municipalities to relax open space requirements for their subdivision. Proposition 303, passed by Arizona voters in November 1998 as part of Governor Jane Hull's Growing Smarter program, provides municipalities and others with $20 million a year in matching funds for the purchase or lease of state lands for conservation purposes. (No lands in the study area have been formally reclassified for this purpose, but they could be in the future.) And a legislative initiative on the November 2000 ballot offered to protect up to 3 percent of state lands from any development as open space. While this measure was defeated by voters, it was widely agreed that the primary reason was that voters saw it as not protecting enough land. Efforts are also underway to shield from development some of the private lands that are checkerboarded with state lands. For example, The Nature Conservancy is actively soliciting conservation easements on private ranch lands in order to protect wildlife corridors and significant habitat. These easements typically forbid any subdivision, commercial development, or mining on the affected property, while allowing the continuation of grazing and other activities, as well as the sale of the property. The land owner is usually compensated by direct payment for loss of the development right, or by tax benefits for the charitable donation of those rights. However, any state trust lands leased by the ranches for grazing are not covered by the conservation easement. An example of the use of easements came in January 2001, when The Nature Conservancy announced that Babbitt Ranches had donated a conservation easement covering 35,000 acres of private land operated as part of Cataract Ranch in the northern portion of the study area near the Grand Canyon. It is unclear, though, whether many more easements will be forthcoming. Most ranches in the area probably do not generate the kind of revenue that makes tax write-offs attractive enough to motivate a donation. Conservation organizations,
therefore, would require substantial funding to purchase these easements. And while further acquisitions of conservation easements could forestall development of substantial tracts of private land in the study area, state grazing lands would still be available for conversion if the real estate market demands.
Bottom Line
The dynamic nature of state trust lands opens the possibility of substantial conversions of open space to development in Coconino County, especially along the county's major northsouth highways. While little state land in the area has been sold in the past decade, water pipelines installed near state parcels could increase their value in the future. Because of the state's fiduciary duty to manage trust lands for the highest economic benefit, this could significantly alter the region's growth map over the 50 year time horizon of this study.
STREET SIGN, NO STREETS Developers of this 1960s-era "Grand Canyon" s u b d i v i s i o n near Valle sold thousands of unimproved, one-acre lots, but p r o v i d e d no basic amenities, such as streets or utilities. Most lots remain v a c a n t today.
A Development Wildcard: State Trust Lands
23
MAP 4: CASE STUDY SITES
Source: Morrison Institute for Public Policy
24
G r o w t h on the Coconino Plateau: Potential Impacts of a Water Pipeline for the Region
WATER AND GROWTH IN WESTERN STATES: FOUR CASE STUDIES
Regional water supply projects are nothing new in the West. Many have been in place for decades, often supplying the water that western cities needed to grow. In order to extract lessons from existing water projects in regions similar to the Coconino Plateau, four case studies were conducted to examine the effects these regions experienced after the introduction of "new" water. L o o k i n g across the experiences of all four case studies, a number of lessons emerge.
Selection of Case Study Projects
Lessons Learned
� Water tends to flow toward economic growth. Where regional job growth has led to population growth � p u t t i n g a strain on available water resources � an augmented water supply tends to facilitate further growth by maintaining or improving the quality of life. � Wa t e r, a l o n e , d o e s not create growth. W h e n water flows to economically depressed areas, it has little effect on population growth unless some other factor t r i g g e r s an increase in economic performance. Sometimes this factor is new business location to the region, job expansion, or increased attractiveness of the region as a retirement destination. � New growth tends to follow available infrastructure. I n areas where growth pressures already exist, new d e v e l o p m e n t will tend to follow the lines of least resistance � such as already installed water lines. � The decision on who gets water affects where and how a region grows. Water management decisions � usually made early on � can determine where new subdivision and industrial development will occur. If water access is tightly controlled by, or restricted to, urban areas, the region will tend to grow through urban infill or a fringe build-out that is contiguous with older subdivisions. If water is readily available anywhere in the region, d e v e l o p m e n t may leapfrog into more remote and u n i n c o r p o r a t e d areas where land and development f e e s are less expensive. � Water projects can produce long-term economic and q u a l i t y - o f - l i f e benefits. Wa t e r projects that involve reservoirs or other uses of the water for recreational purposes (e.g., ponds, golf courses, wetlands), can attract a recreation industry that contributes to the region's overall economy. � Renewable water projects can protect local aquifers. Water projects that capture surface flows reduce pressure on groundwater sources in local areas, at least in the short term. � S u r f a c e water projects can damage downstream resources. The diversion of streams or the reduction of stream flows can substantially alter natural resources. This can lead to negative downstream impacts. � New water undercuts water conservation efforts. Water conservation is often a strategy of last resort for watershort areas. When new projects reduce immediate water supply concerns, conservation loses its impetus.
Water projects had to qualify on a number of factors to be considered as candidates for the case study. First, they had to have sufficient history in order to provide usable lessons � ideally 15-20 years of operation or more. Second, the projects needed to supply primarily municipal and industrial water. In addition, the projects and their service areas had to match the study area in a number of important ways. For example, no projects were selected that primarily served large metropolitan areas because the majority of the study area is sparsely populated. Based on interviews and field research, a list of potential comparison points was constructed to determine which water projects would be most appropriate for case study.
Selection Criteria
Case Study Projects should have... � Sufficient history (ideally 15-20 years) � Primarily municipal water use � A mainly rural service area � One or more small urban hubs � Low density population outside incorporated towns � Projections of rapid population growth � Indian reservations in service area � Scarce/expensive/uncertain alternate water sources � Development perceived limited by lack of water � Abundant open spaces available for development � Environmental or aquifer concerns related to growth � Concerns over infrastructure and management of new water
Projects
No project or region perfectly matched all points of comparison. In fact, no projects serving Indian communities were found that had sufficient history of providing municipal water. Four p r o j e c t s , however, were selected for case study because, together, they encompassed a significant number of the selection criteria. These are: Canadian River Project � the largest water project in the case study, serving 11 cities and towns in north Texas including Amarillo and Lubbock. Gillette-Madison Water Project � the smallest water project in the case study, serving Gillette, Wyoming, and two small communities. Quail Creek Reservoir and Pipeline � a complex project serving southwest Utah's Washington County, a scenic and rural area much like the Coconino Plateau, and one that has been experiencing sustained rapid growth. L o w e r Gunnison Basin Unit, Wi n t e r Stock Water Replacement Program � a federally funded water infras t r u c t u r e project in southwestern Colorado that replaced agricultural water ditches with municipal-style water lines, inadvertently making agricultural lands more attractive for residential subdivision. Descriptions and results of each case study follow.
25
Water and Growth in Western States: Four Case Studies
CANADIAN RIVER PROJECT
Location: Texas Panhandle Purpose: Municipal and industrial water for 11 cities and towns, including Amarillo and Lubbock Management/Delivery Model: An authorityoperated system of 323 miles of pipelines, 10 pumping stations, and 3 regulating reservoirs t o transport water from Lake Meredith, an i m p o u n d m e n t of the Canadian River formed by Sanford Dam, to 11 cities. Date of Service: 1968 Pipeline Capacity: 126,000 acre-feet per year Cost of Construction Projected: $96 million Actual: $83 million Cost of Maintenance and Operation Projected: $33 per acre-foot (10 cents per 1,000 gallons), including debt service Actual: $46 per acre-foot (14 cents per 1,000 gallons), including debt service Population in Service Area Initial (1968): 350,000 Projected 2000: N/A Actual 2000: 489,033 Volume of Water Delivered Annually Projected: 103,000 acre-feet Actual: 73,400 acre-feet (10-year average) Points of Comparison to North Central Arizona Pipeline Population Centers: scattered and small, with relatively small urban hubs Population Density: low-density development outside incorporated cities/towns Growth Profile: more growth occurring in urban hubs Land Availability: large amount of undeveloped land Land Uses: livestock grazing Project Design: municipal and industrial use Other Water Sources: uncertain groundwater Development: perceived to be limited by lack of water
Nearly 20 years were required to develop the plan. In 1950, Congress authorized the Canadian River Project as a federal reclamation project. I n 1953 the Texas Legislature created the CRMWA to distribute water from the project. It wasn't until 1962, however, that construction began on Sanford Dam, and by early 1968 water began flowing to the 11 member cities and towns with 29,000 acre-feet delivered that year. Annual water delivery has increased in subsequent years, reaching a peak of 80,606 acre-feet in 1999. Originally viewed as the long-term solution to the municipal water supply needs of high plains cities, the Canadian River Project has not been problem-free. Lower-than-anticipated inflow into Lake Meredith has at times caused allocations to member cities to be reduced to 80 or 90 percent of full allotment. In addition, the salinity of Canadian River water has become increasingly severe, in large part due to heavy upstream infusions into the river from a shallow brine aquifer under artesian pressure. This has reduced water quality overall. CRMWA has been working to address both issues. Early in 2001 the authority expects to complete an $80 million system to transfer up to 40,000 acre-feet of supplementary groundwater into its grid, the water to be extracted from well fields 30 miles east of Lake Meredith that are not considered appropriate for agricultural pumping. The intent is to blend this water with lake water for delivery to 10 of the CRMWA cities (Borger will receive its well water directly at its posttreatment storage point) to increase both the quantity and quality of the system's water. Meanwhile, CRMWA hopes to directly address the salinity issue with a $10 million project that will involve drilling into the upstream brine aquifer and then pumping the aquifer to reduce its pressure. This project is also slated for completion in 2001.
Growth-Related Impacts
Population The Canadian River Project has effectively removed water as a constraint on municipal growth in the region, allowing several member towns and cities to modestly increase their population. Absent Canadian River water, most members would have been forced to develop additional well capacity, a situation that in a declining aquifer could have led to serious water shortages and a reduction or reversal of growth rates. Among the fastest growing members since Canadian River Project water began flowing are Amarillo and Lubbock, the two largest cities in the area with populations of 177,644 and 192,732 respectively. Since 1970, Amarillo increased its population by 40 percent and Lubbock by 37 percent. In these cities, water likely enabled, but did not itself drive the growth. More powerful drivers, according to local economic devel-
Background and Development
The Canadian River Project supplies municipal and industrial water to 11 towns and cities located in the semiarid high plains of the Texas panhandle. Beneficiaries of the project include Amarillo, Borger, Brownfield, Lamesa, Levelland, Lubbock, O'Donnell, Pampa, Plainview, Slaton, and Tahoka � a l l members of the Canadian River Municipal Water Authority (CRMWA). Until the late 1960s, these municipalities relied entirely on groundwater pumped from the huge Ogallala aquifer. Concerns over a declining water table, however, led local and state officials to look for renewable sources of water beginning as early as the 1940s. The result was a U.S. Bureau of Reclamation plan to impound the Canadian River behind Sanford Dam north of Amarillo and divert its waters southward via more than 300 miles of pipeline.
26
G r o w t h on the Coconino Plateau: Potential Impacts of a Water Pipeline for the Region
opment officials, are the cities' locations as transportation hubs, and a region-wide migration from farm to city. Amarillo further benefited from an aggressive economic development effort, while Lubbock profited from the presence of Texas Tech University and the city's status as a major processing center for regionally grown crops. Not all CRMWA members, however, have experienced substantial growth. Three of the project's largely agricultural towns (Brownfield, Tahoka, and O'Donnell) grew less than 10 percent over 30 years, while three others (Pampa, Slaton, and Lamesa) actually lost population. Local observers believe that agriculture sector problems such as low commodity prices, drought, and depletion of irrigation water supplies drove small operator farmers off the land and into the region's cities. Also not experiencing major growth have been unincorporated areas that receive project water. Of the 24,000 CRMWA water users estimated by officials to reside outside member towns, a little over 4,000 live in four older, slow-growing communities that in the last 20 years began to experience groundwater problems and arranged to buy water from Lubbock. One nonmember town, however, has experienced growth. This is Canyon, an older community about 17 miles south of Amarillo that has been buying its water from Amarillo for 15 years. Between 1990 and 2000 Canyon grew from 11,365 to 13,000 residents as it evolved into a bedroom community for Amarillo. The area between Canyon and Amarillo is also gradually evolving from an agricultural area into an exurban residential area. Sprawl The project's impact on development patterns has been mixed. Large industrial taps on the pipeline have allowed four major commercial installations to be established in unincorporated areas along the aqueduct. These include a feedlot north of Plainview, a fertilizer plant near Borger, and a copper refinery and a generating plant, both north of Amarillo. Given local groundwater constraints, none of these operations could have obtained adequate water to locate in the area without the pipeline. In terms of residential sprawl, however, several planners and utility officials suggest that most dispersed residential development in unincorporated areas has been discouraged by the terms under which Amarillo and Lubbock make Canadian River Project water available. As a rule, project cities refuse to serve domestic water outside their borders unless they first annex the land. Thus, the Canadian River Project may well be promoting contiguous urban development because of the risks involved in developing alternative water sources for new subdivisions outside city boundaries. Water Resources Since water began flowing through the pipeline, CRMWA m e m b e r cities and towns have shifted from 100 percent r e l i a n c e on groundwater resources to nearly 70 percent reliance on the Canadian River Project, thus reducing drawdown of the Ogallala aquifer. While most members continue to use some groundwater to augment their supply, particularly
during peak seasons, the deteriorating quality of some groundwater supplies has forced a few to stop this practice altogether. At the same time, concerns have grown about the quality of the water delivered from Lake Meredith. While it was realized early that the lake's water would be somewhat mineralized, the switch from groundwater has been extremely objectionable to some citizens. Chloride (salt) content has been generally increasing during the life of the project, and drought cycles now produce chloride contents as high as 475 milligrams per liter. That exceeds both the federally recommended salinity standard of 250 mg/L and the state benchmark of 300 mg/L. Corrosiveness and mineral deposition problems accompany a noticeably salty taste. To mitigate this problem, some member cities with locally available, high quality groundwater have chosen to blend their groundwater with lake water to achieve a better product, but a number of cities do not have good groundwater available for such mixing. At the regional level, however, the authority is currently working to complete its $10 million salinity control project upstream of the lake. Since this project will address the source of 70 percent of the chlorides reaching Lake Meredith, it holds out the possibility of significant water quality improvement. The expectation is it will reduce or eliminate the need for groundwater blending in the future. Recreation Along with drinking water, Lake Meredith also provides a major recreational asset to residents of Texas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico. Over 1.4 million visits are recorded yearly to the National Park Service-administered lake, which provides over 100 miles of shoreline and 16,000 acres of water surface. The lake, which is surrounded by 200-foot canyons and grasslands, is open year-round for fishing. Also popular are water sports, picnicking, birding, and horseback riding. Facilities include access roads, parking areas, picnic tables and shelters, drinking water, boat launching ramps, boat docks, a swimming area, and public restrooms.
Summary of Canadian River Effects
� The water pipeline has facilitated growth in larger cities, but not in most small towns, some of which lost population. Economic factors likely play a more powerful role in stimulating growth. � The water pipeline has allowed some industrial development to occur in areas that would have not otherwise been likely to develop. � Control over the distribution of pipeline water has allowed cities to effectively discourage sprawl outside their boundaries. � The water pipeline has provided some measure of protection for the underlying aquifer by reducing pumping. � Lake Meredith offers the region a major recreational asset.
Water and Growth in Western States: Four Case Studies
27
GILLETTE-MADISON WATER PROJECT
Location: Northeast Wyoming, vicinity of Gillette Purpose: Municipal and industrial water for Gillette and environs Management/Delivery Model: A city-operated, 43-mile long, 30-inch diameter water pipeline transporting groundwater from a well-field in the Black Hills Date of Service: 1981 Pipeline Capacity: 16,000 acre-feet per year Cost of Construction Projected: $22.5 million (master plan) Actual: $28 million Cost of Maintenance and Operation Projected: $114 per acre-foot (35 cents per 1,000 gallons) Actual: $521 per acre-foot ($1.60 per 1,000 gallons) Population in Service Area Initial (1981): 14,381 Projected 2000: 42,270 Actual 2000: 22,000 Volume of Water Delivered Annually Projected: 11,300 acre-feet per year Actual: 12,500 acre-feet per year Points of Comparison to North Central Arizona Pipeline Population Centers: scattered and small, with relatively small urban hubs Population Density: low-density development outside incorporated cities/towns Growth Profile: rapid growth possible Land Availability: large amount of undeveloped land Land Uses: livestock grazing, resource extraction Project Design: municipal and industrial use Other Water Sources: uncertain groundwater Development: perceived to be limited by lack of water
Gillette's water concerns emerged during a r e g i o n a l boom in domestic oil exploration activity related to a worldwide oil crisis. Rapid growth ensued, with the city's population more than doubling in two years, from 5,400 residents in 1975 to 12,317 in 1977. Recognizing that future growth could be constrained by the city's unreliable existing water supplies, officials began a search for alternative sources. The most promising source appeared to be in the Madison formation's artesian limestone aquifer, which u n d e r l i e s much of northeast Wyoming. A test well drilled into the formation suggested the availability of significant quantities of water. The solution that emerged was the Gillette-Madison Water Project, a plan to drill wells into the Madison Formation, approximately 40 miles east of Gillette in the Black Hills, and transport the water to Gillette via pipeline. In December 1977, the state of Wyoming concluded in a report that it was appropriate for the state to install the well field and pipeline that would serve Gillette. The Wyoming Legislature subsequently established a finance package for the Gillette-Madison Water Project consisting of a combination of direct grants and loans from the State Farm Loan Board. In 1980, construction began on an eight-well extraction field and a 43-mile-long, 30-inch diameter transmission main to the city. Water delivery began in summer, 1981.
Growth-Related Impacts
Population The Gillette-Madison Water Project resolved Gillette's anticipated water shortages, allowing the city to grow substantially. During the five-year period following completion of the project, Gillette's population increased 34 percent, from 14,381 residents in 1981 to 19,295 in 1986. The new water, however, was not the most important factor driving this growth. Far more significant was the energy industry, which employs more than a fifth of all Campbell County residents, and which was already enjoying an economic boom in the area. But this industry can crash as well as boom, and beginning in 1987 it did. In the next three years, Gillette's population slid to 17,502 residents, a drop of more than 9 percent. Since then, the city has resumed its growth, but at a much more moderate 3 percent annual rate that, according to city officials, reflects increased activity in the region's extensive low-sulfur coal and coal-bed methane sectors. The result of whipsawing economic cycles is that the Gillette area's current population of 22,000 has fallen far short of the more than 42,000 forecast during the project's planning phase.
Background and Development
The Gillette-Madison Water Project grew out of a water quality and quantity crisis facing the city of Gillette, Wyoming, in the 1970s. Located on the high plains in the northeast portion of the state, Gillette's economy at the time revolved around large-scale extraction of oil from beds near the city. Today the city remains an important "energy capital," with 30 percent of the nation's coal supply and much of its coal-bed methane coming from mines in surrounding Campbell County. In contrast to its mineral wealth, Gillette had meager water resources in the 1970s. Surface water was extremely limited, annual rainfall in the region averaged only about eight inches per year, and the main source of municipal water � groundwater from three aquifers located beneath the city � showed alarming signs of stress. With a total annual yield of 4,300 acre-feet, the city's 28 wells were not projected to meet the maximum water demands of the city after 1984. Moreover, declining productivity and a history of variable quality water at many wells had already led to watering restrictions in the summertime.
28
G r o w t h on the Coconino Plateau: Potential Impacts of a Water Pipeline for the Region
Sprawl The pipeline and its water have provided little impetus for growth beyond the city limits of Gillette. Local observers attribute this restraining effect to regulations that tightly restrict access to the pipeline. Only two small communities along the pipeline route are allowed to tap directly into the system. Moorcroft, 30 miles from Gillette, is provided a supplemental entitlement of about 1,100 acre-feet per year as mandated in the project's enabling legislation. And Rozet, an unincorporated hamlet eight miles from Gillette, gained a tap that initially served unlimited water to a single elementary school, and now also serves a county cemetery, a fire station, several trailer parks, and an industrial truck-fill installation. Others who want to obtain project water cannot simply tap into the water pipeline, but in most cases must buy water from Gillette, which the state of Wyoming considers a regional water purveyor. This arrangement has, in many cases, discouraged new development in unincorporated areas distant from the city � partly due to Gillette's hesitation to supply remote customers, and partly due to the cost of infrastructure to transport water long distances. Adding to these restraining effects are the increasingly regionalized policies of the Wyoming Water Development Commission. Since the late 1980s, the commission has resisted developing expensive new remote water systems and encouraged smaller communities to link to "regional" providers like Gillette. Closer to Gillette, unincorporated areas have seen modest population growth, mostly associated with the development of ranchettes and small subdivisions. In total, some 700 connections for new service have been made to homes or small water companies in these areas, adding an estimated total of less than 3000 people overall. State and local officials expect more of these connections to be made in the future, given continuing groundwater problems in the area and Gillette's role as a regional water purveyor. Still, most new tie-ins are expected to remain close to Gillette, thereby avoiding any substantial amount of dispersed development. Water Resources Since a series of technical problems were solved in the 1980s, the Gillette-Madison Project has provided a stable source of drinking water for Gillette and other recipients. This water is quite hard, with its total dissolved solids and hardness both rated at about 500 milligrams per liter, but it needs little treatment prior to delivery beyond chlorination. The supply has also proven plentiful. Initially the system delivered a baseline 3 acre-feet per day of project water � peaking at 21.5 acre-feet per day in summer � which was blended with 3 acre-feet per day from existing "soft water" wells. More recently, Madison production has been boosted to a base of 13.8 acre-feet per day � peaking at 33.8 acre-feet per day in summer � through an upgrade to larger pumps on the original Madison wells and the addition of three pumps at the pipeline's two pumping stations. Given the pipeline's size, the system's maximum capacity
is now rated at about 35 acre-feet per day � a figure that puts the system near its peaking capacity. In short, the project has greatly improved water quality in Gillette, averted shortages, and made it possible for the town to grow. Along with a plentiful supply, however, has come a certain extravagance. As the city's public works director, Bill Carson, observes: "We now use too much water." Where records from the 1970s pegged consumption in the city at 125 gallons per capita per day, it now exceeds 200 gallons a day on average, and as much as 600 gallons per capita on peak days. A good deal of this increased use, moreover, has not been on the part of individuals, but on the part of the city. The new water supplies have allowed Gillette to embark on a concerted beautification program that has included the installation of new landscaping in its numerous parks and greenbelts, and the planting of 500 large trees in the city every year since 1987. Overall, according to city utilities director Jon Young, the city of Gillette now d e d i c a t e s an estimated 10 to 15 percent of its daily water production to "greening up the desert" � an undertaking that would have been unimaginable before the completion of the Gillette-Madison pipeline. Add in the county's parks, local schools, and homeowners, and perhaps half of all the city's water goes to support landscaping. Recreation and Environment Gillette's enthusiastic use of water to beautify its parks and plantings has not been the Madison Project's only environmental impact. In recent years, the pipeline has also allowed the city t o pump raw water from one of its in-town wells into Burlington Lake in McManaman Park as part of a city effort to maintain a local wetland to support waterfowl, migratory geese, and shorebirds. Last year, for example, the city poured 46 acre-feet into the lake to keep the area wet. Over the years the town has enhanced the park with paths, tree plantings, interpretive signs, and viewing blinds, developing it into a popular bird-watching and education center.
Summary of Gillette-Madison Effects
� The water pipeline has allowed Gillette to grow modestly, but the pace of growth has been dictated primarily by trends in the energy industry, the area's dominant employer. � Sprawl into remote unincorporated areas has been constrained by the uncertainty of groundwater supplies there and restricted access to pipeline water, with the result that most development in unincorporated areas has been confined to areas near Gillette. � Project water has coincided with an increase in consumption in Gillette that has seen the city use significant amounts of water on several nonessential but popular quality-of-life projects, including a city-wide beautification program and a bird-supporting wetland.
Water and Growth in Western States: Four Case Studies
29
QUAIL CREEK RESERVOIR AND PIPELINE
Location: Southwestern Utah Purpose: Municipal, industrial, and agricultural water supply for Washington County, Utah Management/Delivery Model: A 9.5-mile pipeline diverting flows from the Virgin River to Quail Creek Reservoir, a 40,000 acre-foot off-stream storage facility Date of Service: 1985 Pipeline Capacity: 109,000 acre-feet per year Cost of Construction Projected: $20 million Actual: $23.5 million Cost of Maintenance and Operation P ro j e c t e d : N / A Actual: $40 per acre-foot (12 cents per 1,000 gallons) Population in Service Area Initial: 25,300 Projected 2000: 55,000 Actual 2000: 86,000 Volume of Water Delivered Annually Projected: 20,000 acre-feet Actual: 24,165 acre-feet total; 11,512 acre-feet M&I Points of Comparison to North Central Arizona Pipeline Population Centers: scattered and small with a relatively small urban hub Population Density: low density developments outside of cities/towns Growth Profile: fast-growing cities and towns Land Availability: large amount of undeveloped private land Land Uses: livestock, agriculture Project Design: municipal and industrial use as a major component (also agriculture) Other Water Sources: uncertain groundwater, springs Development: fast growth perceived to be limited by available resources
the system. By late 1989, however, Washington County's largest city, St. George, had constructed a new water treatment facility at the reservoir, and a 14-mile-long pipeline from the treatment plant to the city, so it could begin using treated Quail Creek water for municipal consumption. Immediately afterward, St. George's consumption of reservoir water, and its share of the overall project's yield, began to climb. By 1999, Quail Creek Reservoir was supplying 8,874 acre-feet of water annually to the city, or 55 percent of its total use. This amount represented more than three-quarters of all the water drawn from the Quail Creek project for municipal and industrial purposes, and more than one-third of the project's peak annual yield. St. George currently remains the only city in the region with a means of treating Quail Creek water. Even without a treatment plant for Quail Creek water, however, the towns of Hurricane and Washington have found a way to use the water to augment their municipal supplies. Since 1993, Hurricane has been drawing 800 to 1,000 acre-feet per year of untreated Quail Creek water and applying it to outdoor watering � in effect, saving the town from using potable water for such purposes. The town of Washington has also begun taking an estimated 700 acre-feet per year for similar uses. But these towns each hold 2,000 acre-feet per year allotments, so Washington is considering construction of a micro-filtration plant to treat the rest of its share for domestic use. Another proposal calls for building a pipeline to deliver treated water from Quail Creek Reservoir to the town of Ivins and others. These and other plans to distribute Quail Creek project water in Washington County will likely consume the fully allocated 22,000 acre-feet per year firm yield of the system. The probability of full consumption of Quail Creek project water, along with expectations of continued fast growth, has spurred the county to pursue two new water development projects. The first of these, scheduled for 2001, will link the Quail Creek Reservoir via a 4-mile, 60-inch pipeline to a new 50,000 acre-foot storage reservoir south of the original one. The second project, with a longer time horizon, proposes construction of a 120-mile-long pipeline from Lake Powell to the new reservoir. This plan would deliver 60,000 acre-feet per year of Colorado River water to meet the county-projected near tripling of water demand by 2050.
Background and Development
The Quail Creek Reservoir and Pipeline project was prompted by fast growth in southwestern Utah's Washington County and the perception that available water resources would soon prove inadequate. Before the project, Washington County towns depended primarily on local springs and wells for their drinking and "secondary" (landscape) water. While these sources provided a fairly reliable flow, their ability to support projected growth in this area, considered gateway to Zion National Park, w a s deemed questionable by the late 1970s. Spring water p r o duction was nearly fully exploited, and the expense for increasing groundwater production appeared formidable. The Washington County Water Conservancy District, therefore, conceived the Quail Creek project. The district proposed to build a pipeline to divert a portion of the flow of the Virgin River, and a 40,000 acre-foot reservoir in the Quail Creek drainage that would hold the diverted water for distribution and use in Washington County. In 1985, construction was completed on both endeavors, with the new reservoir situated 15 miles northeast of St. George, the county seat. At first, none of the new water was treated for public consumption, so only agricultural customers received flow from
30
Growth-Related Impacts
Population Water from the Quail Creek Reservoir and Pipeline enabled a major population growth trend in Washington County to continue. Much of this growth resulted from a strong influx of retirees and others who were drawn to the area by its mild winters and proximity to Zion National Park and other natural attractions. Without the Quail Creek project, however, water supply problems might have dampened this growth trajectory significantly. In St. George, for example, population grew from 28,572 in 1990 to about 50,000 in 2000. At its peak in 2000, the city's
G r o w t h on the Coconino Plateau: Potential Impacts of a Water Pipeline for the Region
water consumption hit 116.6 acre-feet per day, but its well and spring water resources produced only 64.4 acre-feet per day. This suggests that without the pipeline's supply of water, the city would have had difficulty handling this growth. The same applies to Washington County as a whole. The county grew from 48,580 people in 1990 to 82,115 in 1998. As of 1998, the county estimated its total, reliable, potable water supply at 32,550 acre-feet per year, of which 7,000 acre-feet were delivered from the Quail Creek Project. Meanwhile, total consumption of potable water was estimated at 29,553 acrefeet per year. Thus, the county may have seen a shortfall of as much as 4,000 acre-feet without Quail Creek water. Impacts of the water on smaller municipalities underscore the system's importance in supporting population growth. Both Hurricane and Washington receive raw water for irrigation from the system, which has allowed them to save an equal amount of potable water from being used in yard and golf course service. Assuming that a family of four normally consumes about 0.5 acre-feet per year, this savings of about 1,500 acre-feet per year of potable water in the two towns would allow approximately 12,000 additional residents to settle there. Ivins has also benefited. Years ago this small town arranged with St. George to receive 270 acre-feet per year of treated water, but because of the Quail Creek project, St. George was actually able to sell Ivins 1,715 acre-feet in 2000. Without that additional 1,445 acre-feet of potable water, Ivins would have had a hard time servicing its rapid population growth from 1,163 in 1990 to an estimated 5,814 in 2000. Consequently, most observers of the region agree with Bob Nicholson, community development director of St. George. "The reservoir and pipeline have definitely facilitated population growth here," says Nicholson. "They've not stimulated it, but they've allowed it." But much of Washington County's growth in the last decade might have occurred even if the Quail Creek project had not been built. Today the system delivers only about a quarter of the region's total municipal and industrial water budget of around 52,000 acre-feet per year. Absent the project's construction, alternative water sources could have been tapped. For example, agricultural consumption runs up to 87,800 acre-feet per year, and substantial flows of this water might have been converted to residential uses. In addition, the county's very high per capita municipal and industrial consumption rate of 335 gallons per day (445 gpd including secondary water) is much larger than that of the state (284 gpd) or cities such as Denver (217 gpd) or Phoenix (175 gpd), so gains through conservation measures could also have made water available for new development. Furthermore, some moderation of the region's high peak demand for water through storage or other means could have accommodated substantial growth as well. Sprawl The Quail Creek project has also had a modest, but mixed, influence on where growth has occurred. Urban compactness has been promoted by the fact that only one municipality � St. George � has a facility to treat Quail Creek water. For that reason, St. George receives most of the system's M&I deliveries. Concludes community development director Nicholson: "Since only St. George can serve drinking water [from the system] and you can't just go out and drill a well, developers need to be in St. George to get water. That may promote concentration a bit."
Nevertheless, the project has facilitated dispersed development in several instances � and could do so more broadly if other towns follow through on plans to build treatment plants or delivery pipelines. The town of Ivins, for example, was able to exceed its spring and groundwater budget because of water purchase arrangements with St. George, which is tied to the project. And the town of Washington's new master-planned golf community, Coral Canyon City, which will double the size of the town, would not have been possible without the 700 acre-feet per year of Quail Creek water the town recently began drawing from the pipeline, according to the town's public works director, Michael Shaw. Water Resources In terms of water resources, the Quail Creek project has had two major impacts. First, it has likely delayed regional water conservation efforts. The project provides an abundance of "raw" water for the irrigation of parks, golf courses, and lawns, and that has undercut any impetus for utilizing waterefficient landscaping. Consequently, the county's high per capita water consumption has declined little over the last decade. The project has also impacted flows in the Virgin River. By removing almost all of the river's flow from a 14-mile reach of the streambed, the project has sparked considerable controversy over the fate of several sensitive native fish populations in the river. Growing concerns over these species have led to negotiations over how much water may be diverted, and how much should be left in the river. Both the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources and the State Water Plan have called for minimum flows to be maintained, even at the diversion point. Recreational Impacts A final impact of the project is its creation of a regional attraction that also produces substantial economic benefit. With a surface area of 650 acres, Quail Creek Reservoir has emerged as a popular water recreation area, drawing more than a half million visitors a year to its Quail Lake State Park. These visitors enjoy the reservoir and its shoreline for boating, water skiing, fishing, swimming, and RV camping. Demand for this type of recreation remains so high that reservoir managers recently had to place a cap on the number of boats allowed on the water per day. According to county estimates, the reservoir generates approximately $20 million a year in local economic activity.
Summary of Quail Creek Effects
� The reservoir and pipeline have helped facilitate rapid population growth by making water available not only for treatment and drinking, but also for outdoor uses that free up potable supplies for domestic consumption. � The project has channeled development toward the region's largest city, but also supported some dispersed development near smaller towns. � The reservoir created by the project has become a major economic and recreational asset in the region. � The project has forestalled water conservation efforts in the region and allowed per capita water consumption to remain very high. � The project has diminished Virgin River flows below its diversion point, with possible negative impacts on native species.
31
Water and Growth in Western States: Four Case Studies
LOWER GUNNISON BASIN UNIT WINTER STOCK WATER REPLACEMENT PROGRAM
Colorado River Water Quality Improvement Program
Location: west-central Colorado, near Montrose Purpose: reduction of salt loading to the Colorado River system Management/Delivery Model:161 miles of rural water pipelines and 9 storage tanks added to the infrastructure of three rural water districts to deliver treated municipal and industrial water from Project 7 (the regional water treatment authority) to unincorporated agricultural areas of Montrose and Delta counties Date of Service: Staged, between 1990 and 1995 Cost of Construction Projected: $27.6 million Actual: $22 million Cost of Maintenance and Operation Projected: $1,101 per acre-foot ($3.38 per 1,000 gallons) for Tri-County and Chipeta water districts; $909 per acrefoot ($2.79 per 1,000 gallons) for Menoken Water District Actual: N/A Population in Service Area Initial: 24,576 2000: 29,404 Volume of Water Delivered Annually Projected: 825 acre-feet Actual: N/A Points of Comparison to North Central Arizona Pipeline Population Centers: scattered and small, with a relatively small urban hub Population Density: low-density development outside incorporated cities/towns Growth Profile: rapid growth possible Land Availability: large amount of undeveloped land Land Uses: livestock grazing, outdoor recreation Other Water Sources: uncertain groundwater Development: perceived to be limited by lack of water
t w o counties, thereby eliminating the saltloading of an estimated 74,000 tons annually. But the $22 million salt-reduction project constructed by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation had an unintended impact. By introducing a huge new water delivery infrastructure into rural Delta and Montrose counties, it greatly enlarged the supply of potable water to areas that had not previously been served. This occurred because of the way the program was structured. Under the program, more than 900 users of the canal system became eligible to receive replacement water from Project 7, the regional water treatment authority. This water was to be delivered to the users' historic point of use � stock tanks � by extending the water lines of three existing domestic water systems: Chipeta Water District, Menoken Water District, and Tri-County Water Conservancy District. These federally funded extensions, completed between 1990 and 1995, ultimately saw the construction of 161 miles of new delivery pipeline, several pumps, and 9 storage tanks within the water companies' service areas. This new water infrastructure substantially increased the ability of the three rural utilities to deliver treated water suitable for domestic consumption. During the construction phase, low capacity 2-inch trunk lines were replaced with much larger capacity 6-inch lines; new service lines were installed where previously there had been none; and numerous undeveloped agricultural areas were connected to "city" water service for the first time. A case in point is the Menoken district's 80mile-long web of pipeline serving about 40 square miles north of Montrose. This system gained some 20 new miles of service line, allowing water to flow for the first time to unserved areas of three rural roads.
Background and Development
T h e Lower Gunnison Basin Unit Winter Stock Water Replacement Program was not intended to expand the domestic water supply infrastructure in rural Colorado when it was undertaken in the early 1990s. Instead, as part of the federal Colorado River Water Quality Improvement Program, it was designed to reduce salt-loading of the Colorado River system by providing a replacement winter water supply for livestock operators. These operators had been watering their livestock each winter by diverting the Uncompahgre River into unlined canals that leached salts into the system. By providing an alternative water supply through a network of new enclosed w a t e r lines, the Stock Water Replacement Program ended winter canal flows across 86,000 acres of agricultural land in
Growth-Related Impacts
Population T h e Lower Gunnison Basin Unit Winter Stock Water Replacement Program facilitated population growth in unincorporated areas of Delta and Montrose counties during the 1990s. Growth pressures in the region had been building in the early 1990s due to a combination of factors related to the region's western appeal: scenic mountains, relatively mild climate, proximity to national monuments, access to ski areas, and relatively affordable housing. But many unincorporated
32
G r o w t h on the Coconino Plateau: Potential Impacts of a Water Pipeline for the Region
areas of the two counties had seen their development potential constrained by such problems as a lack of water service, the variable quality of local groundwater wells, and in some cases, inadequate water pressure for rural fire coverage. The Stock Water Replacement Program provided many of these areas with convenient, high-pressure potable water deliveries for the first time. And since no rules precluded the use of these "winter watering" taps for year-round domestic hookups, the program is widely agreed to have spurred rural subdivision and homebuilding. Exactly how much new development occurred in the areas affected by the Stock Water Replacement Program is not easy to assess. Overall growth in all unincorporated areas of the two counties in the early 1990s exceeded 3 percent per year, according to state and county figures, but has since settled down to about 1.5 percent per year. Regarding the specific water districts in which the Stock Water Replacement Program operated, Taggie Aultman, general manager of the Chipeta Water District, says the program "definitely allowed more housing to go in all over the area" in her district. Mike Berry, general manager of Tri-County Water Conservancy District, allows that "many" of the 535 taps the program installed in his district (an increase of 10 percent) now serve homes or subdivisions. And Menoken Water District officials note that "about 98 percent" of the 127 taps originally installed by the program in Menoken's service area were converted to year-round residential use within a few years. Many additional taps were also installed in the new water lines by the water companies. Menoken officials report that in the 1980s, prior to the program's extension of lines, only 153 new taps had been sold by their water district, while in the 1990s, after the program's extensions, 478 new taps were sold � a better than threefold increase. Menoken officials also point out a sharp increase in the number of subdivisions planned for areas served by the new lines. Before the 1990s, almost no subdivisions were begun in those areas because adequate drinking water and fire capacity was nonexistent. Since 1990 about "10 or 15" projects have gone in, each with 15 to 20 lots typically ranging from one to three acres. In this fashion a federally funded program intended to help livestock operators reduce salt leaching unexpectedly made the new land being served much more attractive for residential development. Sprawl The Stock Water Replacement Program's role in promoting dispersed development has been pronounced. With the addition of 161 miles of new water infrastructure in rural Colorado, sizable areas of two counties have been effectively opened up to low-density housing outside major town boundaries. Residential settlement patterns have clearly been affected. According to Tri-County Water District officials, new residential development basically "followed the water lines" in the dis-
trict's service area into new regions of Delta County; development also followed new water lines 10 miles south from Montrose past the Colona reservoir into Ouray County. Similar results have been reported by officials of other water districts. Concludes Frank Mesaric, city engineer for the city of Montrose, which is the region's main urban hub: "The program has definitely favored development in the outlying areas. It's opened up many areas that weren't conducive to it before." Moreover, in conjunction with a regional real estate boom, the program helped increase rural land prices more than four-fold. According to Lynn Johnson, a broker associate for the ReMAX real estate corporation in Montrose, scenic agricultural land that fetched $1,500-an-acre 10 years ago now costs from $5,000 to $7,000-an-acre. Water Resources Ongoing trend studies by the U.S. Geological Survey confirm that the Lower Gunnison Basin Unit Winter Stock Water Replacement Program has begun
Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.
| Rating | |
| TITLE | Growth on the Coconino Plateau: potential impacts of a water pipeline for the region |
| CREATOR | Heffernon, Rick; |
| SUBJECT | Water--Distribution; Water-supply--Arizona--Coconino County; Coconino County (Ariz.)-- Population; |
| Browse Topic |
Land and resources Water |
| DESCRIPTION | 70 pages (PDF version). File size: 3192.266 KB. "March 2001"--Cover. Published by Morrison Institute for Public Policy, School of Public Programs, Arizona State University. |
| Language | English |
| Contributor | Muro, Mark; Melnick, Rob; |
| Publisher | Morrison Institute for Public Policy. |
| TYPE | Text |
| Material Collection |
State Documents |
| Acquisition Note | reports@lib.az.us |
| RIGHTS MANAGEMENT | Copyright to this resource is held by the creating agency and is provided here for educational purposes only. It may not be downloaded, reproduced or distributed in any format without written permission of the creating agency. Any attempt to circumvent the access controls placed on this file is a violation of United States and international copyright laws, and is subject to criminal prosecution. |
| DATE ORIGINAL | 2001-03 |
| Time Period | 2000s (2000-2009) |
| ORIGINAL FORMAT | Born Digital |
| Source Identifier | ASU 12.2:G 65/3 |
| Location | 46864280 |
| DIGITAL IDENTIFIER | cocowater.pdf |
| DIGITAL FORMAT | PDF (Portable Document Format) |
| REPOSITORY | Arizona State Library, Archives and Public Records--Law and Research Library. |
| Full Text | GROWTH ON THE COCONINO PLATEAU Potential Impacts of a Water Pipeline for the Region march 2001 On the Cover: F L A G S TA F F ' S "NEW TOWN" CIRCA 1881 W h e n the railroad bypassed Flagstaff's original town site, a new business district was constructed along the tracks. GROWTH ON THE COCONINO PLATEAU Potential Impacts of a Water Pipeline for the Region march 2001 Rick Heffernon Principal Investigator and Senior Research Analyst Morrison Institute for Public Policy Mark Muro Senior Research Analyst Morrison Institute for Public Policy with Assistance from Rob Melnick, Director, Morrison Institute for Public Policy Christina Kinnear, Graduate Research Associate, Morrison Institute for Public Policy Special Contribution by John Kent Hill Timothy D. Hogan Tom R. Rex Center for Business Research, Arizona State University Copyright �2001 by the Arizona Board of Regents for and on behalf of Arizona State University and its Morrison Institute for Public Policy. BITTER SPRINGS OVERLOOK The Navajo community of Bitter Springs, located at the base of Echo Cliffs, would b e one of the beneficiaries of a regional pipeline proposed for north-central Arizona. TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Purpose of Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Role of Research in Regional Water Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Features of the Pipeline Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Research Methods and Activities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Resources and Expectations: Views of Stakeholders. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Key Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Water Resources and Needs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Population Effects of Pipeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Land Uses and Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Regional Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Policies Regarding Growth, Infrastructure, and Water Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 A Development Wildcard: State Trust Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Critical Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Dynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Bottom Line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Water and Growth in Western States: Four Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Lessons Learned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Selection of Case Study Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Selection Criteria. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Canadian River Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . Background and Development. . . . . Growth-Related Impacts . . . . . . . . . Summary of Canadian River Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 26 26 27 28 28 28 29 30 30 30 31 32 32 32 33 5 Gillette-Madison Water Project . . . . . . . . Background and Development. . . . . . Growth-Related Impacts . . . . . . . . . . Summary of Gillette-Madison Effects Quail Creek Reservoir and Pipeline . . Background and Development. . . Growth-Related Impacts . . . . . . . Summary of Quail Creek Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lower Gunnison Basin Unit Winter Stock Water Replacement Program Background and Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Growth-Related Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of Lower Gunnison Effects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........... ........... ........... ........... Table of Contents Population on the Coconino Plateau: A Demographic Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Key Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Demographic Profile of Coconino County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Subregions of the Coconino Plateau Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Growth Determinants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Growth Management: How the Region Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Key Characteristics and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Analysis of Growth Management Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 A Statewide Approach: Growing Smarter Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Main Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Compliance with Growing Smarter Acts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Conclusions and Policy Choices: The Water-Growth Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Policy Choices: Moving the Growth Debate Forward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Appendices Appendix A: Stakeholders Interviewed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Appendix B: Growth on the Coconino Plateau: A Demographic Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Appendix C: Growth-Related Plans Analyzed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Appendix D: An Arizona Growth Management Time Line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Appendix E: Highlights of the Growing Smarter Acts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Maps 1: Study Area: Coconino Plateau Watershed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2: Study Area: Proposed Pipeline Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3: Study Area: State and Private Land Ownership. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 4: Case Study Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 5: Study Area: Subregion Boundaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Tables 1: Entities and Organizations Represented . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 2: Population Change in Coconino County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 3: Age Distribution in Coconino County, 1990. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 4: Baseline Population Projections for Coconino Plateau Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 5: Population Projections by Scenario, Coconino Plateau Study Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 6: Analysis of Growth Related Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 7: Compliance with Growing Smarter and Growing Smarter Plus General/Comprehensive Plan Requirements . . . . . . 43 6 G r o w t h on the Coconino Plateau: Potential Impacts of a Water Pipeline for the Region EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Purpose of Study Morrison Institute for Public Policy was asked by the Arizona Department of Water Resources to study potential growth impacts of a proposed new water pipeline for the Coconino Plateau Watershed in north-central Arizona, an area that is p r o j e c t e d to nearly double in population over the next 50 years. The area of study extends from Page and Grand Canyon in the north, to Flagstaff and Williams in the south. (See Map 1, page 10.) It includes three cities, portions of two Indian reservations, one national park, two nationals forests, and roughly 1.5 million acres of mixed private and state lands primarily arranged in an alternating, one-square mile checkerboard pattern. The great majority of residents in the region currently rely on groundwater to meet their water needs. region, field trips, consultation with experts, case studies, demographic analysis, appraisal of growth-related plans of governing bodies and agencies in the region, and evaluation of statewide growth management laws and their effects on regional planning. Summary of Results Key observations of stakeholders: � Groundwater is the most relied-upon source of water in the study area, but resources and needs vary tremendously. While Flagstaff and Page have enough water to meet near-term demand, Williams and most Navajo communities in the study area face critical water shortages. Most areas could see their water sources or systems affected by acts of nature, policy decisions, or legal action. � Expectations differ regarding local impacts of a water pipeline. Flagstaff is expected to grow regardless of new water sources, while Navajo communities hope pipeline water will stimulate economic development. Growth prospects in the western portion of the study area are widely debated. � Substandard rural development is feared in the western portion of the study area. Stakeholders worry that new water could accelerate "wildcat" and strip-type development along the gateway to Grand Canyon National Park. While some development there is inevitable, they want to preserve the sense of open space. � Regional infrastructure has limited capacity to accommodate growth. Highways, streets, schools, and phones n e e d upgrades to keep pace with regional growth, though some stakeholders want to preserve the highway approach to Grand Canyon as it is. Some also noted the need for water distribution lines to serve low density areas, and increased sewage treatment capacity. � A water pipeline could be used to manage growth in conjunction with other measures. Among the collateral m e a s u r e s : 1) state legislation prohibiting any new groundwater uses in the study area, 2) legislation providing counties with greater power to regulate subdivisions, and 3) some type of management authority that could limit access to pipeline water in unincorporated areas. � Strong water conservation efforts could enhance existing water supplies. Some believe that water conservation has been discouraged, rather than encouraged, by outdated county and local ordinances. Nevertheless, Tusayan currently reclaims a substantial portion of its water. Critical issues regarding state land dynamics: � State trust lands in the region could be developed in the future, with the market deciding where. Current law requires that state trust lands be managed for maximum public benefit, therefore, the real estate market Pipeline Proposal In 1999, a water pipeline from Lake Powell was proposed to meet regional water demand up to the year 2050. This prop o s a l grew out of regional efforts to plan future water resources, a water demand and resource analysis published by Arizona Department of Water Resources, and concerns over the effects of increased groundwater pumping on seeps and springs at Grand Canyon, the Havasupai Reservation, and elsewhere. The pipeline as proposed would draw water from Lake Powell and deliver it to a number of communities and entities across the region. From north to south, they are: � City of Page � Six western Navajo communities � LeChee � Coppermine � Bitter Springs � Cedar Ridge � Bodaway/Gap � Cameron � Grand Canyon National Park � Tusayan � Valle � Red Lake � Kaibab National Forest (Kaibab Lake) � City of Williams � City of Flagstaff The proposed pipeline would be designed to supply some or all of the anticipated new water demand for these areas until 2050, a volume that currently ranges from less than 10,000 acre-feet per year if new groundwater development is allowed in the future, to over 20,000 acre-feet per year if it is not. To determine the growth effects of a potential regional pipeline, both quantitative and qualitative data sets were gathered. Research included interviews with key stakeholders in the Executive Summary 7 will effectively determine which lands are reclassified for development. � Development "hot spots" will be along the north-south highways. Commercial development of state land in the r e g i o n has been historically slow. But if conditions change, the action will likely follow major road corridors along which the proposed water pipeline might run � particularly State Highway 64 north from Williams, and U.S. Highway 89 north of Flagstaff. � C o n s e r va t i o n efforts could preserve key state lands. Existing and pending land preservation efforts could l i m i t development in sensitive areas, but they will require substantial funding. Potential changes in state l a w may also alter Land Department mandates and allow no-cost conservation set-asides. Lessons learned from other regions with water supply projects: � Water tends to flow toward economic growth, but does not, alone, create growth. Where economic performance h a s led to population growth that strains water resources, an augmented water supply tends to facilitate further growth. But water has little growth effect in economically depressed areas unless combined with some other factor that triggers economic improvement. � I n f ra s t r u c t u r e and the decision on who gets water affects where and how a region grows. If water access is tightly controlled by, or restricted to, urban areas, the region will tend to grow through urban infill or contiguous development on the fringe. If water is readily available across a region, development may leapfrog to more remote and unincorporated areas where land and development fees are less expensive. � Water projects can produce long-term economic benefits, and they can protect regional aquifers. Reservoirs and other uses of project water can attract a recreation industry that contributes to the region's overall economy. P r o j e c t s that use renewable water sources to meet demand can also reduce pressure on local groundwater sources, at least in the short term. � Surface water projects can damage downstream resources and undercut water conservation efforts. Projects that divert streams or reduce stream flows can substantially alter natural resources. New water supplies also tend to reduce immediate resource concerns so that conservation efforts lose their impetus. Key points regarding the region's growth prospects: � Coconino County has experienced high growth rates � and this is expected to continue. Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES) projections rely on historical patterns to forecast future results, therefore population growth is projected to persist into the future, albeit at a somewhat reduced rate. � Coconino County has an unusually youthful profile. With a high proportion of residents less than 25 years old and a low proportion over 50, the area is not considered a retirement haven. 8 � Growth projections assume that current economic and demographic forces will continue. But if growth drivers change, the regional growth trajectory will follow. � Tourism is the most important economic factor affecting growth in the region. Because tourism leads all economic activity in north-central Arizona, it is likely to create the most jobs � and growth � in the future. � Pipeline water will have little impact on total projected population growth for the region. DES projections tacitly assume that the region's ability to meet water demand in the future will not differ substantially from its ability to meet demand now, so overall growth figures should not be affected by the source of water. � Pipeline water and tourism expansion will have greatest effect in the western portion of the study area. The western portion of the study area currently faces economic constraints that are influenced by a lack of available water. An improvement in either tourism visitation or water supply would stimulate growth in the area; an improvement in both would produce substantial gains. Key characteristics of the region's growth-related plans: � Many plans are getting old. Almost half were adopted more than 10 years ago, but some are scheduled for update. Analysis of the Flagstaff update-in-progress s u g g e s t s a future trend toward greater specificity regarding growth management. � Wa t e r availability, a d e q u a cy of infrastructure, a n d transportation are addressed in nearly every plan, while other growth management tools appear in only a few. Among the plans, Flagstaff, Page, Grand Canyon, and two county areas � Tusayan and Valle � tend to contain the most detailed growth management policies. � The verdict is out on the region's readiness to manage growth. Due to the conflicting missions of some planning entities, and the age of some plans, it is difficult to predict how the region will collectively manage future growth. Moves toward cooperative planning efforts, the wide-spread use of county area plans, and anticipated updates to county and municipal plans promise reasonable preparation for the future. Main impacts of the Growing Smarter acts: � City and county governments must update their general/ c o m p r e h e n s i ve plans every 10 ye a r s , a n d then they must conform to them. New plans must be ratified by voters, and changes can be made only with approval of a supermajority of the governing body. � The cities of Flagstaff and Page must address new elements in their future general plans, while Williams and Coconino County probably don't. Based on population and growth rate factors, future Flagstaff plans must include five new growth-related elements (open space, growth areas, environmental planning, cost of developm e n t , and water resources), while Page plans must i n c l u d e just the first four. Williams and Coconino County appear to be exempt from the five elements at this time, but the county may have to add a water element if its Census 2000 population exceeds 125,000. G r o w t h on the Coconino Plateau: Potential Impacts of a Water Pipeline for the Region � Some state and private lands regarded as "open space" may be preserved for conservation purposes. New state funding sources will be able to grant monies to governm e n t s and other organizations to help them obtain development rights from state and private lands. Policy Choices: Moving the Growth Debate Forward Conclusions: The Water-Growth Equation The Coconino Plateau region is projected to nearly double in population over the next 50 years, and water demand will increase accordingly. Because population projections assume that additional water supplies will be available to meet that demand, a water pipeline designed to accommodate projected growth should have little effect on what is projected. The fact is, economic and demographic factors, not water per se, are the most significant drivers of population. But the water-growth equation is not simple. State population projections do not consider potential changes in economic or demographic growth factors that might be supported by an assured water supply, nor do they consider any effects that might accrue if the region is unable to develop water unconditionally. Either could affect actual growth. Moreover, while growth number may hit projections, the pattern of growth could vary depending on the water's source and distribution. Increased development of groundwater would favor growth in established communities. These places tend to have more growth management tools at their disposal and better, more comprehensive infrastructure to accommodate that growth � positive circumstances from a regional planning perspective. But future groundwater supplies are not assured due to uncertainties regarding the nature of local aquifers and the complexity of groundwater rights in the region. Already, national parks, Indian tribes, and even downstream water users are questioning whether deep wells on the Coconino Plateau impinge on their surface water rights, and well permits on national forest land are being scrutinized more carefully to determine their impacts on other water resources. The beauty of a water pipeline is that it might sidestep most of the difficult groundwater issues. It would also be welcomed in parts of the region where water is especially short. But a regional pipeline could alter how growth occurs � and where. One area likely to grow with a pipeline is the western portion of the Coconino Plateau between Williams and Grand Canyon. This is a landscape of wide open spaces, but it is comprised of a mix of private land and state trust land, both of which are potentially developable. Weak economic factors combined with a lack of available water in this area have constrained growth in the area, but that could change dramatically with a rebound in tourism and an assured pipeline supply of water. Those who want to preserve a scenic approach corridor to the Grand Canyon, may demand some type of protective action for this area. T h r o u g h o u t Arizona, growth and its impact on natural resources has become the centerpiece of public policy debate. While much of the discussion has focused on the state's major metropolises, rural areas such as the Coconino Plateau region face many of the same policy choices. Most prominent among these choices is how best to balance the perceived value of development against its impact on the environment. As the only regional governing body in a regionwide decision-making p r o c e s s , Coconino County is in the best position to lead consensus building on a number of growth-related matters. Among the most critical growth-related issues that must be decided regarding a regional pipeline: � Who will get pipeline water and how will it be treated a n d distributed? T h e time to determine access to pipeline water, as well as its distribution and treatment, is before construction begins. That decision will strongly affect future growth patterns in the region. A more restrictive policy will channel growth toward places where infrastructure and growth management tools are at their most robust, thereby discouraging sprawl. � H ow much protection will the aquifer receive? O n e major selling point for an outside water source for the region is the potential protection it affords regional a q u i f e r s . But if groundwater production increases regardless of the pipeline, political support for the proposal could be undermined. To keep all stakeholders on board, some type of restriction on groundwater use o r development may be necessary as a corollary to pipeline construction. � How big should the pipe be? The diameter of the pipe will determine the maximum number of people that can be served, therefore decision-makers need to decide early on how much growth they want to accommodate. � What growth management powers will the county wield? Counties currently possess relatively few tools to manage growth in their unincorporated areas, part i c u l a r l y when it comes to regulating small and/or l o w density wildcat subdivisions. Because timing c o u l d be critical when it comes to protecting lands considered sensitive to development in the study area, concerned stakeholders may want to push for faster action in the state capitol, and/or develop a regional plan for protecting sensitive lands through purchase, lease, or regulation. � Who will manage the pipeline? The legal and management structure for administering the water pipeline will play a significant role in determining how water is allocated. Whoever controls those allocations � particularly for any unencumbered water � will have power to regulate new subdivisions in unincorporated areas of the county, thereby influencing how much population growth can occur there. Executive Summary 9 MAP 1 STUDY AREA: COCONINO PLATEAU WATERSHED Source: Morrison Institute for Public Policy, data from Arizona Department of Water Resources. 10 G r o w t h on the Coconino Plateau: Potential Impacts of a Water Pipeline for the Region INTRODUCTION Purpose of Study Morrison Institute for Public Policy was asked by the Arizona Department of Water Resources to study potential growth impacts of a proposed new water pipeline for the Coconino Plateau Watershed in north-central Arizona. This is a rapidly growing region that expects to need additional sources of water to meet anticipated growth over the next 50 years. Currently, the main source of water in the region is groundwater, primarily from deep wells. Reliance on groundwater would likely increase if the region continues to grow and if an outside source is not available. Concerns have been raised that pumping of groundwater in some parts of the region could lead to the decline of seeps and springs elsewhere, such as at Grand Canyon and the Havasupai Reservation. In response, a regional water pipeline was proposed in 1999 that would run from Lake Powell to several communities across the region. The pipeline would likely resolve most concerns about seeps and springs (only complete cessation of groundwater pumping would resolve all concerns), but it has raised two new concerns: 1) that it might stimulate population growth beyond what the region was already expecting to accommodate, thereby increasing water demand beyond what the pipeline was designed to carry, and 2) that it might stimulate growth in areas where it is not wanted. Consequently, Morrison Institute was commissioned to examine the potential population growth impacts of the water pipeline, as well as the readiness of regional and local governments and service agencies to manage such growth. The planning process for the Coconino Plateau region grew o u t of Arizona's Rural Watershed Initiative. This is a statewide program in which the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) works with rural communities to help them develop locally-driven solutions to their water needs. Under the Rural Watershed Initiative, planning areas are identified by their watersheds, not by geopolitical boundaries. Two planning groups currently operate in the Coconino P l a t e a u Watershed. One is the Coconino Plateau Water A d v i s o r y Council, which was formed by the Coconino County Board of Supervisors in late 2000 as an oversight and policy-making group. The Water Advisory Council is composed of elected and executive-level representatives of various entities and interest groups throughout the region, including Coconino County, the cities of Flagstaff, Page, Sedona, and Williams; the Havasupai, Hopi, and Navajo tribes; the Kaibab and Coconino national forests; Grand Canyon National Park; Arizona State Land Department; Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR); Northern Arizona University; Grand Canyon Trust; Coconino Bar Association; Coconino Natural Resources Conservation District; Northern Arizona Home Builders; and a private water and drilling company. Meanwhile, a "technical committee" for the watershed has engaged in discussion and research dating back more than two years. Among those who have participated in this group are representatives of a number of stakeholders and interested parties. Several of the entities represented on the technical committee � including ADWR, Havasupai Tribe, Navajo Nation, City of Flagstaff, City of Williams, Hydro Resources of Tusayan, Coconino County, City of Page, and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation � signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to "cooperatively develop regional water plans and/or cooperative programs that identify future water supplies and water development scenarios that best serve public needs and p r o t e c t nationally and locally significant resources" (Memorandum of Understanding Among the Participants of the North Central Arizona Regional Water Study, 2000). The Water Advisory Council, however, is expected to replace this MOU with a new agreement reflecting the more comprehensive role and mission of the policy-making group. As a basis for a cooperative regional water study, ADWR prepared a report in 1999 titled "Phase 1: North Central Arizona Regional Water Study." This report calculated future water demand in the Coconino Plateau region, analyzed possible water sources to serve those demands, and outlined future research tasks. Among the conclusions of the Phase 1 report was that a water pipeline from Lake Powell "may be a cost and environmentally effective alternative that would provide t h e region a firm, reliable water supply to meet future demands and deserves further study" (Arizona Department of Study Area The area of study for this report is defined as the Coconino Plateau Watershed (formerly called the North Central Arizona Regional Watershed). This region, which is located in northcentral Arizona, is wholly contained within Coconino County, extending roughly from Page and Grand Canyon in the north, to Flagstaff and Williams in the south. (See Map 1, page 10.) The study area includes three cities of greatly varying size, and encompasses portions of two Indian reservations, one national park, and two nationals forests. Overall, the region is largely composed of open space, including a wide swath of private and state lands that are arranged in a checkerboard pattern across the mid-section of the study area. Role of Research in Regional Water Planning Morrison Institute's research is one part of a comprehensive research and planning project referred to as the Coconino Plateau Regional Water Study. This project is an effort to prepare for the region's water resource needs over the next 50 years. Other research aspects of the project include analysis of r e g i o n a l water demand and sources, technical study of pipeline routes and costs, and regional groundwater study. Related independent studies, such as ongoing monitoring of wells and springs in the region, will also be incorporated into the planning effort. Introduction 11 Water Resources, 1999). The report included in its appendix a technical memorandum from the Navajo Nation Department of Water Resources that presented route options for a regional pipeline as well as preliminary cost estimates. RESEARCH METHODS AND ACTIVITIES Both quantitative and qualitative data sets were gathered and analyzed for this study. Among the research activities that were conducted are the following: Stakeholder interviews were individually conducted with 58 representatives from a range of Coconino Plateau interests i n c l u d i n g governments, businesses, utilities, community groups, and state and federal agencies. (See Appendix A for a complete list.) The interview content was then analyzed to determine the views of stakeholders regarding the availability of water resources, potential effects of the proposed pipeline, and measures that should be taken to manage the pipeline's water supply and any growth impacts it might produce. Field trips throughout the study area were carried out to familiarize researchers with the study area, observe locales of particular concern, meet with stakeholders difficult to interview by telephone, and make a photographic record of the study area. Research and consultation with experts was conducted regarding topics of special interest, including planning issues, growth management, master-planned communities, the effects of water on population growth, and the dynamics of state and private grazing lands. These data provided further background and analysis of issues raised during previous phases of the research. Case studies were conducted to understand the growth experiences of similar regions with regional water projects already in place. The case study sites were selected based on their similarity to the Coconino Plateau study area and their length of operation. A demographic study was commissioned to review population projections for the region and analyze their assumptions and weaknesses. The demographic study also assessed the potential growth impacts of various reasonable economic and growth scenarios and their possible interaction with the introduction of a new, assured water source through a pipeline. General plans and/or related planning documents (e.g., economic development plans, water resource strategies) were acquired from city and county governments, unincorporated p l a n n i n g areas, the Navajo Nation, and federal agencies such as the National Park Service and U.S. Forest Service. (See Appendix C for a complete list.) These planning documents were then analyzed to determine the region's readiness to manage or accommodate any changing growth patterns associated with a pipeline. Results of these research activities are presented in following sections. Features of the Pipeline Proposal The proposed pipeline as it was envisioned in the Phase 1 report would draw water from Lake Powell near Glen Canyon Dam and deliver it to a number of communities and entities across the region. Based on updated information provided by a more recent review of pipeline routes and costs by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (September 2000), the current potential beneficiaries of this water are, from north to south: � City of Page � Six western Navajo communities � LeChee � Coppermine � Bitter Springs � Cedar Ridge � Bodaway/Gap � Cameron � Grand Canyon National Park � Tusayan � Valle � Red Lake � Kaibab National Forest (Kaibab Lake) � City of Williams � City of Flagstaff Several different routes have been considered by preliminary engineering studies, but most are variations on the one presented in Map 2, page 13. The volume of water that the proposed pipeline would carry was estimated in the Phase 1 Report based on Department of Economic Security and Navajo Nation population projections. By 2050, the region's total water demand was forecast to reach 26,350 acre-feet per year. Of this amount, 16,900 acrefeet per year were expected to be met by existing and future development of groundwater sources. The remaining 9,450 acre-feet would be delivered by the pipeline. Since publication of the Phase 1 Report, the pipeline demand figure has been adjusted to reflect desired increases for some b e n e f i c i a r i e s and reductions for others (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 2000). Demand could rise higher, however. Under one scenario suggested by a number of stakeholders in the region, new groundwater pumping would be restricted upon completion of the pipeline. In such a case, estimated demand for pipeline water would likely double. 12 G r o w t h on the Coconino Plateau: Potential Impacts of a Water Pipeline for the Region MAP 2 STUDY AREA: PROPOSED PIPELINE ROUTES Source: Morrison Institute for Public Policy, data from Arizona Department of Water Resources and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Introduction 13 T H E RESERVOIR U n d e r a proposed pipeline, Colorado River water backed up by Glen Canyon Dam would be d i v e r t e d to several north-central Arizona communities, including Page (on horizon, upper right). 14 G r o w t h on the Coconino Plateau: Potential Impacts of a Water Pipeline for the Region RESOURCES AND EXPECTATIONS: VIEWS OF STAKEHOLDERS Stakeholders, by definition, are those who have some interest or share in the well-being of an enterprise. In the Coconino Plateau region they hold an interest in the future growth and development of the area. In order to identify key issues surrounding the possible construction of a water supply pipeline across the Coconino Plateau, interviews were conducted with 58 individual stakeholders from a cross-section of community, government, and business interests. These individuals were selected on the basis of their involvement with water or growth issues in the study area, management of lands potentially affected by the proposed water pipeline, government or community positions, business interests, or their role as infrastructure providers. Table 1 shows the entities and communities represented. A full list of all stakeholders interviewed appears in Appendix A. Stakeholders were interviewed primarily by telephone or in person, but also by E-mail when necessary or for follow-up questions. The interview format varied depending on the type of entity or community represented by the stakeholder. Questions generally addressed their views on the status of current water resources in the region; the need for a water pipeline; the effects of a new water supply on population growth and land uses; the parts of the study area most likely to be affected by water-related growth; the type of management needed in conj u n c t i o n with a new water supply; and the ability of the region's infrastructure to accommodate growth. Table 1: Entities and Organizations Represented Entity Gover nment/Community Arizona Department of Water Resources Arizona Governor's Office Canyon Forest Village Coconino County Flagstaff, City of Page, City of Parks Area Tusayan Area Valle Area Williams, City of Land Managers Arizona State Land Department Babbitt Ranches Coconino National Forest Grand Canyon National Park Kaibab National Forest Indian Tribes Bureau of Indian Affairs Havasupai Tribe Navajo Nation Conservation Organizations Grand Canyon Trust The Nature Conservancy Infrastructure Providers Arizona Department of Transportation APS Bellemont Water Co. Citizens Utilities Co. Coconino County Superintendent of Schools Doney Park Water Co. Maine School District Qwest Communications Williams School District 1 Elected Official or Chief Administrator Private Sector Executive Planning or Water Resources Specialist Other Professional S t a ff 1 Community R e p re s e n t a t i v e � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � Includes land management, intergovernmental relations, forestry, public relations, grazing, engineering, natural resources, program management, and other areas. Source: Morrison Institute for Public Policy. Resources and Expectations: Views of Stakeholders 15 Key Observations � Groundwater is the most relied-upon source of water in the study area. Little usable surface water exists, and in many cases it has proven unreliable. � Water resources and needs vary tremendously across the region. While Flagstaff and Page possess adequate water resources to meet near-term demand, Williams and most of the Navajo communities in the study area face critical water shortages. Other areas could see their water sources or systems threatened by acts of nature, policy decisions, or legal action. � Expectations differ regarding local impacts of a water pipeline. For example, Flagstaff-area stakeholders anticipate little growth impact of a water pipeline on Flagstaff, since they expect the city to grow regardless of new water sources. Navajo stakeholders, by contrast, hope pipeline water would stimulate economic development. Opinions vary regarding the likelihood or amount of pipelinerelated growth in the western portion of the study area. � The western portion of the study area is feared most vulnerable to substandard rural development. Stakeholders worry that new water could accelerate "wildcat" and strip-type development along the gateway to their crown jewel, Grand Canyon National Park. While some development is inevitable there, they want to preserve the sense of open space. � Concerns exist over the capacity of regional infrastructure to accommodate substantial growth. Highways, streets, schools, and phones led the list of infrastructure items needing upgrade to keep pace with regional growth, though some stakeholders want to preserve the highway approach to Grand Canyon as it is. With additional water flowing to the region, stakeholders also mentioned the need for water distribution lines in low density areas, and increased sewage treatment capacity. WAT E R UNDER THE BRIDGE The Transcanyon Pipeline, suspended b e n e a t h this bridge over Bright Angel Creek, carries drinking water to t h e South Rim of Grand Canyon National Park. KAIBAB LAKE IN DROUGHT Extremely low water levels in Kaibab Lake, a water source for Williams, exposed most of the water intake structure ( u p p e r left) and stranded a floating dock (lower left). � A water pipeline could be used as a growth management tool in conjunction with other measures. Among the collateral measures mentioned were: 1) state legislation prohibiting any new groundwater uses in the study area, 2) legislation providing counties with greater power to regulate subdivisions, and 3) some type of m a n a g e m e n t authority that could limit access to pipeline water in unincorporated areas. � Strong water conservation efforts could enhance existing water supplies. Several stakeholders argued that water c o n s e r v a t i o n has been discouraged, rather than encouraged, by outdated county and local ordinances. Nevertheless, Tusayan currently reclaims a substantial portion of its water. Water Resources and Needs Stakeholders identified groundwater as the most significant source of water supplies for the great majority of the study area. It provides most of the water supply for Flagstaff, the majority of the water supply for Navajo residents in the study area, a substantial portion of the Williams water supply, all of the water supply for the Valle area, the majority of water for the Tusayan area, and a small portion of the water consumption of the Parks area. In addition, many residents in unincorporated areas of the county haul groundwater from wells in Valle, Bellemont, the Flagstaff area, or the Navajo Reservation. Other sources play a lesser role in regional water supplies. Surface water is the sole source for Page, LeChee, and Grand Canyon National Park1, and it has been the sole source of water for Williams until recently. In late 2000, however, a 1 Water sources for this study are classified based on their legal definitions under water rights law. These classifications may vary when using different standards. Using criteria established for water quality standards, for example, Grand Canyon's water source is considered to be groundwater. 16 G r o w t h on the Coconino Plateau: Potential Impacts of a Water Pipeline for the Region n e w large-production well was drilled and incorporated into the Williams water system, and in 2001 another new large-production well is expected to come online. Nevertheless, surface water will likely remain a significant source for the future. Other users of surface water include Tusayan, which augments its supply from the Grand Canyon water system; and Flagstaff, which has a seasonal source of water (Lake Mary) that is primarily used to meet peak summer demand. In addition, many residents in unincorporated areas of the county haul water from Williams that originated as stored surface water. And captured surface water � usually in stock ponds � is widely used for livestock watering and other purposes across the study area when available. Tusayan also uses a significant amount of reclaimed water for non-potable domestic purposes. new deep well drilled by the city on national forest land southwest of town gave some relief by meeting about 40 percent of the city's summertime consumption needs, and another high volume well located within the city limits is expected to add at least as much water to the city system in 2001. Other subdivisions outside of Williams, such as in the Parks area, tend to rely primarily on hauled water, though some residents possess wells that are characterized as relatively shallow and drought-sensitive. The eastern portion of the study area is almost as sparsely populated as the west but � outside of Page � has fewer well-defined communities. Water for Page and nearby LeChee is drawn from Lake Powell and handled at Page's treatment f a c i l i t y prior to distribution by local water utilities. This source is relatively secure and adequately meets current demand. However, both recipients would like an additional source to meet future growth and provide a backup in case of failure to the current system. In outlying areas of the LeChee C h a p t e r, residents haul treated Lake Powell water from pay-for-service public hydrants. Water supply needs and reliability vary tremendously across the region. In the sparsely populated western portion of the study area, population tends to cluster around a number of small, defined communities, therefore, most water needs a r e currently addressed Other Navajo chapters in within those communities. t h e study area have less Grand Canyon Village has reliable water service. For s u f f i c i e n t supply for its e x a m p l e , many Bodaway/ n e a r - t e r m demand, but G a p residents haul water relies entirely on the f r o m Tuba City due to a Transcanyon Pipeline from lack of reliable local wells, below the North Rim. This while residents in Cameron p i p e l i n e has some signififear their wells are contamcant drawbacks: it has been inated by uranium tailings. proven vulnerable to flood (Only one well in a uraniumand rockslide, it would be bearing formation has been difficult to expand or s h u t down, according to replace, and it alters natural W I N D M I L L NEAR COPPERMINE I n drought conditions, this windmill Navajo Nation Department e c o s y s t e m s on both sides represents one of the few potential water sources for livestock on the C o p p e r m i n e Chapter of the western Navajo Reservation. of Water Resources). Even of the Colorado River. when water is available in Immediately to the south of t h e Navajo chapters in the national park, Tusayan the study area, relatively little of it is distributed directly receives some of Grand Canyon's pipeline water, but relies to homes. A large portion of the residents live at least part primarily on very deep groundwater wells, as does Valle. The of the time in remote areas where utility pipelines are Tusayan and Valle wells tend to be drought resistant and of unlikely to reach them anytime in the near future. They fairly good quality, but they are risky to drill, expensive to must haul their drinking water over miles of poor roads, develop and operate, and of unknown sustainability. In addiand in times of drought, must also haul water for livestock tion, a number of hydrologists familiar with the area believe and agricultural fields. that wells in this area could affect spring flows in Grand Canyon and on the Havasupai Reservation. In the Flagstaff area, groundwater resources vary in depth, with the deeper wells generally providing the most drought resistance. Williams has historically relied entirely on surface water that Current capacity meets demands without any significant strain, collects in five small reservoirs, mostly outside the city on but near-term growth is expected to be met through expansion national forest land. After a recent period of drought, however, of well fields, most of which are on Forest Service land. While Williams faced a serious shortage of stored water in 2000. A Resources and Expectations: Views of Stakeholders 17 Lake Mary provides a backup source of water for the city of F l a g s t a f f , this source is drought sensitive and, therefore, unreliable in time of greatest need. One potential variable for Flagstaff, Williams, and others reliant on wells on public lands is the status of their well use permits. The Forest Service has announced it will scrutinize well permits more closely in t h e future to consider their impact on surface water and other wells in the area. f r o m having to migrate elsewhere. The water would also encourage retiring, better educated Navajos to return home. Many have left the reservation to find jobs and have come to expect basic services, such as running water in their homes, according to stakeholders. An assured water supply would also allow more gardening or limited farming to take place, according to some stakeholders, providing a better standard of living for those in remote locations. Population Effects of Pipeline Land Uses and Development Nearly every stakeholder indicated that a new water pipeline Stakeholders' greatest land use concerns focused on subdiviwould provide a stimulus to population growth in the region. sion and development of the western portion of the study The greatest potential impacts, according to most stakeholders, area. Because much of that area is considered the gateway to would be felt in the western part of the study area, between Grand Canyon National Park, and most of it currently exists Williams and Grand Canyon. This area has been historically as open space, many expressed alarm that a pipeline might water-short, contains a vast accelerate growth there. a m o u n t of private land, T h e s e stakeholders said c o n t a i n s an almost equal they did not want to see amount of state trust land strip development along that could be converted to S t a t e Route 64, nor did private land, and has some t h e y wish to see existing potential to grow along with u n d e v e l o p e d private and any economic expansion of state trust lands in the area G r a n d Canyon National carved up into ranchette Park, Williams, or Flagstaff. developments � particularly L i s t e d as the most likely wildcat subdivisions with centers of growth associated n o electricity, sewer, fire with a pipeline were Williams, protection, schools, or other Valle, and Tusayan. The Parks basic services. Most cona r e a was also considered ceded the need for some a likely growth area if growth in the Tusayan and pipeline water ever reached Valle areas, but only if it LECHEE GROWTH W i t h a reliable water source and economic growth it; but there was much doubt w e r e well planned and o c c u r r i n g in nearby Page, LeChee has grown more than other Navajo about this occurring because m a n a g e d . As one stakec h a p t e r s in the study area. of the distance of its subdih o l d e r put it: "We don't visions from the proposed w a n t Gatlinburg-type pipeline routes. Little effect from a pipeline was anticipated development outside the park entrance," � referring to the in Flagstaff. w i d e l y disdained "tourist trap" ambience of Gatlinburg, Tennessee, a prominent gateway to Great Smoky Mountains A few stakeholders, however, questioned whether the pipeline National Park. would actually alter growth in the western portion of the study area. They argued that the cheapest water option for a Little concern was expressed over the proposed pipeline's developer would be to drill a well and create a private water i m p a c t on land uses in the Flagstaff area. As the region's company to serve a subdivision. Few have done so, leading largest city, Flagstaff is expected to grow regardless of new these stakeholders to believe that other factors � such as jobs, w a t e r sources. Quite the opposite is true on the Navajo services, and infrastructure � have not been in place to support reservation. There, most stakeholders said they hoped the area growth. pipeline water would stimulate economic development, which is sorely lacking, and lead to increased retail opportunities On the Navajo Reservation, most said that an increased water and services. The only land use concern was over a recent supply from a pipeline would support a few needed basic trend toward conversion of agricultural land to home sites on retail services such as laundromats, gas stations, and stores in the reservation. If the pipeline made farming more attractive, some of the chapters, and possibly support some manufacturing. These businesses would provide jobs to keep some residents loss of fields and pastures could become an issue. 18 G r o w t h on the Coconino Plateau: Potential Impacts of a Water Pipeline for the Region G O O D VIEWS, FEW AMENITIES M a n y low-density subdivisions in the study area, such as this Government Prairie community, provide few basic s e r v i c e s or supporting infrastructure, such as paved roads, fire protection, drinking water, or sewage treatment facilities. Regional Infrastructure A number of concerns were raised regarding the capacity of regional infrastructure to accommodate substantial growth in the future. Stakeholders pointed out that main highways and some city streets were already crowded during peak tourist s e a s o n , phone service was spotty or nonexistent in many areas, and that school space was short in at least one district. They further noted that some proposed projects requiring large amounts of electrical power or natural gas fuel have had to be tabled due to lack of capacity. Regional highways were considered to be in need of substantial upgrades, according to most stakeholders. U.S. Highway 89, a main north-south artery running across the western Navajo Reservation and connecting to Utah and other western states, was depicted as overcrowded and dangerous, particularly during peak summer season. But not all of its traffic is due to tourism. "The reservation is growing faster than most people realize," s a i d one stakeholder. Similarly, State Route 64 and U.S. Highway 180, the two main routes to the Grand Canyon, were also deemed inadequate. Said one, "If we're going to call this `the Grand Canyon State' on our license plates, we should have a better road as gateway." Some, however, said they prefer to keep a two-lane approach to Grand Canyon for scenic and environmental reasons. While a project is underway to widen U.S. Highway 89 to four lanes for about eight miles north of Flagstaff, and add some passing lanes elsewhere, five-year plans by the Arizona Department of Transportation project no other major highway upgrades in the region. Considered more of a quality-of-life issue than a safety concern was congestion on Flagstaff city streets, particularly near the downtown area. Officials have worked on many transportation plans over the years, said stakeholders, but traffic growth has outpaced mitigation efforts. Said one stakeholder, "It doesn't matter what we do, we will always have a traffic problem in this city." Lack of phone and internet service in rural areas was a big concern of residents and businesses there. The main service provider, Qwest Communications (formerly U.S. West), was characterized by stakeholders as indifferent to rural needs and uncooperative about expanding coverage. Most hoped that wireless phone service would eventually provide a cost-effective substitute. The area's main electricity provider, APS, was perceived as keeping up with growing demand for the most part. Upgrades were said to have been made recently in Valle and Red Lake to meet anticipated needs for the next several years, and new lines had also been installed in Howard Mesa and elsewhere. A proposal to run an electric rail service from Tusayan to Grand Canyon, however, was scrapped because of the cost of providing such a large increase in electrical capacity to the area. On the Navajo Reservation, a problem for its main utility N T U A (Navajo Tribal Utility Authority) was that most residences were so widely separated that it was often costprohibitive to install the infrastructure needed to provide service to individual homes. Schools also face a difficult task when it comes to expanding capacity, according to stakeholders, but their problem is their f u n d i n g stream. Because they are funded primarily on the basis of enrollment, and because they receive no impact fees from developers, they must wait until they are overcrowded b e f o r e they can build new facilities. The Grand Canyon School District currently has more student applicants than space, said stakeholders, and the school system is unlikely to expand inside the park. Consequently, some parents who live and work in the area currently have to send their children many extra miles to Williams. Some of these parents were 19 Resources and Expectations: Views of Stakeholders counting on a new school facility to be built in the Tusayan area as part of the proposed Canyon Forest Village, but since voters rejected the zoning change necessary for that development, many Tusayan and Valle area students will continue to travel to Williams. Policies Regarding Growth, Infrastructure, and Water Management Several stakeholders suggested that a pipeline could be used to manage growth and development in the study area if it were accompanied by other management tools. The three tools most often mentioned include: 1) state legislation prohibiting any new groundwater uses in the study area, 2) state legislation providing counties with city-like power when dealing with subdivision proposals, and 3) some type of management authority over the pipeline that could limit access to pipeline water in unincorporated areas. A combination of these tools would be expected to provide three main growth management benefits, according to stakeholders. First, it would protect the aquifer from increased pumping, thereby ensuring relatively natural flows of seeps a n d springs in Grand Canyon and the Havasuapai Reservation. Second, it would allow the county to regulate wildcat subdivisions and thereby reduce the number of new subdivisions without services. And third, it would restrict water delivery to existing communities � thereby channeling n e w growth toward those places while, at the same time, reducing pressure to have development sprawl onto lands that are now open spaces. One of the most frequent concerns from stakeholders in lowdensity areas such as Parks or the Navajo Reservation was how water might be distributed from a regional pipeline to individual homes. Residents of non-Indian rural lands fell on two sides of the issue � some preferred to continue hauling water and thereby keep population growth low; others hoped to someday see "city-style" running water in their subdivision. Similarly, these residents fell on both sides of the funding issue: some favored a water district that could issue bonds to finance new water lines to their subdivisions; others strongly opposed any tax increase to pay for infrastructure. On the Navajo Reservation, few believed that water pipelines would ever reach seasonal "sheep camps" or other remote residences. Most, however, felt that pipeline water could be trucked to stock ponds or holding tanks in outlying areas, particularly in times of drought. Some stakeholders also raised the question of how a large volume of new water would be treated, both before and after u s e . Unlike most ground water, the pipeline water would require purification to become potable. But while the region's c i t i e s have water treatment plants, other areas do not. Moreover, an increase in water consumption in the region w o u l d lead to increased disposal of waste water. Several feared that existing septic systems would prove inadequate, especially in more densely populated subdivisions or commercial areas. Water conservation issues were also raised by a number of stakeholders. They recommended measures be enacted to reduce water needs in the future. While Tusayan reportedly u t i l i z e s reclaimed water for more than one-fourth of its d o m e s t i c supply, no water conservation measures were required in most parts of Coconino County, according to stakeholders, and certain measures � such as gray water reuse � were actually discouraged at the county level, a situation they would like to see changed. A study has been proposed to assess the degree to which water conservation and reuse could improve the region's water supplies. 20 G r o w t h on the Coconino Plateau: Potential Impacts of a Water Pipeline for the Region A DEVELOPMENT WILDCARD: STATE TRUST LANDS Coconino County encompasses state trust lands totaling more than 1 million acres, an area larger than the state of Rhode Island. Approximately three quarters of these lands lie within the Coconino Plateau study area, the majority in the western subregion. (See Map 3, below.) Most occur in one-mile-square sections interspersed with comparable sections of private land in a vast "checkerboard" pattern. Because these state lands can be purchased or leased for commercial development, they represent a potential wildcard in the future of the Coconino Plateau. And because they are checkerboarded with private land, they have the potential to multiply the amount of private land available for development in many areas. The amount and nature of state land that is sold or leased for development purposes is a largely uncontrollable variable that may affect future growth of the region. This suggests several critical issues for consideration. At the onset, provisions regarding trust lands were written into the Arizona Enabling Act and the Arizona Constitution. These provisions mandated quite specifically how the lands should be administered for the benefit of the trust. Additional direction was later furnished by the U.S. Supreme Court which, in 1967, ruled that lands granted to the state should "provide the most substantial support possible to the beneficiaries." Consequently, the Arizona State Land Department sees its mission as producing the maximum financial yield from state lands. Most often the Land Department chooses one of three options for generating income from its lands: leasing land for grazing purposes, collecting fees for public access, or selling mineral resources on state lands. When it is fiscally advantageous, however, the department also may lease or sell land for development projects. Revenues derived from these transactions are then deposited in the Permanent Fund, and the interest earned is made available to the trust beneficiaries. While the option of converting state lands into large-scale developments currently affects only a small minority of state lands, it is the possibility of conversion that makes them a potential source of new development in areas currently thought of as open space. Critical Issues � State trust lands in the region could be developed. State law currently requires that these lands be managed for maximum public benefit. That means the Arizona State Land Department can lease or sell parcels whenever the market is "right." � The market will decide which trust parcels are developed. The land commissioner's discretion is strongly conditioned by the mandate to maximize each parcel's economic yield. That means that the real estate market will effectively determine which lands are reclassified. � Development "hot spots" will be along the north-south highways. Commercial development of state land in the region has been slow to date. But if conditions change, the action will likely follow major road corridors along which the proposed water pipeline might run � particularly State Highway 64 north from Williams, and U.S. Highway 89 north of Flagstaff. � Conservation efforts could preserve key state lands. Existing and pending land preservation efforts could limit development in sensitive areas, but they will require substantial funding. Potential changes in state law may also alter Land Department mandates and allow no-cost conservation set asides. Map 3: Study Area: State and Private Land Ownership Darkened area indicates state and private land ownership. History The state's trust lands are a legacy of land grants made to Arizona by the federal government. These grants took place on two occasions: first upon Arizona's establishment as a territory in 1863, and later just prior to statehood in 1912. Altogether, Arizona received more than 9.4 million acres (13,500 square miles) to be held in trust for specified beneficiaries, principally the state's public schools. Source: Morrison Institute for Public Policy, data from Arizona Department of Water Resources and Arizona State Land Department. A Development Wildcard: State Trust Lands 21 Dynamics The vast majority of state holdings are currently classified as grazing land. Other classifications include urban, commercial, mineral, and agricultural. But the classifications are not static. At any time, changes can be made in response to local condit i o n s . For example, grazing or agricultural land may be reclassified as commercial land � and made available for lease or purchase � if the land's market value comes to exceed the value of its current use. S o m e t i m e s reclassifications are initiated by the Land Department, but typically they occur at the behest of local applicants who anticipate a development opportunity near a growing urban area. The actual decision to reclassify is a discretionary call made by the land commissioner after staff study, appraisal, consideration of department conceptual plans in urban areas, and consultation with local jurisdictions. Nothing in the decision-making process bars the state from reclassifying actively-used grazing land. The guiding concept for the Land Department is that the reclassification provide a "higher" use, economically speaking, for the parcel. The applicants for a reclassification must, therefore, demonstrate t h a t their proposal to lease or buy state land promises a greater revenue stream for the trust. While an existing lease holder can appeal a proposed reclassification, the lessee has little likelihood of blocking this conversion in a robust local real estate market. In this way the real estate market l a r g e l y determines where l a n d will be reclassified and, thus, where development will spread. is Forest Highlands, a gated golf community southwest of the city. County and city officials suspect that Flagstaff's urban service boundary, which bars city water service connections outside the city limits, has dampened developer enthusiasm for more such projects. Outside the Flagstaff Area Regional Plan boundaries, service constraints have also limited development. While thousands of sections of state trust land � checkerboarded with private sections � arc across the county's midriff, relatively few of them possess significant development potential at this time. Most of these tracts remain primitive, distant from improved r o a d s , and without easy access to water. Furthermore, Coconino County actively discourages wildcat subdivision with its permit fee schedule, and the Land Department won't break up its properties for homestead purposes because that leads to piecemeal development, which complicates subsequent disposition of trust property and the delivery of infrastructure. Nevertheless, nothing precludes new circumstances � such as continued population growth, or new sources of water � from stimulating development of these more remote state lands in the study area. Most likely to gain value in such circumstances would be parcels located near major road corridors along which the proposed water pipeline might run, particularly in two broad reaches: first, the 25 mile stretch of State Highway 64 that runs from Cataract Creek near Williams through Valle to Red Butte; and second, the 12 miles of U.S. Highway 89 that run north from Wupatki N a t i o n a l Monument to Gray Mountain. Already along Highway 64, a total of 19 sections of I n Coconino County, the checkerboarded private land Land Department has comknown as the Howard Mesa pleted few reclassifications Ranch have been purchased L A N D FOR SALE M u c h of the scenic open space between Williams and of grazing land as commerby Arizona Land and G r a n d Canyon consists of private and state land that is potentially c i a l land. This is due, in R a n c h e s , Inc, a Prescott d e v e l o p a b l e in the future. p a r t , to the fact that the d e v e l o p m e n t company. approximately 1,000 acres This area is zoned for very of state land already reclassified as commercial have generated low density use, thus the subdivision is being developed for little interest from buyers. the second-home and "ranchette" market, with limited infrastructure and no water. But county officials wonder if the In the Flagstaff vicinity, for example, only a handful of comaddition of water to this area might not stimulate a major mercial developments have been pursued, though 23,000 acres developer to buy up both private and state parcels for a largeof attractive state lands lie checkerboarded with national forest scale master-planned development. or private lands within a few miles of city limits. In fact, just one project outside city limits has been undertaken recently within the 525 square mile Flagstaff Area Regional Plan A number of options for protecting state land from future boundaries, a city-county joint planning area that encircles commercial development have emerged in recent years. Some much of the populated area in the Flagstaff vicinity. That project subdivision developers have set aside scenic parcels they pur- Impacts Protection 22 G r o w t h on the Coconino Plateau: Potential Impacts of a Water Pipeline for the Region RANCHETTE ACREAGE The private holdings of Howard Mesa Ranch along State Route 64 south of Grand Canyon are being converted to minimum 10-acre subdivisions. Some fear the same outcome for state trust lands in the area. chased from the state in a deal with municipalities to relax open space requirements for their subdivision. Proposition 303, passed by Arizona voters in November 1998 as part of Governor Jane Hull's Growing Smarter program, provides municipalities and others with $20 million a year in matching funds for the purchase or lease of state lands for conservation purposes. (No lands in the study area have been formally reclassified for this purpose, but they could be in the future.) And a legislative initiative on the November 2000 ballot offered to protect up to 3 percent of state lands from any development as open space. While this measure was defeated by voters, it was widely agreed that the primary reason was that voters saw it as not protecting enough land. Efforts are also underway to shield from development some of the private lands that are checkerboarded with state lands. For example, The Nature Conservancy is actively soliciting conservation easements on private ranch lands in order to protect wildlife corridors and significant habitat. These easements typically forbid any subdivision, commercial development, or mining on the affected property, while allowing the continuation of grazing and other activities, as well as the sale of the property. The land owner is usually compensated by direct payment for loss of the development right, or by tax benefits for the charitable donation of those rights. However, any state trust lands leased by the ranches for grazing are not covered by the conservation easement. An example of the use of easements came in January 2001, when The Nature Conservancy announced that Babbitt Ranches had donated a conservation easement covering 35,000 acres of private land operated as part of Cataract Ranch in the northern portion of the study area near the Grand Canyon. It is unclear, though, whether many more easements will be forthcoming. Most ranches in the area probably do not generate the kind of revenue that makes tax write-offs attractive enough to motivate a donation. Conservation organizations, therefore, would require substantial funding to purchase these easements. And while further acquisitions of conservation easements could forestall development of substantial tracts of private land in the study area, state grazing lands would still be available for conversion if the real estate market demands. Bottom Line The dynamic nature of state trust lands opens the possibility of substantial conversions of open space to development in Coconino County, especially along the county's major northsouth highways. While little state land in the area has been sold in the past decade, water pipelines installed near state parcels could increase their value in the future. Because of the state's fiduciary duty to manage trust lands for the highest economic benefit, this could significantly alter the region's growth map over the 50 year time horizon of this study. STREET SIGN, NO STREETS Developers of this 1960s-era "Grand Canyon" s u b d i v i s i o n near Valle sold thousands of unimproved, one-acre lots, but p r o v i d e d no basic amenities, such as streets or utilities. Most lots remain v a c a n t today. A Development Wildcard: State Trust Lands 23 MAP 4: CASE STUDY SITES Source: Morrison Institute for Public Policy 24 G r o w t h on the Coconino Plateau: Potential Impacts of a Water Pipeline for the Region WATER AND GROWTH IN WESTERN STATES: FOUR CASE STUDIES Regional water supply projects are nothing new in the West. Many have been in place for decades, often supplying the water that western cities needed to grow. In order to extract lessons from existing water projects in regions similar to the Coconino Plateau, four case studies were conducted to examine the effects these regions experienced after the introduction of "new" water. L o o k i n g across the experiences of all four case studies, a number of lessons emerge. Selection of Case Study Projects Lessons Learned � Water tends to flow toward economic growth. Where regional job growth has led to population growth � p u t t i n g a strain on available water resources � an augmented water supply tends to facilitate further growth by maintaining or improving the quality of life. � Wa t e r, a l o n e , d o e s not create growth. W h e n water flows to economically depressed areas, it has little effect on population growth unless some other factor t r i g g e r s an increase in economic performance. Sometimes this factor is new business location to the region, job expansion, or increased attractiveness of the region as a retirement destination. � New growth tends to follow available infrastructure. I n areas where growth pressures already exist, new d e v e l o p m e n t will tend to follow the lines of least resistance � such as already installed water lines. � The decision on who gets water affects where and how a region grows. Water management decisions � usually made early on � can determine where new subdivision and industrial development will occur. If water access is tightly controlled by, or restricted to, urban areas, the region will tend to grow through urban infill or a fringe build-out that is contiguous with older subdivisions. If water is readily available anywhere in the region, d e v e l o p m e n t may leapfrog into more remote and u n i n c o r p o r a t e d areas where land and development f e e s are less expensive. � Water projects can produce long-term economic and q u a l i t y - o f - l i f e benefits. Wa t e r projects that involve reservoirs or other uses of the water for recreational purposes (e.g., ponds, golf courses, wetlands), can attract a recreation industry that contributes to the region's overall economy. � Renewable water projects can protect local aquifers. Water projects that capture surface flows reduce pressure on groundwater sources in local areas, at least in the short term. � S u r f a c e water projects can damage downstream resources. The diversion of streams or the reduction of stream flows can substantially alter natural resources. This can lead to negative downstream impacts. � New water undercuts water conservation efforts. Water conservation is often a strategy of last resort for watershort areas. When new projects reduce immediate water supply concerns, conservation loses its impetus. Water projects had to qualify on a number of factors to be considered as candidates for the case study. First, they had to have sufficient history in order to provide usable lessons � ideally 15-20 years of operation or more. Second, the projects needed to supply primarily municipal and industrial water. In addition, the projects and their service areas had to match the study area in a number of important ways. For example, no projects were selected that primarily served large metropolitan areas because the majority of the study area is sparsely populated. Based on interviews and field research, a list of potential comparison points was constructed to determine which water projects would be most appropriate for case study. Selection Criteria Case Study Projects should have... � Sufficient history (ideally 15-20 years) � Primarily municipal water use � A mainly rural service area � One or more small urban hubs � Low density population outside incorporated towns � Projections of rapid population growth � Indian reservations in service area � Scarce/expensive/uncertain alternate water sources � Development perceived limited by lack of water � Abundant open spaces available for development � Environmental or aquifer concerns related to growth � Concerns over infrastructure and management of new water Projects No project or region perfectly matched all points of comparison. In fact, no projects serving Indian communities were found that had sufficient history of providing municipal water. Four p r o j e c t s , however, were selected for case study because, together, they encompassed a significant number of the selection criteria. These are: Canadian River Project � the largest water project in the case study, serving 11 cities and towns in north Texas including Amarillo and Lubbock. Gillette-Madison Water Project � the smallest water project in the case study, serving Gillette, Wyoming, and two small communities. Quail Creek Reservoir and Pipeline � a complex project serving southwest Utah's Washington County, a scenic and rural area much like the Coconino Plateau, and one that has been experiencing sustained rapid growth. L o w e r Gunnison Basin Unit, Wi n t e r Stock Water Replacement Program � a federally funded water infras t r u c t u r e project in southwestern Colorado that replaced agricultural water ditches with municipal-style water lines, inadvertently making agricultural lands more attractive for residential subdivision. Descriptions and results of each case study follow. 25 Water and Growth in Western States: Four Case Studies CANADIAN RIVER PROJECT Location: Texas Panhandle Purpose: Municipal and industrial water for 11 cities and towns, including Amarillo and Lubbock Management/Delivery Model: An authorityoperated system of 323 miles of pipelines, 10 pumping stations, and 3 regulating reservoirs t o transport water from Lake Meredith, an i m p o u n d m e n t of the Canadian River formed by Sanford Dam, to 11 cities. Date of Service: 1968 Pipeline Capacity: 126,000 acre-feet per year Cost of Construction Projected: $96 million Actual: $83 million Cost of Maintenance and Operation Projected: $33 per acre-foot (10 cents per 1,000 gallons), including debt service Actual: $46 per acre-foot (14 cents per 1,000 gallons), including debt service Population in Service Area Initial (1968): 350,000 Projected 2000: N/A Actual 2000: 489,033 Volume of Water Delivered Annually Projected: 103,000 acre-feet Actual: 73,400 acre-feet (10-year average) Points of Comparison to North Central Arizona Pipeline Population Centers: scattered and small, with relatively small urban hubs Population Density: low-density development outside incorporated cities/towns Growth Profile: more growth occurring in urban hubs Land Availability: large amount of undeveloped land Land Uses: livestock grazing Project Design: municipal and industrial use Other Water Sources: uncertain groundwater Development: perceived to be limited by lack of water Nearly 20 years were required to develop the plan. In 1950, Congress authorized the Canadian River Project as a federal reclamation project. I n 1953 the Texas Legislature created the CRMWA to distribute water from the project. It wasn't until 1962, however, that construction began on Sanford Dam, and by early 1968 water began flowing to the 11 member cities and towns with 29,000 acre-feet delivered that year. Annual water delivery has increased in subsequent years, reaching a peak of 80,606 acre-feet in 1999. Originally viewed as the long-term solution to the municipal water supply needs of high plains cities, the Canadian River Project has not been problem-free. Lower-than-anticipated inflow into Lake Meredith has at times caused allocations to member cities to be reduced to 80 or 90 percent of full allotment. In addition, the salinity of Canadian River water has become increasingly severe, in large part due to heavy upstream infusions into the river from a shallow brine aquifer under artesian pressure. This has reduced water quality overall. CRMWA has been working to address both issues. Early in 2001 the authority expects to complete an $80 million system to transfer up to 40,000 acre-feet of supplementary groundwater into its grid, the water to be extracted from well fields 30 miles east of Lake Meredith that are not considered appropriate for agricultural pumping. The intent is to blend this water with lake water for delivery to 10 of the CRMWA cities (Borger will receive its well water directly at its posttreatment storage point) to increase both the quantity and quality of the system's water. Meanwhile, CRMWA hopes to directly address the salinity issue with a $10 million project that will involve drilling into the upstream brine aquifer and then pumping the aquifer to reduce its pressure. This project is also slated for completion in 2001. Growth-Related Impacts Population The Canadian River Project has effectively removed water as a constraint on municipal growth in the region, allowing several member towns and cities to modestly increase their population. Absent Canadian River water, most members would have been forced to develop additional well capacity, a situation that in a declining aquifer could have led to serious water shortages and a reduction or reversal of growth rates. Among the fastest growing members since Canadian River Project water began flowing are Amarillo and Lubbock, the two largest cities in the area with populations of 177,644 and 192,732 respectively. Since 1970, Amarillo increased its population by 40 percent and Lubbock by 37 percent. In these cities, water likely enabled, but did not itself drive the growth. More powerful drivers, according to local economic devel- Background and Development The Canadian River Project supplies municipal and industrial water to 11 towns and cities located in the semiarid high plains of the Texas panhandle. Beneficiaries of the project include Amarillo, Borger, Brownfield, Lamesa, Levelland, Lubbock, O'Donnell, Pampa, Plainview, Slaton, and Tahoka � a l l members of the Canadian River Municipal Water Authority (CRMWA). Until the late 1960s, these municipalities relied entirely on groundwater pumped from the huge Ogallala aquifer. Concerns over a declining water table, however, led local and state officials to look for renewable sources of water beginning as early as the 1940s. The result was a U.S. Bureau of Reclamation plan to impound the Canadian River behind Sanford Dam north of Amarillo and divert its waters southward via more than 300 miles of pipeline. 26 G r o w t h on the Coconino Plateau: Potential Impacts of a Water Pipeline for the Region opment officials, are the cities' locations as transportation hubs, and a region-wide migration from farm to city. Amarillo further benefited from an aggressive economic development effort, while Lubbock profited from the presence of Texas Tech University and the city's status as a major processing center for regionally grown crops. Not all CRMWA members, however, have experienced substantial growth. Three of the project's largely agricultural towns (Brownfield, Tahoka, and O'Donnell) grew less than 10 percent over 30 years, while three others (Pampa, Slaton, and Lamesa) actually lost population. Local observers believe that agriculture sector problems such as low commodity prices, drought, and depletion of irrigation water supplies drove small operator farmers off the land and into the region's cities. Also not experiencing major growth have been unincorporated areas that receive project water. Of the 24,000 CRMWA water users estimated by officials to reside outside member towns, a little over 4,000 live in four older, slow-growing communities that in the last 20 years began to experience groundwater problems and arranged to buy water from Lubbock. One nonmember town, however, has experienced growth. This is Canyon, an older community about 17 miles south of Amarillo that has been buying its water from Amarillo for 15 years. Between 1990 and 2000 Canyon grew from 11,365 to 13,000 residents as it evolved into a bedroom community for Amarillo. The area between Canyon and Amarillo is also gradually evolving from an agricultural area into an exurban residential area. Sprawl The project's impact on development patterns has been mixed. Large industrial taps on the pipeline have allowed four major commercial installations to be established in unincorporated areas along the aqueduct. These include a feedlot north of Plainview, a fertilizer plant near Borger, and a copper refinery and a generating plant, both north of Amarillo. Given local groundwater constraints, none of these operations could have obtained adequate water to locate in the area without the pipeline. In terms of residential sprawl, however, several planners and utility officials suggest that most dispersed residential development in unincorporated areas has been discouraged by the terms under which Amarillo and Lubbock make Canadian River Project water available. As a rule, project cities refuse to serve domestic water outside their borders unless they first annex the land. Thus, the Canadian River Project may well be promoting contiguous urban development because of the risks involved in developing alternative water sources for new subdivisions outside city boundaries. Water Resources Since water began flowing through the pipeline, CRMWA m e m b e r cities and towns have shifted from 100 percent r e l i a n c e on groundwater resources to nearly 70 percent reliance on the Canadian River Project, thus reducing drawdown of the Ogallala aquifer. While most members continue to use some groundwater to augment their supply, particularly during peak seasons, the deteriorating quality of some groundwater supplies has forced a few to stop this practice altogether. At the same time, concerns have grown about the quality of the water delivered from Lake Meredith. While it was realized early that the lake's water would be somewhat mineralized, the switch from groundwater has been extremely objectionable to some citizens. Chloride (salt) content has been generally increasing during the life of the project, and drought cycles now produce chloride contents as high as 475 milligrams per liter. That exceeds both the federally recommended salinity standard of 250 mg/L and the state benchmark of 300 mg/L. Corrosiveness and mineral deposition problems accompany a noticeably salty taste. To mitigate this problem, some member cities with locally available, high quality groundwater have chosen to blend their groundwater with lake water to achieve a better product, but a number of cities do not have good groundwater available for such mixing. At the regional level, however, the authority is currently working to complete its $10 million salinity control project upstream of the lake. Since this project will address the source of 70 percent of the chlorides reaching Lake Meredith, it holds out the possibility of significant water quality improvement. The expectation is it will reduce or eliminate the need for groundwater blending in the future. Recreation Along with drinking water, Lake Meredith also provides a major recreational asset to residents of Texas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico. Over 1.4 million visits are recorded yearly to the National Park Service-administered lake, which provides over 100 miles of shoreline and 16,000 acres of water surface. The lake, which is surrounded by 200-foot canyons and grasslands, is open year-round for fishing. Also popular are water sports, picnicking, birding, and horseback riding. Facilities include access roads, parking areas, picnic tables and shelters, drinking water, boat launching ramps, boat docks, a swimming area, and public restrooms. Summary of Canadian River Effects � The water pipeline has facilitated growth in larger cities, but not in most small towns, some of which lost population. Economic factors likely play a more powerful role in stimulating growth. � The water pipeline has allowed some industrial development to occur in areas that would have not otherwise been likely to develop. � Control over the distribution of pipeline water has allowed cities to effectively discourage sprawl outside their boundaries. � The water pipeline has provided some measure of protection for the underlying aquifer by reducing pumping. � Lake Meredith offers the region a major recreational asset. Water and Growth in Western States: Four Case Studies 27 GILLETTE-MADISON WATER PROJECT Location: Northeast Wyoming, vicinity of Gillette Purpose: Municipal and industrial water for Gillette and environs Management/Delivery Model: A city-operated, 43-mile long, 30-inch diameter water pipeline transporting groundwater from a well-field in the Black Hills Date of Service: 1981 Pipeline Capacity: 16,000 acre-feet per year Cost of Construction Projected: $22.5 million (master plan) Actual: $28 million Cost of Maintenance and Operation Projected: $114 per acre-foot (35 cents per 1,000 gallons) Actual: $521 per acre-foot ($1.60 per 1,000 gallons) Population in Service Area Initial (1981): 14,381 Projected 2000: 42,270 Actual 2000: 22,000 Volume of Water Delivered Annually Projected: 11,300 acre-feet per year Actual: 12,500 acre-feet per year Points of Comparison to North Central Arizona Pipeline Population Centers: scattered and small, with relatively small urban hubs Population Density: low-density development outside incorporated cities/towns Growth Profile: rapid growth possible Land Availability: large amount of undeveloped land Land Uses: livestock grazing, resource extraction Project Design: municipal and industrial use Other Water Sources: uncertain groundwater Development: perceived to be limited by lack of water Gillette's water concerns emerged during a r e g i o n a l boom in domestic oil exploration activity related to a worldwide oil crisis. Rapid growth ensued, with the city's population more than doubling in two years, from 5,400 residents in 1975 to 12,317 in 1977. Recognizing that future growth could be constrained by the city's unreliable existing water supplies, officials began a search for alternative sources. The most promising source appeared to be in the Madison formation's artesian limestone aquifer, which u n d e r l i e s much of northeast Wyoming. A test well drilled into the formation suggested the availability of significant quantities of water. The solution that emerged was the Gillette-Madison Water Project, a plan to drill wells into the Madison Formation, approximately 40 miles east of Gillette in the Black Hills, and transport the water to Gillette via pipeline. In December 1977, the state of Wyoming concluded in a report that it was appropriate for the state to install the well field and pipeline that would serve Gillette. The Wyoming Legislature subsequently established a finance package for the Gillette-Madison Water Project consisting of a combination of direct grants and loans from the State Farm Loan Board. In 1980, construction began on an eight-well extraction field and a 43-mile-long, 30-inch diameter transmission main to the city. Water delivery began in summer, 1981. Growth-Related Impacts Population The Gillette-Madison Water Project resolved Gillette's anticipated water shortages, allowing the city to grow substantially. During the five-year period following completion of the project, Gillette's population increased 34 percent, from 14,381 residents in 1981 to 19,295 in 1986. The new water, however, was not the most important factor driving this growth. Far more significant was the energy industry, which employs more than a fifth of all Campbell County residents, and which was already enjoying an economic boom in the area. But this industry can crash as well as boom, and beginning in 1987 it did. In the next three years, Gillette's population slid to 17,502 residents, a drop of more than 9 percent. Since then, the city has resumed its growth, but at a much more moderate 3 percent annual rate that, according to city officials, reflects increased activity in the region's extensive low-sulfur coal and coal-bed methane sectors. The result of whipsawing economic cycles is that the Gillette area's current population of 22,000 has fallen far short of the more than 42,000 forecast during the project's planning phase. Background and Development The Gillette-Madison Water Project grew out of a water quality and quantity crisis facing the city of Gillette, Wyoming, in the 1970s. Located on the high plains in the northeast portion of the state, Gillette's economy at the time revolved around large-scale extraction of oil from beds near the city. Today the city remains an important "energy capital," with 30 percent of the nation's coal supply and much of its coal-bed methane coming from mines in surrounding Campbell County. In contrast to its mineral wealth, Gillette had meager water resources in the 1970s. Surface water was extremely limited, annual rainfall in the region averaged only about eight inches per year, and the main source of municipal water � groundwater from three aquifers located beneath the city � showed alarming signs of stress. With a total annual yield of 4,300 acre-feet, the city's 28 wells were not projected to meet the maximum water demands of the city after 1984. Moreover, declining productivity and a history of variable quality water at many wells had already led to watering restrictions in the summertime. 28 G r o w t h on the Coconino Plateau: Potential Impacts of a Water Pipeline for the Region Sprawl The pipeline and its water have provided little impetus for growth beyond the city limits of Gillette. Local observers attribute this restraining effect to regulations that tightly restrict access to the pipeline. Only two small communities along the pipeline route are allowed to tap directly into the system. Moorcroft, 30 miles from Gillette, is provided a supplemental entitlement of about 1,100 acre-feet per year as mandated in the project's enabling legislation. And Rozet, an unincorporated hamlet eight miles from Gillette, gained a tap that initially served unlimited water to a single elementary school, and now also serves a county cemetery, a fire station, several trailer parks, and an industrial truck-fill installation. Others who want to obtain project water cannot simply tap into the water pipeline, but in most cases must buy water from Gillette, which the state of Wyoming considers a regional water purveyor. This arrangement has, in many cases, discouraged new development in unincorporated areas distant from the city � partly due to Gillette's hesitation to supply remote customers, and partly due to the cost of infrastructure to transport water long distances. Adding to these restraining effects are the increasingly regionalized policies of the Wyoming Water Development Commission. Since the late 1980s, the commission has resisted developing expensive new remote water systems and encouraged smaller communities to link to "regional" providers like Gillette. Closer to Gillette, unincorporated areas have seen modest population growth, mostly associated with the development of ranchettes and small subdivisions. In total, some 700 connections for new service have been made to homes or small water companies in these areas, adding an estimated total of less than 3000 people overall. State and local officials expect more of these connections to be made in the future, given continuing groundwater problems in the area and Gillette's role as a regional water purveyor. Still, most new tie-ins are expected to remain close to Gillette, thereby avoiding any substantial amount of dispersed development. Water Resources Since a series of technical problems were solved in the 1980s, the Gillette-Madison Project has provided a stable source of drinking water for Gillette and other recipients. This water is quite hard, with its total dissolved solids and hardness both rated at about 500 milligrams per liter, but it needs little treatment prior to delivery beyond chlorination. The supply has also proven plentiful. Initially the system delivered a baseline 3 acre-feet per day of project water � peaking at 21.5 acre-feet per day in summer � which was blended with 3 acre-feet per day from existing "soft water" wells. More recently, Madison production has been boosted to a base of 13.8 acre-feet per day � peaking at 33.8 acre-feet per day in summer � through an upgrade to larger pumps on the original Madison wells and the addition of three pumps at the pipeline's two pumping stations. Given the pipeline's size, the system's maximum capacity is now rated at about 35 acre-feet per day � a figure that puts the system near its peaking capacity. In short, the project has greatly improved water quality in Gillette, averted shortages, and made it possible for the town to grow. Along with a plentiful supply, however, has come a certain extravagance. As the city's public works director, Bill Carson, observes: "We now use too much water." Where records from the 1970s pegged consumption in the city at 125 gallons per capita per day, it now exceeds 200 gallons a day on average, and as much as 600 gallons per capita on peak days. A good deal of this increased use, moreover, has not been on the part of individuals, but on the part of the city. The new water supplies have allowed Gillette to embark on a concerted beautification program that has included the installation of new landscaping in its numerous parks and greenbelts, and the planting of 500 large trees in the city every year since 1987. Overall, according to city utilities director Jon Young, the city of Gillette now d e d i c a t e s an estimated 10 to 15 percent of its daily water production to "greening up the desert" � an undertaking that would have been unimaginable before the completion of the Gillette-Madison pipeline. Add in the county's parks, local schools, and homeowners, and perhaps half of all the city's water goes to support landscaping. Recreation and Environment Gillette's enthusiastic use of water to beautify its parks and plantings has not been the Madison Project's only environmental impact. In recent years, the pipeline has also allowed the city t o pump raw water from one of its in-town wells into Burlington Lake in McManaman Park as part of a city effort to maintain a local wetland to support waterfowl, migratory geese, and shorebirds. Last year, for example, the city poured 46 acre-feet into the lake to keep the area wet. Over the years the town has enhanced the park with paths, tree plantings, interpretive signs, and viewing blinds, developing it into a popular bird-watching and education center. Summary of Gillette-Madison Effects � The water pipeline has allowed Gillette to grow modestly, but the pace of growth has been dictated primarily by trends in the energy industry, the area's dominant employer. � Sprawl into remote unincorporated areas has been constrained by the uncertainty of groundwater supplies there and restricted access to pipeline water, with the result that most development in unincorporated areas has been confined to areas near Gillette. � Project water has coincided with an increase in consumption in Gillette that has seen the city use significant amounts of water on several nonessential but popular quality-of-life projects, including a city-wide beautification program and a bird-supporting wetland. Water and Growth in Western States: Four Case Studies 29 QUAIL CREEK RESERVOIR AND PIPELINE Location: Southwestern Utah Purpose: Municipal, industrial, and agricultural water supply for Washington County, Utah Management/Delivery Model: A 9.5-mile pipeline diverting flows from the Virgin River to Quail Creek Reservoir, a 40,000 acre-foot off-stream storage facility Date of Service: 1985 Pipeline Capacity: 109,000 acre-feet per year Cost of Construction Projected: $20 million Actual: $23.5 million Cost of Maintenance and Operation P ro j e c t e d : N / A Actual: $40 per acre-foot (12 cents per 1,000 gallons) Population in Service Area Initial: 25,300 Projected 2000: 55,000 Actual 2000: 86,000 Volume of Water Delivered Annually Projected: 20,000 acre-feet Actual: 24,165 acre-feet total; 11,512 acre-feet M&I Points of Comparison to North Central Arizona Pipeline Population Centers: scattered and small with a relatively small urban hub Population Density: low density developments outside of cities/towns Growth Profile: fast-growing cities and towns Land Availability: large amount of undeveloped private land Land Uses: livestock, agriculture Project Design: municipal and industrial use as a major component (also agriculture) Other Water Sources: uncertain groundwater, springs Development: fast growth perceived to be limited by available resources the system. By late 1989, however, Washington County's largest city, St. George, had constructed a new water treatment facility at the reservoir, and a 14-mile-long pipeline from the treatment plant to the city, so it could begin using treated Quail Creek water for municipal consumption. Immediately afterward, St. George's consumption of reservoir water, and its share of the overall project's yield, began to climb. By 1999, Quail Creek Reservoir was supplying 8,874 acre-feet of water annually to the city, or 55 percent of its total use. This amount represented more than three-quarters of all the water drawn from the Quail Creek project for municipal and industrial purposes, and more than one-third of the project's peak annual yield. St. George currently remains the only city in the region with a means of treating Quail Creek water. Even without a treatment plant for Quail Creek water, however, the towns of Hurricane and Washington have found a way to use the water to augment their municipal supplies. Since 1993, Hurricane has been drawing 800 to 1,000 acre-feet per year of untreated Quail Creek water and applying it to outdoor watering � in effect, saving the town from using potable water for such purposes. The town of Washington has also begun taking an estimated 700 acre-feet per year for similar uses. But these towns each hold 2,000 acre-feet per year allotments, so Washington is considering construction of a micro-filtration plant to treat the rest of its share for domestic use. Another proposal calls for building a pipeline to deliver treated water from Quail Creek Reservoir to the town of Ivins and others. These and other plans to distribute Quail Creek project water in Washington County will likely consume the fully allocated 22,000 acre-feet per year firm yield of the system. The probability of full consumption of Quail Creek project water, along with expectations of continued fast growth, has spurred the county to pursue two new water development projects. The first of these, scheduled for 2001, will link the Quail Creek Reservoir via a 4-mile, 60-inch pipeline to a new 50,000 acre-foot storage reservoir south of the original one. The second project, with a longer time horizon, proposes construction of a 120-mile-long pipeline from Lake Powell to the new reservoir. This plan would deliver 60,000 acre-feet per year of Colorado River water to meet the county-projected near tripling of water demand by 2050. Background and Development The Quail Creek Reservoir and Pipeline project was prompted by fast growth in southwestern Utah's Washington County and the perception that available water resources would soon prove inadequate. Before the project, Washington County towns depended primarily on local springs and wells for their drinking and "secondary" (landscape) water. While these sources provided a fairly reliable flow, their ability to support projected growth in this area, considered gateway to Zion National Park, w a s deemed questionable by the late 1970s. Spring water p r o duction was nearly fully exploited, and the expense for increasing groundwater production appeared formidable. The Washington County Water Conservancy District, therefore, conceived the Quail Creek project. The district proposed to build a pipeline to divert a portion of the flow of the Virgin River, and a 40,000 acre-foot reservoir in the Quail Creek drainage that would hold the diverted water for distribution and use in Washington County. In 1985, construction was completed on both endeavors, with the new reservoir situated 15 miles northeast of St. George, the county seat. At first, none of the new water was treated for public consumption, so only agricultural customers received flow from 30 Growth-Related Impacts Population Water from the Quail Creek Reservoir and Pipeline enabled a major population growth trend in Washington County to continue. Much of this growth resulted from a strong influx of retirees and others who were drawn to the area by its mild winters and proximity to Zion National Park and other natural attractions. Without the Quail Creek project, however, water supply problems might have dampened this growth trajectory significantly. In St. George, for example, population grew from 28,572 in 1990 to about 50,000 in 2000. At its peak in 2000, the city's G r o w t h on the Coconino Plateau: Potential Impacts of a Water Pipeline for the Region water consumption hit 116.6 acre-feet per day, but its well and spring water resources produced only 64.4 acre-feet per day. This suggests that without the pipeline's supply of water, the city would have had difficulty handling this growth. The same applies to Washington County as a whole. The county grew from 48,580 people in 1990 to 82,115 in 1998. As of 1998, the county estimated its total, reliable, potable water supply at 32,550 acre-feet per year, of which 7,000 acre-feet were delivered from the Quail Creek Project. Meanwhile, total consumption of potable water was estimated at 29,553 acrefeet per year. Thus, the county may have seen a shortfall of as much as 4,000 acre-feet without Quail Creek water. Impacts of the water on smaller municipalities underscore the system's importance in supporting population growth. Both Hurricane and Washington receive raw water for irrigation from the system, which has allowed them to save an equal amount of potable water from being used in yard and golf course service. Assuming that a family of four normally consumes about 0.5 acre-feet per year, this savings of about 1,500 acre-feet per year of potable water in the two towns would allow approximately 12,000 additional residents to settle there. Ivins has also benefited. Years ago this small town arranged with St. George to receive 270 acre-feet per year of treated water, but because of the Quail Creek project, St. George was actually able to sell Ivins 1,715 acre-feet in 2000. Without that additional 1,445 acre-feet of potable water, Ivins would have had a hard time servicing its rapid population growth from 1,163 in 1990 to an estimated 5,814 in 2000. Consequently, most observers of the region agree with Bob Nicholson, community development director of St. George. "The reservoir and pipeline have definitely facilitated population growth here," says Nicholson. "They've not stimulated it, but they've allowed it." But much of Washington County's growth in the last decade might have occurred even if the Quail Creek project had not been built. Today the system delivers only about a quarter of the region's total municipal and industrial water budget of around 52,000 acre-feet per year. Absent the project's construction, alternative water sources could have been tapped. For example, agricultural consumption runs up to 87,800 acre-feet per year, and substantial flows of this water might have been converted to residential uses. In addition, the county's very high per capita municipal and industrial consumption rate of 335 gallons per day (445 gpd including secondary water) is much larger than that of the state (284 gpd) or cities such as Denver (217 gpd) or Phoenix (175 gpd), so gains through conservation measures could also have made water available for new development. Furthermore, some moderation of the region's high peak demand for water through storage or other means could have accommodated substantial growth as well. Sprawl The Quail Creek project has also had a modest, but mixed, influence on where growth has occurred. Urban compactness has been promoted by the fact that only one municipality � St. George � has a facility to treat Quail Creek water. For that reason, St. George receives most of the system's M&I deliveries. Concludes community development director Nicholson: "Since only St. George can serve drinking water [from the system] and you can't just go out and drill a well, developers need to be in St. George to get water. That may promote concentration a bit." Nevertheless, the project has facilitated dispersed development in several instances � and could do so more broadly if other towns follow through on plans to build treatment plants or delivery pipelines. The town of Ivins, for example, was able to exceed its spring and groundwater budget because of water purchase arrangements with St. George, which is tied to the project. And the town of Washington's new master-planned golf community, Coral Canyon City, which will double the size of the town, would not have been possible without the 700 acre-feet per year of Quail Creek water the town recently began drawing from the pipeline, according to the town's public works director, Michael Shaw. Water Resources In terms of water resources, the Quail Creek project has had two major impacts. First, it has likely delayed regional water conservation efforts. The project provides an abundance of "raw" water for the irrigation of parks, golf courses, and lawns, and that has undercut any impetus for utilizing waterefficient landscaping. Consequently, the county's high per capita water consumption has declined little over the last decade. The project has also impacted flows in the Virgin River. By removing almost all of the river's flow from a 14-mile reach of the streambed, the project has sparked considerable controversy over the fate of several sensitive native fish populations in the river. Growing concerns over these species have led to negotiations over how much water may be diverted, and how much should be left in the river. Both the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources and the State Water Plan have called for minimum flows to be maintained, even at the diversion point. Recreational Impacts A final impact of the project is its creation of a regional attraction that also produces substantial economic benefit. With a surface area of 650 acres, Quail Creek Reservoir has emerged as a popular water recreation area, drawing more than a half million visitors a year to its Quail Lake State Park. These visitors enjoy the reservoir and its shoreline for boating, water skiing, fishing, swimming, and RV camping. Demand for this type of recreation remains so high that reservoir managers recently had to place a cap on the number of boats allowed on the water per day. According to county estimates, the reservoir generates approximately $20 million a year in local economic activity. Summary of Quail Creek Effects � The reservoir and pipeline have helped facilitate rapid population growth by making water available not only for treatment and drinking, but also for outdoor uses that free up potable supplies for domestic consumption. � The project has channeled development toward the region's largest city, but also supported some dispersed development near smaller towns. � The reservoir created by the project has become a major economic and recreational asset in the region. � The project has forestalled water conservation efforts in the region and allowed per capita water consumption to remain very high. � The project has diminished Virgin River flows below its diversion point, with possible negative impacts on native species. 31 Water and Growth in Western States: Four Case Studies LOWER GUNNISON BASIN UNIT WINTER STOCK WATER REPLACEMENT PROGRAM Colorado River Water Quality Improvement Program Location: west-central Colorado, near Montrose Purpose: reduction of salt loading to the Colorado River system Management/Delivery Model:161 miles of rural water pipelines and 9 storage tanks added to the infrastructure of three rural water districts to deliver treated municipal and industrial water from Project 7 (the regional water treatment authority) to unincorporated agricultural areas of Montrose and Delta counties Date of Service: Staged, between 1990 and 1995 Cost of Construction Projected: $27.6 million Actual: $22 million Cost of Maintenance and Operation Projected: $1,101 per acre-foot ($3.38 per 1,000 gallons) for Tri-County and Chipeta water districts; $909 per acrefoot ($2.79 per 1,000 gallons) for Menoken Water District Actual: N/A Population in Service Area Initial: 24,576 2000: 29,404 Volume of Water Delivered Annually Projected: 825 acre-feet Actual: N/A Points of Comparison to North Central Arizona Pipeline Population Centers: scattered and small, with a relatively small urban hub Population Density: low-density development outside incorporated cities/towns Growth Profile: rapid growth possible Land Availability: large amount of undeveloped land Land Uses: livestock grazing, outdoor recreation Other Water Sources: uncertain groundwater Development: perceived to be limited by lack of water t w o counties, thereby eliminating the saltloading of an estimated 74,000 tons annually. But the $22 million salt-reduction project constructed by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation had an unintended impact. By introducing a huge new water delivery infrastructure into rural Delta and Montrose counties, it greatly enlarged the supply of potable water to areas that had not previously been served. This occurred because of the way the program was structured. Under the program, more than 900 users of the canal system became eligible to receive replacement water from Project 7, the regional water treatment authority. This water was to be delivered to the users' historic point of use � stock tanks � by extending the water lines of three existing domestic water systems: Chipeta Water District, Menoken Water District, and Tri-County Water Conservancy District. These federally funded extensions, completed between 1990 and 1995, ultimately saw the construction of 161 miles of new delivery pipeline, several pumps, and 9 storage tanks within the water companies' service areas. This new water infrastructure substantially increased the ability of the three rural utilities to deliver treated water suitable for domestic consumption. During the construction phase, low capacity 2-inch trunk lines were replaced with much larger capacity 6-inch lines; new service lines were installed where previously there had been none; and numerous undeveloped agricultural areas were connected to "city" water service for the first time. A case in point is the Menoken district's 80mile-long web of pipeline serving about 40 square miles north of Montrose. This system gained some 20 new miles of service line, allowing water to flow for the first time to unserved areas of three rural roads. Background and Development T h e Lower Gunnison Basin Unit Winter Stock Water Replacement Program was not intended to expand the domestic water supply infrastructure in rural Colorado when it was undertaken in the early 1990s. Instead, as part of the federal Colorado River Water Quality Improvement Program, it was designed to reduce salt-loading of the Colorado River system by providing a replacement winter water supply for livestock operators. These operators had been watering their livestock each winter by diverting the Uncompahgre River into unlined canals that leached salts into the system. By providing an alternative water supply through a network of new enclosed w a t e r lines, the Stock Water Replacement Program ended winter canal flows across 86,000 acres of agricultural land in Growth-Related Impacts Population T h e Lower Gunnison Basin Unit Winter Stock Water Replacement Program facilitated population growth in unincorporated areas of Delta and Montrose counties during the 1990s. Growth pressures in the region had been building in the early 1990s due to a combination of factors related to the region's western appeal: scenic mountains, relatively mild climate, proximity to national monuments, access to ski areas, and relatively affordable housing. But many unincorporated 32 G r o w t h on the Coconino Plateau: Potential Impacts of a Water Pipeline for the Region areas of the two counties had seen their development potential constrained by such problems as a lack of water service, the variable quality of local groundwater wells, and in some cases, inadequate water pressure for rural fire coverage. The Stock Water Replacement Program provided many of these areas with convenient, high-pressure potable water deliveries for the first time. And since no rules precluded the use of these "winter watering" taps for year-round domestic hookups, the program is widely agreed to have spurred rural subdivision and homebuilding. Exactly how much new development occurred in the areas affected by the Stock Water Replacement Program is not easy to assess. Overall growth in all unincorporated areas of the two counties in the early 1990s exceeded 3 percent per year, according to state and county figures, but has since settled down to about 1.5 percent per year. Regarding the specific water districts in which the Stock Water Replacement Program operated, Taggie Aultman, general manager of the Chipeta Water District, says the program "definitely allowed more housing to go in all over the area" in her district. Mike Berry, general manager of Tri-County Water Conservancy District, allows that "many" of the 535 taps the program installed in his district (an increase of 10 percent) now serve homes or subdivisions. And Menoken Water District officials note that "about 98 percent" of the 127 taps originally installed by the program in Menoken's service area were converted to year-round residential use within a few years. Many additional taps were also installed in the new water lines by the water companies. Menoken officials report that in the 1980s, prior to the program's extension of lines, only 153 new taps had been sold by their water district, while in the 1990s, after the program's extensions, 478 new taps were sold � a better than threefold increase. Menoken officials also point out a sharp increase in the number of subdivisions planned for areas served by the new lines. Before the 1990s, almost no subdivisions were begun in those areas because adequate drinking water and fire capacity was nonexistent. Since 1990 about "10 or 15" projects have gone in, each with 15 to 20 lots typically ranging from one to three acres. In this fashion a federally funded program intended to help livestock operators reduce salt leaching unexpectedly made the new land being served much more attractive for residential development. Sprawl The Stock Water Replacement Program's role in promoting dispersed development has been pronounced. With the addition of 161 miles of new water infrastructure in rural Colorado, sizable areas of two counties have been effectively opened up to low-density housing outside major town boundaries. Residential settlement patterns have clearly been affected. According to Tri-County Water District officials, new residential development basically "followed the water lines" in the dis- trict's service area into new regions of Delta County; development also followed new water lines 10 miles south from Montrose past the Colona reservoir into Ouray County. Similar results have been reported by officials of other water districts. Concludes Frank Mesaric, city engineer for the city of Montrose, which is the region's main urban hub: "The program has definitely favored development in the outlying areas. It's opened up many areas that weren't conducive to it before." Moreover, in conjunction with a regional real estate boom, the program helped increase rural land prices more than four-fold. According to Lynn Johnson, a broker associate for the ReMAX real estate corporation in Montrose, scenic agricultural land that fetched $1,500-an-acre 10 years ago now costs from $5,000 to $7,000-an-acre. Water Resources Ongoing trend studies by the U.S. Geological Survey confirm that the Lower Gunnison Basin Unit Winter Stock Water Replacement Program has begun |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| A |
|
| B |
|
| C |
|
| D |
|
| E |
|
| F |
|
| G |
|
| H |
|
| I |
|
| J |
|
| L |
|
| M |
|
| N |
|
| O |
|
| P |
|
| R |
|
| S |
|
| T |
|
| U |
|
| V |
|
| W |
|
| Y |
|
|
|