Groundwater Code Study Committee: final report

              Arizona House of Representatives
GROUNDWATER CODE STUDY COMMITTEE
FINAL REPORT
December 14, 1993
MEMBERS
Representative Jerry Overton, Chairman
Representative Bob Chastain
Representative Dan Schot tel
1
Prepared by House Majority Research Staff
I
I
Arizona House of Representatives
- Groundwater Code Study Committee -
FINAL REPORT
December 14, 1993
MEMBERS
Representative Jeny Overton, Chairman
Representative Bob Chastain
Representative Dan Schottel
GROUNDWATER CODE STUDY COMMI'ITEE
FINDINGS AND FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS
DATE: December 14, 1993
TO: Speaker Mark Killian, Arizona House of Representatives
Pursuant to your request, the Groundwater Code Study Committee has conducted
hearings pertaining to the Groundwater Code and has compiled an overview of the findings.
The following members of the Committee endorse the recommendations included in this
report:
Repr ' esendtive Jerry Overton, Chair
Representative Bob Chastain
~ eprdsentativeD an Schottd
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I. Summary
A. Authority & Scope of Duties ..................... 1
B. Explanation of Findings ........................ 2
11. History
A. Groundwater Management Plan .................. 3
111. Committee Activity
A. September 30, 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
B. October 12, 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 6
C. November 16, 1993 ........................... 7
IV. Findings and Recommendations
Finding 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8- 10
Finding 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 1
Finding 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 2
Finding 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 3
Finding. 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 4
V. Appendix A: Meeting Notices and Minutes
I. SUMMARY
AUTHORITY AND SCOPE OF DUTIES
Water is one of Arizona's most valuable natural resources, and with its value much
controversy has arisen over proper management techniques.
For this reason, Speaker Mark Killian appointed the Groundwater Code Study
Committee to identify major issues regarding the management of groundwater and the
proposal of potential solutions.
The Committee was directed to examine the definition of " safe yield" and its relation
to groundwater mining and recharge, review hydrological information relating to sub- basins
within Active Management Areas, review the conservation requirements under the Gallons
Per Capita Per Day ( GPCPD) program and the Alternative Conservation Project ( Non-
GPCPD), identify areas in which the Department of Water Resources ( DWR), Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality ( ADEQ) and the Arizona Corporation Commission
( ACC) can streamline application processes through cooperative agreements, and review
regulation and administration requirements for small water rights.
Section I1 of this report provides a brief historical summary of the first and second
Groundwater Management Plans. Section I11 highlights the activities of the Committee and
Section IV evaluates the Committee's findings and provides recommendations.
EXPLANATION OF FINDINGS
Representative Overton established the theme of the Committee by saying, " if it ain't
broke, don't break it." There were four general areas of concern identified in the hearings:
1. Some cities have difficulty meeting the conservation requirements under the
guidelines for GPCPD, not because of lack of conservation programs but because the
formula doesn't have the flexibility to evaluate communities on an individual basis.
2. The Non- Gallons Per Capita Per Day ( Non- GPCPD) alternative conservation
plan was established to provide another option for communities to meet water conservation
requirements. This program is still in the drafting stages at DWR and thus far cities have
been unable to utilize it.
3. Under the current Management Plan, Active Management Areas are treated
as one large pot of water without recognizing the individual basins or sub- basins. Further,
water mined in one sub- basin can be recharged in a different sub- basin.
4. Small water rights holders, in particular Irrigation Grandfathered Rights
( IGFRs), comprise 54% of the total IGFRs yet consume only 3% of the total agricultural
water used.
11. HISTORY
GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
In 1980 Arizona addressed the long- term conservation and management of
groundwater through passage of the Groundwater Management Code ( GWMC). The
GWMC set forth provisions by which the State's groundwater resources could be allocated
to effectively meet evolving needs. The primary focus was on controlling the severe
overdraft of groundwater taking place in many parts of the State.
The GWMC contains provisions to regulate groundwater pumping and to reduce
groundwater use through conservation or use of renewable sources. Four active
management areas ( AMA) were established where overdraft was most severe: the Phoenix,
Tucson, Pinal and Prescott AMAs. For three of the AMAs, Prescott, Tucson and Phoenix,
the management goal is " safe- yield". Safe- yield is defined as the long- term balance between
the annual amount of groundwater withdrawn and the annual amount of natural and
artificial recharge. In the Pinal AMA, where a predominately agricultural economy exists,
the goal is to allow the development of non- agricultural water uses, extend the life of the
agricultural economy as long as feasible, and preserve water supplies for non- agricultural
purposes.
To reach the management goals established for each AMA, water conservation and
management requirements are established in five management periods. We are currently
acting under the provisions of the Second Management Period and will begin work on the
provisions of the Third Management Period within the next two years. The five
management periods are:
First Management Period: 1980- 1990
Second Management Period: 1990- 2000
Third Management Period: 2000- 2010
Fourth Management Period: 20 10- 2020
Fifth Management Period: 2020- 2025
111. COMMITTEE ACTIVITY
September 30, 1993
The Committee received a summary of:
1) hydrological studies conducted on the Phoenix Active Management Area
( AMA). Arguments for and against the splitting of the Phoenix AMA were
presented. Safe yield is measured according to the total recharge and withdrawal
in the AMAs.
2) recharge requirements under the Clean Water Act was provided to the
Committee. The Act requires that the nation's waters meet fishable and swimmable
standards. Because of this, water facilities have had to implement programs that test
and purify effluent for toxicity as it relates to fish before the water can be released
into the dry river beds. This concern is causing many water facilities to look at the
options of zero discharge of effluent. In addition, a coalition is proposing an
amendment that asks that criteria for the arid West be developed.
3) the Aquifer Protection Permit program administered through the Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality ( ADEQ).
October 12, 1993
The Committee received information regarding:
1) Arizona Corporation Commission's ( ACC) requirements as they relate to
expansion and extension of water service territory. ACC requires that a water user
acquire a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity ( CC& N) unless the utility has
established run- along rights and is expanding in a geographically contiguous area that
is not currently being served by any other utility. In order to expand through run-along
rights, a utility is required to file a Main Extension with the ACC which
analyzes the run- along rights similar to the analysis performed in granting a new
CC& N or an extension to an existing CC& N. The courts have interpreted run- along
rights equivalent to a CC& N.
ACCs definition of service area is different from DWRs definition of service
area. Under the current system, DWRs definition of service area doesn't affect the
definition of service area by ACC. When a water utility wants their service area
expanded through ACC, the utility must provide documentation demonstrating that
there is at least a 100- year assured water supply available. This documentation is
provided to the utility by DWR.
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality ( ADEQ) requires that plans
and specifications be submitted for review in accordance with their criteria for
storage, construction, avoidance of cross- contamination problems, maintaining
pressure within the service area and other problems that may arise concerning water
quality. ADEQ reviews the information and, if they see fit, issue an approval to
construct. The utility has the ultimate responsibility to go to the ACC and ADEQ
separately for approval for line extensions. The utility is required to provide copies
of ADEQs construction permits with the application for expansion of a CC& N.
2) Central Arizona Water Conservation District ( CAWCD) recharge projects
since 1982 and the difference between direct recharge and indirect recharge and the
tax credits associated with the programs.
3) DWR provided an overview of the conservation measures such as the
Gallons Per Capita Per Day ( GPCPD) program and the Non- GPCPD alternative
conservation plan. Some of the problems associated with the GPCPD program are:
* increased growth in an industrial- commercial sector without a
corresponding immediate growth in their population. Therefore, small water
provider areas can have an increased GPCPD rate despite their conservation
programs.
* DWR requires compliance with the GPCPD requirements regardless
of the costs. Private water companies have to justlfy their rate increases to
cover the cost of implementing conservation projects to the Arizona
Corporation Commission.
* GPCPD rates do not consider institutions such as college campuses,
prisons, hospitals with long- term residents or large resort hotels.
DWR is presently in the process of modify~ ngt he Second Management Plan
to design and adopt the new Non- GPCPD program.
November 16, 1993
The Committee received information regarding:
1) DWRs proposal to deregulate small water rights holders.
2) Arizona Corporation Commission's programs for small water users who
require a rate review. The short- form application is shorter than the general form
and companies are not required to attend a hearing before the ACC which
eliminates attorney fees or hire accountants for compilation and presentation of
information. Small water users include those companies that generate less than
$ 250,000 in gross annual revenue.
3) DWRs explanation of the Gallons Per Capita Per Day ( GPCPD)
conservation program and the Non- GPCPD program recently established in 1992.
The Non- GPCPD program is currently in the implementation stage and will allow
municipal providers who opt for the program to implement the best available
conservation programs. The program is being designed so that it addresses increases
in industrial development, changes in population characteristics, weather variations
and assumptions regarding the effectiveness of conservation efforts.
4) DWRs explanation of development of the Third Management Plan and
the areas that need to be addressed in this plan. The plan needs to identify supplies
that are available and economically viable to the providers today, supplies that are
available but not adequately used, recognize the existence of the GRD and review
the assured water supply program. Other items that might need to be addressed in
the Third Management Plan are: a more localized definition of safe yield;
customizing requirements to local situations; clarification of the role of private water
users; more regionalized planning and limiting regulation.
5) Agri- Business Council explained that the agriculture community had some
concerns regarding the conservation program for agriculture. The agriculture
community and DWR are working together to develop alternatives to their
conservation requirements. Some of the possible alternatives are: water duties or
conservation requirements on irrigation districts, water duty for groundwater- only
agriculture use and phasing out accrued flex account credits in exchange for a water
duty based on current cropping patterns and economic conditions, as well as the
ability to obtain agricultural financing.
IV. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
FINDING 1: A large amount of time on the part of DWR and the small water
users is dedicated to completing and processing annual reports and
conveyance forms and fees, when this group of water users consume only 1%
of the groundwater annually.
Within Active Management Areas ( AMAs), small rights are those
irrigation grandfathered rights ( IGFRs) ten acres or less in size and not part
of a larger farming operation and all large municipal water providers who use
250 acre feet or less annually.
Within Irrigation Non- Expansion Areas ( INAs), small rights are those
Notices of Irrigation Authority ten acres or less in size and not part of a
larger farming operations.
Currently, thousands of small water right holders in AMAs and INAs
are responsible for complying with the same requirements as the very large
water right holders. Small right holders must measure groundwater
withdrawals, report annually on their water use, pay groundwater withdrawal
fees, notify DWR if ownership changes, and meet specific conservation
requirements, generally expressed in the form of a water . duty or a gallons
per capita per day requirement. This creates an administrative and
regulatory burden on both the small right holder and DWR that is
disproportionate to the anticipated water savings. Fifty- four percent of the
IGFRs are small water users and they use approximately one percent of the
groundwater and three percent of the total water annually.
RECOMMENDATION
Deregulate small right holders in IGFRs and INAs so that it eliminates
the inconvenience and worry for small rightholders associated with annual
report and conveyance forms and fees.
Kev Elements of Proaosal Within AMAs
Inipation Grandfathered Rights
Eliminate existing water duties and replace with a reasonable
conservation measure that would require that irrigation water be contained
on the property associated with the right, unless the water is beneficially used
on other lands.
Eliminate the requirement for small rights to measure and report their
annual water use, or pay withdrawal fees unless a small right delivers water
to an IGFR larger than ten acres.
Eliminate all conveyance requirements for small rights, unless the small
right delivers water to an IGFR larger than ten acres.
Delete all existing flex account debits and credits associated with small
rights.
Agricultural water users who do not meet the definition of small water
user will be held harmless if the conservation formula changes in the third
and subsequent management plans as a direct result of the small agricultural
users being exempted.
Municipal Water Providers
Reclassify large municipal providers using 250 acre feet or less
annually as small municipal providers and regulate them according to the
small provider requirements of the SMP.
Transition small providers, who at some subsequent date begin using
more than 250 acre feet annually, into the larger provider program.
Kev Elements of Promsal Within INAs
Small rights would no longer be required to measure and report their
annual pumpage, unless a small right delivers water to a Notice of Irrigation
Authority larger than ten acres.
FINDING 2: Some cities have difficulty meeting the conservation requirements
stipulated in the Gallons Per Capita Per Day program ( GPCPD), not because
the community has neglected to utilize conservation techniques but because
the GPCPD formula doesn't have the flexiiility to evaluate communities on
an individual basis.
The Non- GPCPD alternative conservation plan was established to
provide another option for communities to meet water conservation
requirements. This program is still in the drafting stages at D'WR and thus
far cities have been unable to utilize it.
RECOMMENDATIONS
In addition to municipal water companies, allow private water
companies to apply for Non- GPCPD alternative conservation plan.
Replace language in 95- 565.01 Section C, Paragraph 3 specifying
annual poundwater reduction requirements with language that requires the
director of DWR to establish criteria that is flexible and allows for
administrative discretion when evaluating municipal or private water
companies' alternative conservation programs. The alternative conservation
programs shall be considered adequate as long as the water user maintains
safe yield in the sub- basin.
Cities or private water companies that choose to use the Non- GPCPD
alternative conservation plan must demonstrate that they will have the ability
to access Central Arizona Project ( CAP) water in case conditions require the
use of CAP water to maintain safe yield in the sub- basin.
FINDING 3: Within the Phoenix AMA there are two sub- basins that have a distinct
geologic mass separating the AMA.
RECOMMENDATION
Recognize the existence of sub- basins in AMAs. The definition of
" Safe Yield" must be clarified so that it is based on a recognition of local
groundwater sub- basins. Management of safe yield should be tied to whether
or not the groundwater table in a given area is actually falling due to the
groundwater pumping in that area. If not, then the stability of the local
groundwater table should be taken as evidence that safe yield has been
attained, and the existing groundwater pumping should be allowed to
continue until there is long- term evidence of a drop in the local groundwater
levels.
Require that DWR conduct a study in three areas: West Salt River
Valley Sub- basin focusing in on the Agua Fria area, and the Pima county and
Santa Ctvz county areas within the Tucson Active Management Area.
The study should address:
1) inventory of surface and groundwater sources presently available and
in use;
2) develop a plan for implementing CAP water into their water
management system in order to achieve safe yield;
3) forecast a range of probable scenarios for future water demand;
4) identlfy areas of water over- supply;
5) set goals for groundwater table recovery in distinct sub- basins;
6) identify the cost to create man- made riparian habitats;
7) identify the presently- planned recharge projects and their effect on the
surrounding water supply and water quality;
8) uses of effluent as it relates to indirect and direct recharge projects,
and its long term effect on the adjacent ground water supplies.
FINDING 4: There have been some incidences where utilities construct lines before
the proper authorization has been granted. Some utilities have constructed
lines based on run- along rights. The Arizona Corporation Commission
( ACC) has the capacity to take disciplinary action against the utility and can
revoke certificates and impose fines. According to testimony, one of the
problems the ACC has is having sufficient time and resources to go out and
find those who are violating the rules.
RECOMMENDATION
In an effort to encourage intergovernmental agreement and
cooperation the Committee recommends:
1) DWR automatically forward to the ACC, certificates of assured water
supply and approved expansions of service areas by DWR and other
information related to water supply availability issued to water utilities.
2) ADEQ automatically forward to the ACC approved construction permits
and copies of plans and specifications for storage, construction, avoidance of
cross- contamination problems, maintaining pressure within the service area
and other problems that may arise concerning water quality.
The Committee further recommends that the ACC utilize this
documentation to assure that the existing rate payers will not suffer in terms
of water cost or quality by DWR, ADEQ or ACC granting these permits.
ACC will also utilize this documentation to determine if water utilities have
and/ or are following proper procedures for obtaining extensions of CC& Ns
or Main Extensions for run- along rights.
FINDING 5: Water is a complex issue that is one of Arizona's most valuable natural
resources. The Committee has heard testimony on various important subjects
that time has not permitted to be developed further. These include:
1) increased technical ( not regulatory) management of basins and sub-basins,
mechanisms to allow the establishment of regional water and waste-water
treatment facilities, regional management of groundwater, surface
water, CAP water and effluent;
2) establishing the role of CAWCD as it applies to the delivery of CAP
water ( treated or untreated);
3) studying irrigation water duties and alternative agricultural conservation
for those who hold Irrigation Grandfathered Rights and make
recommendations for potential legislation that focuses on alternatives;
4) establishing a Third Groundwater Management Plan that recognizes
water management areas defined by geologic structures, and manages the
recharge and discharge in that area according to safe yield;
5) oversight of DWR's implementation of the Non- GPCPD alternative
conservation plan;
6) establishing a statewide policy regarding effluent; ownership, effect on
groundwater and environmental concerns;
7) ' establishing an active plan for encouraging the access and use of CAP
water;
8) examining the definition of water providers in the Groundwater Code;
particularly with regard to special districts.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends that a continuing committee be
established and charged with researching these water issues, taking testimony
regarding topical issues, and recommending and reviewing legislation.
APPENDIX A
Meeting Notices and Minutes
ARIZONA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
I N T E R I M MEETING N O T I C E
Open to the Public
GROUNDWATER CODE STUDY COMMITTEE
DATE: Thursday, September 30, 1993
TIME: 9: 00 a. m.
PLACE: House Hearing Room 1
SUBJECT: I n i t i a l Hearing
1. Phoenix AMA Hydro1 ogy Report
A, Summary o f hydro1 ogi cal studies ( ADWR)
B. Why Phoenix AMA should be s p l i t ( WESTMARC)
C. Why the Phoenix AMA should not be s p l i t ( TO BE ANNOUNCED)
D. Public testimony
2. Are e x i s t i n g recharge statutes working?
A. Summary o f recharge statutes and permits required ( ADWR)
B. How recent federal l e g i s l a t i o n a f f e c t s Arizona recharge p r o j e c t s
( TO BE ANNOUNCED)
C. Recharge and withdrawals from outside the area o f hydrological impact
( ADWR, AMWUA)
D. Expl anat i on of Aqui f e r Protect ion Permit ( ADEQ)
E. Public testimony
Jerrv Overton
Chairman
MEMBERS :
Representative Schottel
Representative Chastain
ARIZONA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
F o r t y - f i r s t Legislature - F i r s t Regular Session
Interim Committee Meeting
GROUNDWATER CODE STUDY COMMITTEE
Minutes o f Meeting
Thursday, September 30, 1993
House Hearing Room 1 - 9: 00 a. m.
( Tape 1, Side A)
The meeting was called t o order at 9: 02 a. m. by Chairman Overton and attendance
was noted.
Members Present
Mr. Chastain Mr. Schottel Mr. Overton, Chairman
Members Absent
None
Soeakers Present
Herb Dishlip, Deputy Director, Arizona Department of Water Resources ( ADWR)
John Vickery, representing Water Committee, Western Maricopa Coalition ( WESTMARC)
B i l l Chase, Water Advisor, City of Phoenix
John Keane, Executive Water Pol i c y Analyst, Salt River Project
James R. Mattison, Director, Sun City Homeowners Association
Perry Hubbard, Mayor, Li t c h f i e l d Park
Kathy Chavez, Manager, Office of Capital Development, Pima County Wastewater
Management
Paul Kinshella, Wastewater Planning Engineering Supervisor, City of Phoenix
Bob McCai n, Program Manager, Arizona Municipal Water Users Associ at i on ( AMWUA)
B i l l Chase, Water Advisor, City o f Phoenix
David Iwanski, Executive Vice President, Agri- Business Council of Arizona
Matt Ortega, Legi s l ative Liaison, Arizona Department o f Envi ronmental Qual i t y
( ADEQ)
Brian Munson, Assistant Director, Office of Water Qual i ty, Department o f
Environmental Qual i t y ( ADEQ)
Les Meredith, Chairman, Water Watch o f Sun City
Anthony A b r i l , Jr., representing Neighborhood S p i r i t Association
Guest L i s t ( Attachment 1)
Chairman Overton welcomed everyone t o the meeting and introduced the Members and
S t a f f .
GROUNDWATER CODE
STUDY COMMITTEE
SEPTEMBER 30, 1993
He explained t h a t t h i s Committee i s meeting as a r e s u l t o f agreement with House
Leadership l a s t Session t h a t the Groundwater Code and the Groundwater Management
Act o f 1980 are important, large, convoluted pieces o f l e g i s l a t i o n and have
almost become a cottage industry; so t h i s issue has been assigned t o a study
committee f o r f u r t h e r review. He said he expects three meetings t o be held, and
at the l a s t meeting, a report w i l l be prepared f o r possible l e g i s l a t i o n regarding
any changes i n the Groundwater Code f o r next Session.
He noted t h a t h i s theme f o r t h i s Committee i s " If it a i n ' t broke, don't break
it"; rather than add more complexity t o the system, he would 1 i ke t o stream1 ine
it and remove any unwarranted regul at i ons .
Chairman Overton c l a r i f i e d t h a t the Members o f t h i s Committee are Freshmen
Legislators who are interested i n water but are not considered experts on the
subject; testimony i s f o r informational purposes.
Herb Dish1i ~ De,~ utvD irector, Arizona De~ artmento f Water Resources ( ADWR) ,
noted t h a t Rita Pearson, Director, ADWR, i s i n Washington, D. C. on Central
Arizona Project ( CAP) matters but she w i l l attempt t o attend future meetings.
He gave a s l i d e presentation o f an overview o f physical and hydrological
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n the Phoenix Active Management Area ( AMA) and the
administrative e f f e c t s o f d i v i s i o n o f the AMA ( Attachment 1). He noted that the
handout was prepared f o r a 1991 Joint Legislative Committee which reviewed the
issue o f the Phoenix AMA hydrology and whether or not it should be spl it, and
it has been updated t o 1993 conditions but there aren't too many changes.
He referred t o the l a s t two pages o f the handout ( Attachment 1) noting that they
depict two water budgets. The f i r s t page shows the Department's estimate of what
water use was w i t h i n the East and West Salt River Valley ( SRV) Subbasins i n 1985;
the l a s t page shows an estimate as i f CAP water use was implemented. He noted
t h a t 1985 was the f i r s t - y e a r delivery of CAP water use which i s the reason f o r
the comparison. He referred t o the difference i n estimates of t o t a l groundwater
overdraft on these two pages, noting that the goal of CAP water use was t o reduce
groundwater overdraft but t h i s e f f o r t did not succeed as anticipated. He
contended that CAP water i s a very c r i t i c a l component i n both the East and West
SRV i n moving toward a safe y i e l d goal and reducing groundwater overdraft.
Mr. Dish1 i p concluded by stating that t h i s data was developed by taking thousands
o f measurements o f wells throughout the basin over a number o f years t o study
in- depth how the aquifer responds t o pumping i n d i f f e r e n t areas. They have
prepared a computer model which can project how changes i n water 1 eve1 , d i r e c t i o n
o f flow, drawdown, etc., w i l l occur if d i f f e r e n t assumptions with regard t o
groundwater pumping are imposed. He said t h i s model shows what has occurred i n
the past as well as if groundwater pumping were t o change one way or another,
what i s l i k e l y t o happen t o the water table. He said it has been very useful
i n developing information about the hydrology o f the groundwater i n the Phoenix
AMA .
GROUNDWATER CODE
STUDY COMMITTEE
SEPTEMBER 30, 1993
M r . Chastain asked about waterlogging i n Buckeye and r i s i n g water l e v e l s i n the
Casa Grande area.
M r . Dish1 i p responded t h a t the Buckeye area has experienced a great deal of
recharge p a r t i c u l a r l y as a r e s u l t o f flood events beginning i n 1978, as well as
an increase i n flow level i n the r i v e r i t s e l f as a r e s u l t o f discharges from the
91st Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant. They have a unique s i t u a t i o n and have
t o pump water f o r drainage.
He c l a r i f i e d t h a t Casa Grande has experienced years o f groundwater level
declines, especially i n the Stanfield and Eloy areas, causing a l o t o f farm1 ands
t o cease production because they ran out o f water or it became too expensive.
Because o f the decrease i n production ( temporari l y ) , a l o t o f we1 1 s have been
turned o f f so the stresses on the aquifer tend t o equalize r e s u l t i n g i n a rebound
i n the water table. Also, he added, i n the 1980' s ( p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the Maricopa
and Stanfield areas) CAP water was introduced which also had another major e f f e c t
i n turning o f f wells. He observed that it has also been wet; there have been
floods through the Santa Cruz Valley Basin and the Gila River Basin. He
indicated t h a t CAP water was t o be a permanent solution f o r Pinal County but
that hasn't worked out f o r economic reasons.
Mr. D i s h l i p answered questions o f Chairman Overton concerning the water budgets
and groundwater replenishment. He noted that there i s an increase i n natural
recharge as a r e s u l t o f r i v e r flow; actually there i s more benefit t o the East
portion o f the Phoenix AMA because it absorbs more water than the West portion.
He added t h a t there has also been an effect on the West SRV because CAP water
has been introduced and the C i t i e s o f Phoenix and Glendale and the SRP have
converted t o CAP water extensively, turning o f f a l o t o f wells. So there have
been a l o t o f changes i n recent years throughout the West SRV by augmentation
o f the supply with surface water.
Chairman Overton asked about a new hydrological study. M r . Di shl i p c l a r i f i e d
that the model which the Department has developed has been v e r i f i e d so t h a t it
i s usable as a tool t o study d i f f e r e n t changes. He said t h i s model w i l l be used
i n conjunction with a study done by the Bureau o f Reclamation i n association with
CAP use on the West SRV. He said the r e s u l t s o f t h i s study should be completed
i n the spring o f next year.
Mr. D i s h l i p explained t o Mr. Overton that the impact o f looking at the AMA as
a whole i s the achievement o f safe y i e l d ( balance between withdrawals and natural
and a r t i f i c i a l recharge) which does not have t o be achieved on every square foot
but needs t o balance out over the t o t a l AMA; i f the AMA i s spl it, they would have
t o look a t safe y i e l d i n each portion and would be managing f o r it d i f f e r e n t l y .
This would have an e f f e c t on where recharge occurs; there i s recharge i n both
portions o f the AMA but probably more i n the East SRV where there i s more surface
water available and there i s a natural recharge from the flowing Salt River.
He added that there i s a1 so the waterlogging problem which i s an area of surplus
i n the West SRV, so they're both unique. He noted t h a t most o f the other
programs, though, are p r e t t y much measured uniformly i n the Groundwater Code,
GROUNDWATER CODE
STUDY COMMITTEE
SEPTEMBER 30, 1993
such as how t o d r i l l a well, water conservation requirements and l i m i t a t i o n s ,
requirements f o r an assured water supply, etc.; they are not AMA s p e c i f i c .
John Vickerv, r e ~ r e s e n t i n q Water Committee, Western Marico~ a Coal i t i o n
( WESTMARC), submitted his testimony on why the Phoenix AMA should not be
considered as a single e n t i t y i n water management. He submitted t h a t the overall
approach i s the need t o deal with r e a l i t y and not p o l i t i c s ; the r e a l i t y i s that
the Phoenix Val 1 ey i s made up o f separate hydro1 ogical groundwater subbasins and
t h e administration o f safe y i e l d must be t i e d t o these. This i s not an issue
o f s p l i t t i n g up the AMA but how t o administer the Phoenix AMA, taking i n t o
consideration the issue o f separate basins.
He gave a s l i d e presentation ( Attachment 3) showing a comparison o f the East
and West SRV addressing s i g n i f i c a n t geologic features i n the West SRV.
( Tape 1, Side B)
Mr. Vickery contended t h a t each subbasin should be treated separately as f a r as
i n f l o w and outflow so t h a t the diverse geologic features can be taken i n t o
account.
B i l l Chase. Water Advisor. Citv o f Phoenix, noted t h a t he agrees with a l o t of
Mr. Vickery's testimony, p a r t i c u l a r l y the portions about the complexity o f the
groundwater system. He contended t h a t ADWR needs additional funding f o r
c o l l e c t i o n o f data and studies t h a t are needed. He noted t h a t the City of
Phoenix, SRP, and several other e n t i t i e s are working with ADWR t o provide 1 i m i ted
funding f o r assistance i n groundwater e f f o r t s i n the area o f water q u a l i t y .
He gave a s l i d e presentation showing how the East and West SRV a f f e c t the City
o f Phoenix service area.
Mr. Chastain inquired about construction on the Salt River Indian Reservation
Community. Mr. Chase r e p l i e d t h a t t o his knowledge they have no projects i n t h i s
area.
He referred t o the l a s t page of the handout provided by ADWR ( Attachment 2 )
explaining the data associated with groundwater use and achieving a balance of
i n f l o w and outflow.
He submitted t h a t the law as it i s currently regulated does look at s i t e specific
items f o r many, many parts o f the regulation. He said the City of Phoenix, as
a p o l i t i c a l subdivision, i s being regulated on many items besides safe y i e l d ,
such as water conservation, and i f the AMA were divided, it would be very complex
f o r the kinds o f regulatory processes they have outside o f the safe y i e l d
equation. He added t h a t the City, as a p o l i t i c a l subdivision, i s moving very
well i n the d i r e c t i o n o f safe y i e l d , they are doing a good job o f reducing t h e i r
groundwater pumping, and are fortunate that CAP has been imp1 emented.
M r . Chase answered questions of M r . Overton concerning the achievement o f safe
y i e l d and groundwater recharge systems. He explained that groundwater recharge,
GROUNDWATER CODE
STUDY COMMITTEE
SEPTEMBER 30, 1993
i n some cases, could be used as a s u b s t i t u t e f o r water treatment by taking a
source o f surface water, running it through a water f i l t e r p l a n t , l e t t i n g it soak
and f i l t e r through the ground, and pumping it out as p a r t o f the groundwater
supply. He said recharge could also be used as a " bank account" because a
problem w i t h excess water i s where t o store it; surface water storage dams and
reservoirs are very expensive and d i f f i c u l t t o b u i l d ( environmentally) but
groundwater storage i s a good t o o l f o r a banking reserve. He said under the
Groundwater Management Act, mining groundwater ( taking out more than you put
back i n ) w i l l have t o cease. To s a t i s f y t h a t requirement, p a r t i e s can j o i n with
owners o f a groundwater recharge s i t e , have the water recharged and gain c r e d i t s
t o take the water out i n the area where the water i s p h y s i c a l l y located which
changes the groundwater mining a c t i v i t y t o a groundwater give- and- take a c t i v i t y .
The a b i l i t y t o manage on a large basis may be h e l p f u l t o a small e n t i t y .
John Keane, Executive Water Policv Analvst. S a l t River Project, i n response t o
Mr. Chastain's previous question, noted t h a t there are two major construction
p r o j e c t s on the S a l t R i v e r I n d i a n Reservation; one i s a new l a n d f i l l under
construction. He said up near Granite Reef Dam, the federal government i s
r e p a i r i n g one o f the siphons i n which the pipes are corroded.
He stated t h a t there are c l e a r l y separate East and West SRV Basins and some
smaller Subbasins w i t h p e c u l i a r problems o f t h e i r own. He said t h e i r system runs
across the two big basins and t h e i r concern i s m u l t i p l i c a t i o n o f bureaucratic
burdens by dealing with two d i f f e r e n t AMA s t a f f s and sets o f r u l e s when moving
water simultaneously back and f o r t h across these two boundaries.
He submitted t h a t the two basins, by and large, are s i m i l a r i n a l o t o f ways:
1. Both have had overdrafts over the l a s t s i x o r seven
decades.
2. Both have had a groundwater l e v e l r i s e i n the l a s t ten
years, due t o wet weather.
3. Both have l a r g e areas w i t h surface water r i g h t s as well
as l a r g e areas without surface water r i g h t s .
4. Both have large areas o f n i t r a t e contamination and
Superfund s i t e s .
He concluded by s t a t i n g t h a t since the problems the two basins have are
r e l a t i v e l y s i m i l a r , t r e a t i n g them i n a regulatory fashion i n the same way r i g h t
now makes sense, with ADWR changing some regulations as needed f o r c e r t a i n
l o c a t i o n s . He opined t h a t it i s important t h a t the Department study and obtain
more information, and urged the Committee t o consider a d d i t i o n a l funding f o r
t h i s purpose.
Perry Hubbard, Mavor, L i t c h f i e l d Park, expressed h i s appreciation o f the
Committee's courage i n opening " Pandora's box." He noted t h a t h i s basic
i n t e r e s t i n L i t c h f i e l d Park i s the q u a l i t y o f the water. He added t h a t i f any
GROUNDWATER CODE
STUDY COMMITTEE
SEPTEMBER 30, 1993
changes are made they should be reasonable, l o g i c a l and based on the r e a l i t y o f
the s i t u a t i o n , t o avoid problems l a t e r . He submitted that cones o f depression
should be recharged. He added t h a t they have plenty o f water i n L i t c h f i e l d Park
and do not need a recharge project i n t h e i r area.
James R. Mattison. Director. Sun Citv Homeowners Association, contended that the
Groundwater Act o f 1980 i s flawed and many o f the items a r i s i n g out o f it are
unconstitutional. He submitted t h a t there are two separate hydrologic basins
and they should be administered separately.
THE MEETING RECESSED AT 10: 55 A. M.
THE MEETING RECONVENED AT 11: 02 A. M.
Mr. D i s h l i p gave a s l i d e presentation showing an overview o f the Arizona
recharge program ( Attachments 4, 5 and 6).
( Tape 2, Side A)
Kathv Chavez, Manaqer. Office o f C a ~ i t a l Develo~ ment. Pima Countv Wastewater
Manaqement. Tucson, addressed how recent federal 1 egi s l ation a f f e c t s Arizona
recharge projects. She noted that when disposing o f e f f l u e n t , there are
b a s i c a l l y four options:
1. Discharging t o surface water some o f which recharges
i n t o the regional groundwater aquifer ( incidental
recharge). This i s an option they are presently ' using
( discharging i n t o the Santa Cruz River). They have t o
comply with state water q u a l i t y standards and federal
permits issued by the Environmental Protection Agency
( EPA). These standards have become consistently more
s t r i n g e n t ; r e c e n t l y EPA has focused t h e i r concerns on
t o x i c i t y p a r t i c u l a r l y as it relates t o aquatic and
w i l d l i f e i n the r i v e r s .
2. Discharging t o the groundwater which i s by v i r t u e o f the
f a c t t h a t they are discharging t o the surface water and
as e f f l u e n t runs down the r i v e r , some of it recharges
t o groundwater. Their f a c i l i t i e s must comply w i t h s t a t e
aquifer water qua1 i t y l i m i t s which i s done through a
state Aquifer Protection Permit ( APP) issued by ADEQ.
3. Reuse which requires compliance with the state's reuse
standards and i s the most cost- effective treatment f o r
them i n terms o f treatment standards, taking i n t o
consideration that federal permits are g e t t i n g more
stringent.
4. Evaporation which i s n ' t very p r a c t i c a l f o r any of the
flows i n the major Metropolitan areas.
GROUNDWATER CODE
STUDY COMMITTEE
SEPTEMBER 30, 1993
She submitted t h a t b a s i c a l l y t h e i r problem i s the Clean Water Act o f which the
major goal i s t o r e s t o r e the nation's waters t o fishable, swimmable standards.
She pointed out t h a t the Santa Cruz River i s a dry r i v e r most o f the year except
when there i s a major storm, so the issue here i s discharge t o streams which are
mostly d r y .
She noted t h a t the concern o f the EPA i s w i t h t o x i n s r e l a t i n g t o aquatic
wild1 i f e . Their most recent permit issued i n 1992 includes 1 i m i t s on the amount
o f c h l o r i n e because it i s t o x i c t o f i s h ; t h i s i s a r e a l impact r e q u i r i n g them
t o b u i l d d e c h l o r i n a t i o n f a c i l i t i e s which incurs a d d i t i o n a l expense f o r
operation. She said the permits also r e q u i r e t e s t i n g f o r the t o x i c i t y f o r
e f f l u e n t as it r e l a t e s t o f i s h ; areas o f concern here are concentrations o f
ammonia i n wastewater. This concern may require major modifications t o t h e i r
treatment f a c i l i t i e s t o remove ammonia as well as dehydrafication f a c i l i t i e s t o
make sure the n i t r a t e s i n the water do not a f f e c t the groundwater as well.
She explained t h a t i n d u s t r i e s which discharge i n t o t h e i r municipal sewage have
t o obtain permits from them and they control what kinds o f t o x i n s they can put
i n t o the sewer system. As federal standards get more s t r i n g e n t , the kinds o f
businesses l o c a t i n g i n the community w i l l probably be affected. She said
pol 1 utants a1 so come from households, expressing a concern about 1 i m i t i n g the
amount o f zinc although the water agency i s a c t u a l l y p u t t i n g zinc or the
phosphate i n t o the water supply because o f the corrosive c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the
CAP water.
She said these concerns are leading them t o look a t options such as zero
discharge and taking e f f l u e n t out o f the r i v e r and reusing it. She said the
impact r e s u l t i n g from zero discharge i s t h a t they can use e f f l u e n t t o replace
groundwater pumping, possibly f o r a g r i c u l t u r e . She noted t h a t the major force
i n consideration o f reuse options i s t o keep the rates as low as they can t o the
pub1 i c .
She stated t h a t the downside o f zero discharge i s t h a t because o f continuous
discharges over the years, a r i p a r i a n h a b i t a t has been established along the
Santa Cruz River ( downstream), and i f zero discharge i s used, t h a t h a b i t a t would
be eliminated. Also, they would probably be e l i m i n a t i n g some o f the i n c i d e n t a l
discharge.
She said they are working with some agencies i n C a l i f o r n i a , Nevada and New
Mexico, and Arizona through an organization c a l l e d Western Coal i t i o n o f A r i d
States. It consists o f 50 water and wastewater agencies whose goal i s t o make
sure t h a t water q u a l i t y regulations and l e g i s l a t i o n and p o l i c y are developed t o
promote p r o t e c t i o n o f the a r i d West. She noted t h a t the problem i s t h a t EPA
hasn't conducted the research necessary t o determine what kind o f water q u a l i t y
standards are applicable t o the a r i d regions.
She r e l a t e d the f a c t t h a t members o f the Coal i t i o n are presently i n Washington,
D. C. working on proposed amendments asking f o r research t o develop appropriate
c r i t e r i a f o r the a r i d West. They are also interested i n acquiring appropriate
GROUNDWATER CODE
STUDY COMMITTEE
SEPTEMBER 30, 1993
standards f o r canals and would l i k e t o see the state's maintain that
r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . They would l i k e t o see the federal government recognize that
e f f l u e n t i s a valuable resource t h a t should be used.
I n summary, she said the federal water qual i t y programs are basically what i s
d r i v i n g zero discharge; they need t o keep t h e i r cost as low as possible by
looking at other options other than discharging options, such as reuse. A t the
present it looks 1 i ke it makes sense t o push the water qual i t y c r i t e r i a f o r our
a r i d region. They would also 1 i ke t o see optimum use o f e f f l u e n t , not only
reuse, but a combination o f uses, perhaps i f they had appropriate water q u a l i t y
standards, they could continue t o discharge and maintain some sort o f r i p a r i a n
h a b i t a t and also increase reuse o f e f f l u e n t . She would 1 i ke t o see some o f the
state rules and 1 egi s l ation support more reuse and would a1 so 1 i ke t o work with
the state i n streamlining the APP rules. She contended t h a t e f f l u e n t does
provide some incidental recharge t o the groundwater, and it i s a major part of
the water q u a l i t y management equation.
Mr. Schottel thanked Ms. Chavez f o r coming t o the meeting from Baja, Arizona and
agreed t h a t the local areas should be allowed t o determine what i s best f o r the
community. Ms. Chavez c l a r i f i e d f o r Mr. Overton that the majority o f t h e i r
water i s discharged t o the r i v e r ; they do not get c r e d i t f o r t h i s water but the
City o f Tucson has applied t o ADWR f o r a passive recharge c r e d i t and t h a t issue
i s under negotiation.
Paul Kinshell a. Wastewater P la nninq Enqineerinq S u ~ e r vsio r. C it v o f Phoenix,
noted t h a t the City operates two wastewater treatment plants, one at 23rd Avenue
by the Durango corner, and one at 91st Avenue and the Salt River ( m u l t i - c i t y
plant). These plants are required t o discharge and meet regulations imposed by
permits issued by EPA which are renewed on a five- year basis. The Clean Water
Act a1 so requires t h a t ADEQ develop water qual i t y standards every three years.
He noted that, h i s t o r i c a l l y , the trend f o r these permits has been f o r them t o
become more p r o h i b i t i v e on what can be discharged and t o regulate more
parameters. At present, the rules have required a decrease i n the amounts of
pollutants present i n order t o protect f o r f i s h consumption and f o r aquatic and
wild1 i f e i n effluent- dominated streams; t h i s water i s too good t o throw away.
He said presently they are reusing water d i r e c t l y by an agreement with the
Arizona Nuclear Power Plant ( ANPP) at Palo Verde, and i n agreement with the
Buckeye I r r i g a t i o n D i s t r i c t from the 91st Avenue Plant which amounts t o about
75,000 acre- feet o f water per year.
He noted t h a t at the 23rd Avenue Plant they are about t o i n i t i a t e an exchange
project with the Roosevel t I r r i g a t i o n D i s t r i c t and SRP f o r an exchange o f up t o
30,000 acre- feet which w i l l come back t o them as potable water from the SRP
system.
He said at the 91st Avenue Plant when they ~ " r t e d looking at the impact of the
proposed water q u a l i t y standards before they were adopted they determined that
they should look at reuse rather than treatment ( at a cost o f $ 370,000,000) i f
GROUNDWATER CODE
STUDY COMMITTEE
SEPTEMBER 30, 1993
the standards were adopted at the proposed rate. Fortunately, before the
standards were adopted, they were revised, p r a c t i c a l q u a n t i t a t i o n l i m i t s were
appl ied t o that, and so they could, by an expenditure o f about $ 45,000,000, hope
t o achieve compliance on discharge t o the r i v e r .
He said i f they had t o discontinue discharge, as an a l t e r n a t i v e t o spending the
$ 370,000,000, they looked at d i r e c t reuses. They found at the 91st Avenue Plant
t h a t there were not s u f f i c i e n t d i r e c t reuses year round t o use a l l o f t h e i r
water; they needed a storage component. They found t h a t surface storage would
be very expensive and a potential f o r degradation i n q u a l i t y , but underground
storage & recovery would enhance and be protective o f the q u a l i t y o f the water.
He said they have searched f o r sites and they have about two more years o f
research before they can reach a decision on whether t h i s project i s feasible;
the potential cost would be approximately $ 200,000 i f the water q u a l i t y
standards are set at the same level at which they were o r i g i n a l l y proposed.
Mr. K i nshel 1 a answered several questions o f Mr. Overton concerning t h e i r p l ants
and federal standards f o r discharge t o r i v e r s .
Bob McCain. Proqram Manaqer, Arizona M u n i c i ~ a l Water Users Association,
addressed recharge and withdrawal s from outside the area o f hydro1 ogical impact.
He said it allows a community which may not have an adequate recharge s i t e
w i t h i n i t s service area t o put a recharge project i n one area and withdraw
c r e d i t s from t h a t project w i t h i n i t s service area without having t o b u i l d a
treatment plant or pipe1 ines. He added that the a b i l i t y t o recharge i n one area
and recover i n another area i s fundamental t o the e f f i c i e n t , economical, and
successful operation o f the Central Arizona Groundwater Replenishment D i s t r i c t .
B i l l Chase, Water Advisor, C i t y o f Phoenix, concurred with Mr. McCain's
comments .
David Iwanski. Executive Vice President, Aqri- Business Council o f Arizona,
referred t o a handout ( Attachment 7) noting that Campbell's Soup was interested
i n relocating i n Arizona i n 1991. Due t o t h i s map which estimates t h a t by the
year 2000 Arizona w i l l have a water a v a i l a b i l i t y problem, they decided not t o
pursue t h i s state f o r a l l future c i t i n g . He said it i s unfortunate that f o r a l l
the work the Legislature does i n terms o f promoting a pro- business climate and
f a c i l i t a t i n g economic development, there are sophisticated national companies
with the perception that Arizona has a water problem. He contended that
Arizona, i n fact, has an abundance o f water and power and t h a t i s a story which
needs t o be t o l d .
He addressed recharge, noting that a g r i c u l t u r a l e n t i t i e s support a1 1 forms as
a water management tool, with cautions. He pointed out the need i n these
programs t o make sure that the water i s not denigrated i n the e x i s t i n g aquifer.
He opined t h a t there w i l l be increasing federal mandates, and from Arizona's
perspective, control at the state level should be stressed as well as an
acknowledgement that effluent- dominant streams should be governed d i f f e r e n t l y .
GROUNDWATER CODE
STUDY COMMITTEE
SEPTEMBER 30, 1993
He said there i s a need t o make sure t h a t the potential t o store water i s cost-e
f f e c t i v e . He cautioned t h a t when using recharge i n riverbeds, there i s a
potential t o create r i p a r i a n areas which generates future obl igations t o
maintain or sustain t h a t habitat as opposed t o stopping the recharge f o r some
other necessary future resource response.
He related t o Mr. Overton that he f i r m l y believes there i s an opportunity f o r
the use o f e f f l u e n t i n agriculture. He noted t h a t a t one time a f e a s i b i l i t y
study was conducted t o develop cost estimates f o r taking the e f f l u e n t generated
from the 91st Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant not under contract, and piping
it through the Gila River Indian Reservation f o r u t i l i z a t i o n , then f u r t h e r down
i n t o Pinal County i n t o some o f the larger i r r i g a t i o n d i s t r i c t s f o r u t i l i z a t i o n .
He noted t h a t it i s expensive and a f i n a l determination as t o whether it i s cost
p r o h i b i t i v e w i l l be made l a t e r .
Mr. Overton encouraged Mr. Iwanski t o inform him o f any proposals t h a t his
organization has f o r possible l e g i s l a t i o n .
Matt Orteqa. Leqisl ative Liaison, Arizona Department o f Environmental Qual i t y
( ADEQL, noted t h a t Brian Munson w i l l provide an overview o f the Aquifer
Protection Permit ( APP) program.
Brian Munson, Assistant Director, Office of Water Qual i ty, Arizona Department
o f Environmental Quality ( ADEQ), explained that the APP program i s designed t o
p r o t e c t t h e groundwaters i n Arizona at drinking water consumption levels by
using federal l y promulgated drinking water standards t o i d e n t i f y what those
l e v e l s are. He said ADEQ provides permits t o permanent f a c i l i t i e s which have
the potential t o supply drinking water a f t e r making sure they are able t o meet
the standards. He added that there i s also a backup provision called Best
Available Demonstrated Control Technology ( BADCT) which means that besides
demonstrating t h a t aquifer water q u a l i t y standards can be met, additional
technological control must be applied at the s i t e o f treatment which would
f u r t h e r prevent any discharge t o groundwater, e. g. f o r a l a n d f i l l , a 1 iner with
leachate protection.
He noted t h a t the permits are presently issued f o r the l i f e o f a f a c i l i t y ,
adding t h a t the Department has a substantial backlog o f permits. He c l a r i f i e d
f o r Mr. Overton t h a t i n the event of a geologic event which would jeopardize a
project, they would have the authority t o shut down a f a c i l i t y but it would have
t o be a very extreme case.
M r . Munson answered questions of Mr. Overton concerning water q u a l i t y standards.
He contended t h a t they are r e a l i z i n g some improvements i n t h e i r a b i l i t y t o issue
permits. M r . Overton suggested r a i s i n g the cost o f the permit so they could
speed up the process.
( Tape 2, Side B)
M r . Chastain asked about a small plant which makes Similac f o r babies and a
copper company i n h i s d i s t r i c t , both o f which have been frustrated with the time
GROUNDWATER CODE
STUDY COMMITTEE
SEPTEMBER 30, 1993
it i s taking them t o obtain a permit. Mr. Munson r e p l i e d t h a t he i s aware o f
both issues; i n the case o f the Similac p l a n t , there i s a question o f . biological
contamination. He said they have allowed them t o continue using t h e i r e x i s t i n g
new use permits u n t i l they have better defined the appropriate way t o handle the
s i t u a t i o n .
Mr. Overton also extended the o f f e r t o Mr. Munson f o r input f o r future
l e g i s l a t i o n .
Les Meredith, Chairman, Water Watch o f Sun City, indicated t h a t the Groundwater
Replenishment D i s t r i c t i s supposed t o be voluntary but he was t o l d at the l a s t
meeting with ADWR t h a t it i s voluntary f o r the Sun City Water Company t o j o i n
but the people o f Sun City who pay the b i l l s have no input; so it i s not
voluntary as f a r as Sun City i s concerned.
Anthony A b r i l , Jr., r e ~ r e s e n t i n q Neiqhborhood S o i r i t Association, voiced his
opinion t h a t South Phoenix water rates have been abused f o r the benefit of large
corporate e n t i t i e s .
Chairman Overton announced that the next meeting w i l l be held on October 12 at
9: 00 a. m. t o discuss conservation measures and how they are appl ied by ADWR, as
well as other topics.
Without objection, the meeting adjourned at 12: 50 p. m.
Linda Taylor, Committee Secretary
( Attachments and tapes are on f i l e i n the Office of the Chief Clerk).
GROUNDWATER CODE
STUDY COMMITTEE
SEPTEMBER 30, 1993
ARIZONA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
I N T E R I M MEETING N O T I C E
Open to the Public
GROUNDWATER CODE STUDY COMMITTEE
DATE: Tuesday, October 12, 1993
TIME: 9: 00 a. m.
PLACE: House Hearing Room 1
AGENDA:
1. Agency Service Area Rules in Regards to Expansion
Expansi on Requi rements and Procedures
- Gary Yaquinto, Director of the U t i l i t i e s Division, Arizona
Corporation Commission
- Steve Olson, Special Assistant to the Director, Department of Water
Resources
- Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
2. Groundwater Storage, Recovery, and Recharge
Description of current and planned underground storage and recovery
projects and indirect recharge projects
- Grant Ward, Assistant General Manager for Planning and Environment,
Central Arizona Water Conservation District
3. ~ u ncii pal Conservation Requirements
Historical Background, Requirements, Formula, and Sanctions
- Tom Carr, Assistant to the Deputy Director, Department of Water
Resources
- Bob 0' Leary, Executive Director, Water Uti 1 i ty Association of
Ari zona
- Michael Tubbs, Water Di rector, City of Tucson
- George Fletcher, Water Resources Manager, City of Tempe
- Robert Musselwhite, City Manager, City of Litchfield Park
4. PublicTestimony
Jerrv Overton 7 Chairman
MEMBERS :
Representative Schottel
Representative Chastain
10/ 7/ 93
P s
ARIZONA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
F o r t y - f i r s t Legislature - F i r s t Regular Session
I n t e r i m Committee Meeting
GROUNDWATER CODE STUDY COMMITTEE
Minutes o f Meeting
Tuesday, October 12, 1993
House Hearing Room 1 - 9: 00 a. m.
( Tape 3, Side A)
The meeting was c a l l e d t o order by Chairman Overton a t 9: 05 a. m. and attendance
was noted.
Members Present
Mr. Chastain Mr. Schottel Mr. Overton, Chairman
Members Absent
None
Speakers Present
Gary Yaquinto, D i r e c t o r o f t h e U t i l i t i e s D i v i s i o n , Arizona Corporation Commission
( ACC)
Steve Olson, Special Assistant t o the D i r e c t o r , Arizona Department o f Water
~ esources ( ADWR)
Brian Munson, Assistant D i r e c t o r , O f f i c e of Water Q u a l i t y , Arizona Department
o f Environmental Qua1 i t y ( ADEQ)
Grant Ward, Assistant General Manager, Central Arizona Water Conservation
D i s t r i c t ( CAWCD)
Tom Carr, Assistant t o Deputy D i r e c t o r f o r Water Management, Arizona Department
o f Water Resources ( ADWR)
Norm James, Counsel, Water U t i l i t y Association o f Arizona ( WUAA)
Dennis Rule, Planning Program Coordinator, C i t y o f Tucson
George Fletcher, Water Resources Manager, C i t y o f Tempe
Robert Musselwhi te, C i t y Manager, City o f L i t c h f i e l d Park
Gene Jensen, representing Sun C i t y Homeowners Associ at i on
Arve H. Dahl , representing Property Owners and Residents Association o f Sun City
West
James Mattison, representing Sun C i t y Homeowners Association
Guest L i s t ( Attachment 1)
Chairman Overton announced t h a t the o r i g i n a l plan was t o meet i n approximately
two weeks but the next meeting w i l l be held November 16 ( probably at 9: 00 a. m.).
He noted t h a t the Committee subjects t o date have been those brought t o h i s
GROUNDWATER CODE STUDY COMMITTEE
OCTOBER 12, 1993
attention for possible changes. He said a month will be allowed for other
organizations to address subjects they believe require legislation; they can be
given to him or Teri Grier, House Research Analyst, for the agenda on November
16. He requested that a week to ten days be allowed before the next meeting for
the needed research. He reiterated his theme for the Committee: " If it ain't
broke, don't break it." He said this next meeting will be the last for
testimony, and shortly after Thanksgiving, the Committee will meet to adopt
recommendations.
Chairman Overton explained that the first item on the agenda, Expansion
Requirements and Procedures, addresses procedures for water companies expanding
into new areas, noting that there has been some criticism of these procedures
because they involve three agencies ( Arizona Corporati on Commission, Arizona
Department of Water Resources ( ADWR} and the Department of Environmental Qua1 ity
{ ADEQ}); sometimes this involves quite a bit of time and sometimes they aren't
perceived as being fair.
Garv Yaauinto, Director of the Uti 1 i ties Division, Arizona Corporation Commi ssion
( ACC) , introduced several other ACC staff members in attendance: Pat Wi 11 i ams,
Supervisor, Consumer Services Section; Steve Olea, Chief Engineer, Utilities
Division; and Mary Martin, Legislative Liaison. He said they all work in the
area of regulating water companies and are available to answer questions.
He exp1, ined that expansion and extension of the water service territory at the
Corporation Commission involves obtaining a Certificate of Convenience and
Necessity ( CC& N) which is basically a compact between the utility and the public
it serves. It states that in exchange for the utility's guarantee to invest in
facilities, serve its customers and provide adequate safe service to its
customers, the Corporation Commission grants that util i ty an exclusive franchise
to do so. Under the State Constitution, the ACC is also required by law to set
rates to enable the utility to recover its costs for providing service and an
opportunity to earn a reasonable return on the utility's investment in its
facilities.
He pointed out one exception to the CC& N process which involves a utility
desiring to serve a geographically contiguous area that is not currently being
served by any other utility; known as run- along rights. A utility that extends
service into an area that is contiguous to its service territory may do so using
its run- along rights. He added that the analysis done for these situations is
very similar to the analysis performed in granting a new CC& N or an extension
to an existing CC& N.
He also specified that the courts have interpreted the extension of service into
contiguous areas as the equivalent of the Commission granting a CC& N; in essence,
those extended services become part of the utility's area to provide service.
He noted that the primary consideration by the ACC when evaluating an application
by a utility for a new CC& N or an extension to an existing CC& N is whetkr or
not it is in the public interest. To gain a CC& N, he named several items
required by a utility:
GROUNDWATER CODE STUDY COMMITTEE
2 OCTOBER 12, 1993
1. Proof t h a t there i s a need f o r service i n the area where
they desire t o provide the service.
2. Proof o f technical and f i n a n c i a l a b i l i t y t o provide the
service.
3. Proof t h a t the proposed extension w i l l not have an
adverse e f f e c t upon the e x i s t i n g customers.
4. Proof t h a t it i s a fit and proper e n t i t y t o acquire a
CC& N.
He conveyed the f i l i n g requirements by the ACC f o r applicants f o r a new CC& N or
an extension o f a CC& N:
1. F i l i n g o f a f i n a n c i a l statement demonstrating t h e i r
f i n a n c i a l a b i l i t y t o provide the service.
2. F i l i n g o f copies o f a l l requirements t h a t must be
f u l f i l led f o r other state and local government agencies,
e. g., approval t o construct f a c i l i t i e s which i s issued
by ADEQ and the c e r t i f i c a t e o f an assured water supply
issued by ADWR.
3. F i l i n g o f a legal description o f the area it intends t o
serve.
He conveyed the steps at the ACC f o r evaluation and recommendation once the
application i s made:
1. The u t i l i t y i s required t o provide notice o f the
application t o property owners i n the area t o which the
service i s being extended, as well as t o i t s e x i s t i n g
customers.
2. The ACC s t a f f reviews the application and prepares a
s t a f f report evaluating a l l the information t h a t the
u t i l i t y has provided i n support of the application and
makes recommendation f o r consideration by the hearing
o f f i c e r appointed t o the case, and the Commission
i t s e l f .
3. A hearing i s scheduled and held, presided over by a
hearing o f f i c e r o f the Commission.
4. After the hearing i s held, the hearing o f f i c e r considers
a l l the evidence, including the s t a f f report, and
prepares a recommended order which goes t o the
Commission f o r t h e i r consideration at one of t h e i r
regul a r l y scheduled meetings.
GROUNDWATER CODE STUDY COMMITTEE
3 OCTOBER 12, 1993
He concluded by s t a t i n g t h a t t y p i c a l l y t h i s process takes between 90 t o 180 days
from the date the application i s f i l e d t o the date the Commission issues a
decision f o r approval o f the new CC& N.
Mr. Yaquinto agreed t o provide d e t a i l s of t h i s process i n w r i t i n g t o M r .
Chastain. I n answer t o Chairman Overton, he observed t h a t the concept o f the
CC& N probably dates back t o the o r i g i n o f the Corporation Commission and the
regulations o f public service corporations which goes back t o statehood. He
agreed with Chairman Overton that the charge o f the ACC i s found i n the Arizona
Constitution. He ventured that the Commission's authority i n t h i s process i s
contained i n both the State Constitution and the enabling statutes of the
Commission.
Chairman Overton addressed the concept o f " run- along r i g h t s " noting t h a t there
have been charges i n the past that water u t i l i t i e s may go out on t h e i r own and
construct l i n e s , then when they are " caught" without having a CC& N, they may
claim t h a t run- along r i g h t s i s the basis f o r t h e i r action.
Mr. Yaquinto agreed that, unfortunately, it does happen that way. What a
u t i l i t y i s supposed t o do when they desire t o serve a contiguous area i s f i l e
a Main Extension with the ACC f o r review and approval. He conceded t h a t i f t h i s
i s done and the ACC does not approve it, they would e i t h e r cut o f f the service
or f i n d another provider more capable of providing the service. He added that
the ACC has the c a p a b i l i t y o f issuing revocations o f c e r t i f i c a t e s i n the most
disastrous situations; they a1 so have the a b i l i t y through statutes t o impose
fines when a u t i l i t y i s not conducting i t s business according t o state statutes,
the State Constitution and rules and regulations promulgated by the Commission.
Chairman Overton asked i f there i s a need f o r more stringent l e g i s l a t i o n t o
address t h i s . M r . Yaquinto replied that he believes the Commission's rules and
regulations are very clear, and when they f i n d instances o f v i o l a t i o n s they
attempt t o go out and undertake enforcement action. He said he doesn't be1 ieve
a d d i t i o n a l s t a t u t e s would assist t h a t action; the problem i s one o f having
s u f f i c i e n t time and resources t o go out and f i n d those who are v i o l a t i n g the
rules. He said he cannot r e c a l l a case i n which a u t i l i t y has been fined f o r
abusing run- along r i g h t s but that doesn't mean that it hasn't happened.
Steve Olson, S ~ e c i a l Assistant t o the Director, Arizona De~ artment of Water
Resources ( ADWR), addressed service area concepts used at ADWR. He noted that
t h i s i s probably one o f the most d i f f i c u l t concepts t o f o l l o w because there are
over 20 references ( Attachment 2) t o service area i n the Groundwater Code.
Mr. Olson emphasized three major points:
1. The service area i s the area actually being served by
the water company and i s specified through an annual map
which must be provided t o ADWR by March 31.
2. To expand the service area, the provider must b u i l d the
delivery system and bring the system t o operational
status.
GROUNDWATER CODE STUDY COMMITTEE
4 OCTOBER 12, 1993
3. To serve t o t h i s expanded service area, t h e p r o v i d e r
must be designated as having an assured water supply by
ADWR, or the development t h a t would be served could
apply f o r a c e r t i f i c a t e o f assured water supply which
means it has i t s stand- alone water supply.
He pointed out t h a t the Groundwater Replenishment D i s t r i c t ( GRD) formed by the
passage o f S. B. 1425, Groundwater Replenishment D i s t r i c t ; Central Arizona, does
provide a mechanism f o r some o f the providers who meet assured water supply
requirements as they s t a r t t o phasedown groundwater use. This provision w i l l
provide some o f the smaller water providers t h a t don't have the wherewithal the
a b i l i t y t o develop a whole d e l i v e r y system from the CAP ( through recharge
provisions which were discussed at the l a s t meeting).
Mr. Olson r e l a t e d a court case ( known as the Peppertree case) i n which the City
o f Tucson i n the 1980' s wanted t o provide water s e r v i c e o u t s i d e o f t h e i r
e x i s t i n g d i s t r i b u t i o n system. A water users association challenged t h i s s t a t i n g
t h a t the City o f Tucson shouldn't be able t o expand t h a t r a p i d l y . The court
b a s i c a l l y determined t h a t before a water provider could expand and include new
houses i n a s e r v i c e area, t h a t the water provider had t o b u i l d the d i s t r i b u t i o n
system and b r i n g it t o operational s t a t u s .
He conveyed t h a t ADWR's r o l e when receiving CC& N a p p l i c a t i o n s i s t o make sure
t h a t the provider has a 100- year assured water supply; the next step i s t o work
w i t h the ACC and ADWR t o insure t h a t there i s water and t h a t it would be
included w i t h i n t h e i r CC& N boundaries. Insuring t h a t there i s a water supply
o f an adequate q u a l i t y and quantity i s p a r t o f the Department's assured water
supply provisions.
Chairman Overton asked i f a developer i n the desert can obtain an assured water
supply by s t a t i n g t h a t he w i l l use CAP water i n the f u t u r e . M r . 01 son rep1 ied
t h a t a c i t y or town could do t h a t i f they had a contract f o r an a1 l o c a t i o n
through the Secretary o f the I n t e r i o r , and would have t o be taking some steps
i n taking t h a t water. For a p r i v a t e water company, they a c t u a l l y have t o be
capable o f taking the CAP water before it would be included. There i s some
vagueness i n terms o f taking steps t o take the water. Some areas have
agreements w i t h a c i t y or town t o obtain water through an e x i s t i n g treatment
p l a n t ; there are other operating agreements i n the East Valley where p r i v a t e
water companies have made agreements with c i t i e s and towns, such as Scottsdale.
Chairman Overton questioned when the new assured water supply r u l e s w i l l be
implemented. Mr. Olson noted t h a t the Department has a deadline o f 1995; they
hope t o be taking the r u l e s through the Governor's Regulatory Review Committee
process i n November or December o f t h i s year. They are c u r r e n t l y i n the process
o f obtaining as much p u b l i c review and comment as possible before a c t u a l l y
submitting the d r a f t r u l e s .
Mr. Olson r e i t e r a t e d f o r Chairman Overton t h a t a l l the Department has t o submit
t o the ACC f o r an extension i s c l a r i f i c a t i o n o f a 100- year assured water supply,
and perform some informal coordination.
GROUNDWATER CODE STUDY COMMITTEE
5 OCTOBER 12, 1993
Mr. Schottel asked how a 100- year assured water supply i s determined with
consumption versus recharge. Mr. 01 son explained t h a t ADWR looks at the actual
hydrology water i n place; they only look t o a c e r t a i n depth ( 1200 feet) t o
determine if the impact o f the groundwater pumpage f o r the projected use from
the area w i l l lower the groundwater table i n that area below t h a t 1200 feet or
the depth t h a t groundwater i s known t o be occurring. For CAP water, where
contracts are f o r a 50- year period, they consider t h a t as something t h a t would
be r o l l e d over t o meet the 100- year requirement.
Chairman Overton asked the d e f i n i t i o n o f " safe yield." Mr. Olson said it i s a
goal, the p r a c t i c a l application o f which i s that no more groundwater w i l l be
pumped out o f the ground than i s actually going back i n t o the ground from
natural and a r t i f i c i a1 means ( natural, incidental and a r t i f i c i a1 recharge).
This i s done on an accounting system w i t h i n a groundwater basin which i s
equivalent t o an Active Management Area ( AMA).
Brian Munson. Assistant Director. Office o f Water Oual i tv, Arizona Department
o f Environmental Oualitv ( ADEQ1, noted t h a t his Department's r o l e i n the CC& N
process i s t o require t h a t plans and specifications be submitted f o r review i n
accordance with t h e i r c r i t e r i a f o r storage, construction, avoidance o f cross-contamination
problems, maintaining pressure w i t h i n the service area and other
problems t h a t may arise concerning water qua1 i t y . Ultimately, they issue an
approval t o construct which i s needed f o r legal operation. He c l a r i f i e d f o r
Chairman Overton t h a t the e n t i t y doing the 1 ine extension has the responsi b i l i t y
t o go t o the ACC and ADEQ separately.
I n r e l a t i o n t o water q u a l i t y , M r . Munson. said that i s related t o the source; i n
most cases they would have a good idea o f what that source i s providing. As the
number o f hookups i s increased, there may be increasing requirements f o r q u a l i t y
but they s t i l l require t h a t the source be characterized. He said t h e i r concerns
with a d i s t r i b u t i o n system would probably be related t o proper c h l o r i n a t i o n
w i t h i n the system and t h e b a c t e r i o l o g i c a l problems t h a t would arise, as well as
any instances where cross- connection with a sewer l i n e , f o r example, might be
a problem.
Chairman Overton asked about situations where u t i l i t i e s may have jumped the gun
and constructed a system. Mr. Yaquinto noted that unless a u t i l i t y makes
application t o the Commission, they would not know about a permit t o construct
t h a t has been issued although they t a l k with ADEQ on a formal basis a l l the
time.
Chairman Overton asked if i n these cases where the system has been constructed,
they would have t o obtain a permit from ADEQ f o r the construction. M r . Yaquinto
stated t h a t he would assume t h a t ADEQ has already issued the permit; i f they
have not, the u t i l i t y i s i n v i o l a t i o n of state law. They w i l l only issue a CC& N
with the construction permit i n hand.
I n answer t o a question from M r . Overton, M r . Munson said the construction
permits generally take too long f o r issuance from most people's perspective, but
t h e i r regulations require turn- around approval i n 30 days. Most o f the time
GROUNDWATER CODE STUDY COMMITTEE
6 OCTOBER 12, 1993
t h i s i s done i n 30 days, but due t o the f a c t that they can't adjust t h e i r s t a f f ,
there are times when they are pushing 40 days. There i s no charge f o r t h i s
permit .
Chairman Overton explained t h a t Item 2 on the agenda, Groundwater Storage,
Recovery and Recharge, was discussed at the l a s t meeting but there was testimony
t h a t was n o t a v a i l a b l e at t h a t time which i s the reason it i s on today's agenda.
Grant Ward, Assistant Genera1 Manaqer, Central Arizona Water Conservation
D i s t r i c t ( CAWCD), referred t o a map showing CAWCD i n d i r e c t recharge projects
since 1982 ( Attachment 3). He said two projects i n the Tucson area have been
added since t h i s map was produced.
( Tape 3, Side B)
He said the second page o f the handout i d e n t i f i e s the amount o f water they have
recharged since January, 1992. The f o l l owing two charts i d e n t i f y the projects
and where the c r e d i t s were made ( the figures f o r August and September are
estimated).
He explained t h a t f o r the most part, the projects have been done i n conjunction
with I r r i g a t i o n D i s t r i c t s ; Pinal and Maricopa Counties have been the two major
p a r t i c i p a n t s throughout these two years. In essence, they have t o show ADWR,
i n return f o r g e t t i n g these credits, that they i d e n t i f i e d someone who otherwise
would have used groundwater t o supply t h e i r usage f o r that year. To the extent
that they i d e n t i f y those acres of groundwater, they receive c r e d i t s i f they then
bring i n other waters ( i n t h i s case CAP water) t o replace that. He contended
t h a t it i s a good program and has some value f o r future use.
He added t h a t under the compact o f the Colorado River, at the end o f any given
year i f Arizona does not use t h a t water, it i s gone. A1 so, i f someone were t o
use t h e i r groundwater pump and pump t h a t acre- foot o f water i n the State o f
Arizona, t h a t acre- foot i s now gone. So recharge allows them t o bring i n the
Colorado River water that they otherwise would not have been able t o use, use
it i n place o f the groundwater, and leave the groundwater i n place f o r use
sometime i n the future.
He noted that i n 1991 the Legislature passed a t a x o f four- cents per $ 100
assessed valuation i n Pima and Maricopa Counties f o r the purpose of building
d i r e c t recharge projects f o r demonstration and eventual use. He referred t o the
l a s t sheet o f the handout which i d e n t i f i e s these projects, giving an overview
of each one.
In addition t o these, he said they are also looking at the Santa Cruz River i n
conjunction with the Tohono O'odham Indian Tribe i n roughly the same area as the
Pima Mine Road s i t e t o be able t o put water i n f o r recharge purposes. They
recently received one additional request i n the Tucson area from a new water
d i s t r i c t ( Metropol i t a n Water Community) t o look at a s t a t e demonstration project
f o r the purpose o f recharging.
GROUNDWATER CODE STUDY COMMITTEE
7 OCTOBER 12, 1993
He opined t h a t d i r e c t recharge w i l l become prevalent i n the future with the
passage o f GRD 1 egi s l ation by assisting small water companies and municipal i t i e s
i n meeting t h e i r assured water supply and safe y i e l d rules.
He said they have i d e n t i f i e d other s i t e s on a preliminary basis but they have
t r i e d t o choose those which are more economically adept at t h i s point; and as
the need arises, they w i l l go beyond t h a t t o do other recharge.
Mr. Ward c l a r i f i e d f o r Chairman Overton t h a t the process used i n these projects
i s b u i l d i n g o f retention basins, spreading the water out and f i l t e r i n g it
through; they are not precluded from using i n j e c t i o n wells but they have not
proposed t h a t a t t h i s point.
Chairman Overton asked about the q u a l i t y of the CAP water and whether or not
t h i s i s a f f e c t i n g the q u a l i t y o f the water i n the aquifer. Mr. Ward responded
t h a t they have only done i n f i l t r a t i o n studies t o date which determine the rate
o f i n f i l t r a t i o n . They have not b u i l t any d i r e c t recharge projects, therefore,
they have nothing t o t e s t and monitor t o see how that impacts it. The i n d i r e c t
recharge projects are j u s t using water l i k e on a farmer's f i e l d ; therefore,
there i s nothing going d i r e c t l y i n t o the ground.
Chairman Overton, r e f e r r i n g t o the second page o f the handout, asked about the
c r e d i t s received by the Town o f Goodyear ( 92 c r e d i t s ) . Mr. Ward referred t o
the f i r s t page o f the handout. He explained that the Town o f Goodyear requested
purchase o f c r e d i t s from the Tonopah I r r i g a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( indicated i n ye1 low)
and those c r e d i t s are transferrable. He c l a r i f i e d that it i s cheaper f o r the
Town o f Goodyear t o use these c r e d i t s and t h i s water than t o b u i l d a treatment
plant a t t h i s point i n t h e i r growth; these c r e d i t s can count as actual water
supply which w i l l allow them to use t h e i r pumps but instead o f being penalized
f o r using t h e i r groundwater, t h i s i s actually CAP water t h a t they are being
given c r e d i t s f o r .
Mr. Chastain asked about the City o f Avondale's $ 1 m i l l i o n t o t a l , r e f e r r i n g to
the l a s t page o f the handout. Mr. Ward explained t h a t t h i s i s part o f the t o t a l
cost t h a t the City o f Avondale has t o spend t o b u i l d t h e i r treatment system;
t h e i r estimate i s between $ 7 m i l l i o n and $ 8 m i l l i o n , and they have asked CAWCD
t o p a r t i c i p a t e w i t h over $ 2 m i l l i o n . To the extent that they p a r t i c i p a t e , they
receive a percentage ( about 28 percent) o f that f a c i l i t y t o put recharge water
i n t o the ground. Based on that and projecting i n t o the future the c r e d i t s CAWCD
would be p u t t i n g i n t o that system i s how they a r r i v e at the cost; the cost on
the handout i s the actual cost related t o the f a c i l i t y , they s t i l l must pay the
cost o f the CAP water t o apply t o that system.
M r . Ward pointed out t h a t one of the reasons that d i r e c t recharge i s so slow to
get o f f the ground i s t h a t i n d i r e c t recharge i s much cheaper because f a c i l i t i e s
do not need t o be b u i l t which have t o then be spread back over the cost o f that
water; u n t i l they've been able t o get most of the pumps i d l e , there i s a great
push t o t r y and use i n d i r e c t recharge credits f i r s t .
He c l a r i f i e d f o r Chairman Overton that the four- cent tax has been collected
since 1991 and ends i n the summer of 1995. He referred t o the 1 ast page showing
GROUNDWATER CODE STUDY COMMITTEE
8 OCTOBER 12, 1993
monies projected t o be collected at the end of the year noting t h a t they have
not spent those monies t o date. They have been working with ADWR t o design the
program and get parties involved i n devel opment; they be1 i eve by the end o f 1994
t h a t a considerable amount o f those monies w i l l be u t i l i z e d but t o date there
i s a surplus. He mentioned t h a t CAWCD i s j u s t the operating agent f o r the state
demonstration p r o j e c t ; t h e funds are monitored by ADWR f o r CAWCD's use, and they
approve a l l expenditures. He c l a r i f i e d t h a t under state law regarding the state
demonstration funds, once they b u i l d a s i t e , they cannot charge a customer back
f o r those costs; they can charge from that day forward f o r operating and
maintenance costs but the s i t e i s b u i l t with tax d o l l a r s so there are no charges
t h a t go back t o the local communities or anybody using t h a t f a c i l i t y f o r t h e i r
water.
Tom Carr, Assistant t o Deputy Director f o r Water Manaqement, Arizona Department
o f Water Resources ( ADWR), noted t h a t the Department oversees conservation
requirements f o r water companies and other water users i n the Phoenix AMA. He
noted t h a t they are required by statute t o develop a water conservation program
f o r a l l users and publish those requirements i n a series o f groundwater
management plans published f o r each AMA. For municipal users, they are required
t o establish reasonable conservation requirements which r e s u l t i n reductions i n
gallons per capita per use w i t h i n service areas f o r c i t i e s , towns, and p r i v a t e
water companies, and they are also required t o come up with other conservation
measures f o r i n d i v i d u a l users ( Page 4, Attachment 4).
Their management plans are i n e f f e c t f o r a ten- year period; the f i r s t ten- year
period was 1980 t o 1990 and i s known as the F i r s t Management Period; w i t h i n t h a t
plan there were per capita water use r e s t r i c t i o n s f o r the municipal water users.
I n 1988, he said, they pub1 ished the Second Management Plan through the year
2000, and there w i l l be a Third, Fourth and F i f t h Management Plan through the
year 2025 when, i n the Phoenix and Tucson AMA, they have t o achieve safe y i e l d .
He said they developed the municipal water conservation program i n the 1980' s
by pooling together information on each one of the c i t i e s , towns and p r i v a t e
water companies. They reviewed t h e i r population, housing mix, 1 and use
patterns, projected popul ation, water use, 1 andscape design, price o f water, and
t h e i r e x i s t i n g conservation programs. I n addition, they reviewed the e f f e c t
weather would have on the use o f water w i t h i n a service area.
This was followed by an inventory o f conservation measures t h a t could be
u t i l i z e d i n Arizona compiled through an extensive l i t e r a t u r e search by
consultants and in- house s t a f f . Then they compared the potenti a1 water
conservation programs against what could be done f o r each i n d i v i d u a l service
area and performed a complete analysis w i t h t h a t information f o r each service
area. After discussion i n public forums and with the affected water users t o
make sure t h e i r analyses were as accurate as possible, they established a
numerical requirement i n Gallons Per Capita Per Day ( GPCPD) f o r the i n d i v i d u a l
water users. He said t h i s i s figured by taking a l l the water that i s withdrawn
w i t h i n a given service area and d i v i d i n g it by the population o f the service
area; they subtract out any water that i s e f f l u e n t t h a t i s being reused i n the
service area so one o f the ways a water provider can reduce i t s GPCPD i s t o
reuse e f f l u e n t which i s another conservation measure.
GROUNDWATER CODE STUDY COMMITTEE
9 OCTOBER 12, 1993
He said as they were developing t h i s program they real ized potential problems
which could crop up using t h i s GPCPD measurement:
1. Especially i n smaller water provider areas, i f there i s
any increased growth i n an i n d u s t r i al- commerci a1 sector
and there i s not a corresponding immediate growth i n
t h e i r popul ation, t h e i r GPCPD rate can skyrocket despite
t h e i r conservation programs.
2. Weather has a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on a year- to- year basis
on GPCPD; when it i s hotter and d r i e r ( summer) people
tend t o use more water; when it i s more humid ( monsoon
season) there i s a reduction i n water use.
3. ADWR requires a GPCPD measure o f compl i ance; they don't
require programs, and p r i v a t e water companies i n
p a r t i c u l ar, have t o go before the Corporation Commission
and defend t h e i r choice o f investments t o be made.
On the p o s i t i v e side, he said they found t h a t investments i n water conservation
tend t o be less expensive and very cost e f f e c t i v e than going out and finding new
water supplies t o substitute f o r groundwater use or t o increase the t o t a l water
supply f o r a service area.
He brought up more problems with the GPCPD measurement:
4. It i s not appropriate f o r i n s t i t u t i o n s , such as prisons
or hospitals with long- term residentslpatients.
5. A l o t o f water companies and m u n i c i p a l i t i e s are
investing i n the use o f CAP water and a l t e r n a t i v e
supplies o f water and there have been indications t h a t
the GPCPD requirement i s onerous t o them as they're
spending thei r money devel opi ng a1 ternat i ve suppl i es f o r
augmentation purposes and t o reduce t h e i r t o t a l
dependency on groundwater.
He said they t r i e d t o modify the Second Management Plan t o address some o f these
probl ems :
1. I n cases where weather has an e f f e c t on the GPCPD
causing fluctuations, they i n s t i t u t e d a f l e x i b i l i t y
account i n which c r e d i t s can be gained; i n one year i f
a l l water up t o GPCPD i s not used, then those years i n
which they go over those c r e d i t s can be used t o o f f s e t
future pumpage and GPCPD overages.
2. They establ ished an i n s t i t u t i o n a l category f o r s p e c i f i c
conservation requirements t h a t are not GPCPD- based f o r
prisons and long- term care f a c i l i t i e s .
GROUNDWATER CODE STUDY COMMITTEE
10 OCTOBER 12, 1993
3. For those extenuating circumstances when the GPCPD i s
affected by increased growth i n the nonresidenti a1
portion o f the water- using sector, they wrote i n a
special program called the Alternative Conservation
Program ( ACP).
He addressed requirements f o r program p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the ACP ( Page 2,
Attachment 4). He said t o date they have very few people who have chosen t o use
t h i s program; those who opted f o r it were unable t o meet t h e i r t o t a l GPCPD
requirement t h a t the Code envisioned.
He noted t h a t given some o f the problems they've had with implementation o f the
GPCPD program coupled with the need t o reduce groundwater pumpage and make sure
there i s an assured water supply i n the future f o r the c i t i e s , towns and water
companies, there became a need t o develop the GRD; along with t h a t was a
provision i n the Code which requires the Department t o modify the Second
Management Plan t o establ ish a program which i s not GPCPD- based but based on
actually p u t t i n g conservations programs on the ground w i t h i n the service areas.
He addressed the requirements t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n the Non Gallons Per Capita
Program ( NPCP) ( Page 2, Attachment 4 ) . They are presently i n the process o f
modifying the Second Management Plan t o design and adopt t h i s new program. Last
week they mailed out a concept paper t o affected water users f o r t h e i r comment.
He concluded by s t a t i n g t h a t development o f management plan requirements i s a
very intense and time- consuming process and they t r y t o involve as many members
o f the affected public as possible; they have established a very open process
f o r a good dialogue with the folks who w i l l be affected. He said adoption o f
the modifications must be done by December, 1994.
He referred t o a matrix comparing the three programs ( GPCPD, ACP and NPCP)
( Attachment 4).
Mr. Carr c l a r i f i e d f o r M r . Chastain that the process the Department uses t o
enforce the conservation requirements i s an administrative hearing process; they
have the authority t o l e v y f i n e s against those who don't meet t h e i r conservation
requirements. They normally negotiate with those who are out o f compliance and
set up a S t i p u l a t i o n and Consent Order which basically states t h a t the e n t i t y
i s out o f compliance and both parties consent t o g e t t i n g back i n t o compliance
on a c e r t a i n schedule. Within that Consent Order, there are fines which are
e i t h e r waived t o a minimal amount or completely waived t o allow the water
providers t o get back i n t o compliance with the Code. Most o f t h e i r compliance
actions have been through those S t i p u l a t i o n and Consent Orders. He said there
are a couple of areas where water providers have experienced e x t r a o r d i n a r i l y
large i n d u s t r i a l growth and they have w r i t t e n S t i p u l a t i o n and Consent Orders t o
change t h e i r requirements so they are more reasonable; they can modify
conservation requirements i n extraordinary circumstances.
Chairman Overton asked if there i s a provision i n the Code allowing a water
company t o dispute ADWR's figures through a r b i t r a t i o n o r court. Mr. Carr
GROUNDWATER CODE STUDY COMMITTEE
11 OCTOBER 12, 1993
responded t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s who believe they are adversely affected can request
an administrative hearing with ADWR on t h e i r p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n or they can
request a variance from the p a r t i c u l a r requirement with up t o f i v e years i n
order t o get i n t o compliance w i t h t h a t requirement. If there i s a disagreement
with t h e D i r e c t o r ' s order, it can be reviewed by the court.
Mr. Schottel asked t h e d i f f e r e n c e between water use o f a Phoenix and a Tucson
i n d i v i d u a l family. He brought up a " Beat the Peak" program implemented i n
Tucson several years ago; they met t h e i r goal and reduced t h e i r water
consumption, so the water company needed more money and had t o r a i s e the water
rates. Since Tucson already has a program and i s asked t o reduce f u r t h e r back
or they w i l l be penal ized, he asked how f a r back t h e i r water use can be reduced.
Mr. Carr r e p l i e d t h a t there i s a difference i n the base water use between
Phoenix and Tucson, probably about 100 gallons per capita difference. This was
taken i n t o consideration when the conservation requirements were set f o r both
c i t i e s ; Tucson was not expected t o reduce as much i n t o t a l as Phoenix. Since
then the Phoenix area c i t i e s have i n s t i t u t e d very comprehensive water
conservation programs t o meet GPCPD and reduce t h e i r average t o t a l use over
time.
Mr. Schottel noted t h a t he receives complaints from people that when they reduce
t h e i r use, a l o t o f times it r e s u l t s i n higher water rates.
Chairman Overton asked how accurate the Department's projections o f the 1980' s
were. Mr. Carr responded that, i n general, the projections were across- the-board
f o r a l l water users; where they have had differences between what was
projected and what actually occurred, probably the most d i f f e r e n t was i n the
a g r i c u l t u r a l sector where they reduced t h e i r t o t a l water use j u s t by not using
water. I n the municipal and i n d u s t r i a l sector, they have seen considerable
amounts o f savings but also had t o enter i n t o a l o t o f S t i p u l a t i o n and Consent
Orders around 1988. From 1980 t o 1990, he said there was a decline i n use i n
water i n many service areas; i n j u s t a few, they saw an increase.
Mr. Carr addressed loss o f water f o r Chairman Overton. This pertains t o the
loss between where the water i s withdrawn t o the point of d e l i v e r y . They
require t h a t every year t h i s be reported t o ADWR who requires t h a t they keep it
at 10 percent or less ( most exceed t h a t ) ; f o r small water systems ( 500 people
or 100 acre- feet o f withdrawal per year) they require 15 percent or less. They
have had very few instances where losses were a s i g n i f i c a n t p a r t o f t h e i r t o t a l
use.
M r . Carr stated t h a t t h e i r numbers i n conservation average around 6 t o 9 percent
depending on the area.
Chairman Overton asked i f the ACP appl ies across- the- board t o a l l municipal i t i e s
and water supply companies. M r . Carr rep1 ied that i n order t o qual i f y f o r the
ACP program, there has t o be another xater supply or the supplier must be a
member o f a Groundwater Replenishment D i s t r i c t ; every member o f a GRD
automatically qual i f i e s f o r a non- GPCPD program. This means they could continue
GROUNDWATER CODE STUDY COMMITTEE
12 OCTOBER 12, 1993
t o use t h e i r groundwater and the Replenishment D i s t r i c t would be responsible f o r
replenishing the water withdrawn.
Chairman Overton asked about a conservation surcharge added t o the customer's
water b i l l i n Sun City. Mr. Carr said he i s not aware o f t h e i r p r i c i n g policy.
Marv Martin. Leqisl a t i v e Liaison. Arizona C o r ~ o r a t i o nC ommi ssion, explained that
i n Sun City there i s a u t i l i t y with a surcharge on i t s b i l l t o pay f o r
conservation measures. They applied f o r t h a t with the Commission and
demonstrated that it was a f a i r and reasonable request. The money i s used f o r
whatever programs the u t i l i t y brought t o the Commission t o achieve t h e i r
conservation goals. She said the Commission worked i n conjunction with ADWR and
the company t o come up with t h i s solution.
Norm James, Counsel. Water U t i l i t y Association o f Arizona, noted that he i s
speaking at the request o f Bob O'Leary, Executive Director, and these are his
own personal comments.
( Tape 4, Side A)
He stated t h a t water conservation i s a complex topic. Private water companies
i n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r area are subject t o c o n f l i c t i n g regulatory requirements. He
commented t h a t the GPCPD rate poses problems from the standpoint t h a t under t h i s
type o f regulation there are no s p e c i f i c conservation requirements per se
imposed on i n d i v i d u a l water users, instead the company i s required t o meet these
requirements. If the customers demand and use too much water, they won't meet
the target but the company i s i n a d i f f i c u l t position because unlike
municipal i t i e s p r i v a t e water companies simply don't have the same type o f powers
that a municipality does t o force conservation. They can adopt regulations but
they aust go through the ACC t o do so.
Another problem i s that one good way t o force conservation i s t o raise the cost
o f water; again p r i v a t e water companies must go through the ACC f o r rate
increases. From a conservation perspective, the water company can't raise i t s
rates t o a level t h a t would produce an unreasonable return; i n other words, the
regulation imposed on the water company by the ACC requires t h a t the company
earn a c e r t a i n amount o f p r o f i t .
He said there are two negative impacts t o water conservation:
1. When these requirements are imposed, water sales go down
which means the company's revenues decrease requi ri ng
a rate increase and the water companies have t o again
go through the ACC f o r that.
2. Water conservation programs cost money; there are
expenses associated with imp1 ementing most conservation
programs.
M r . James related a s i t u a t i o n regarding the Paradise Valley Water Company. They
negotiated a settlement agreement with ADWR because they exceeded the GPCPD rate
GROUNDWATER CODE STUDY COMMITTEE
13 OCTOBER 12, 1993
since it was f i r s t imposed. He referred t o a summary o f the conservation
programs contained i n the settlement ( Attachment 5). He noted t h a t the company
estimates t h a t it w i l l cost about $ 65,000 over a several- year period f o r
implementation o f those programs.
At the same time the settlement agreement was being f i n a l i z e d , Paradise Valley
Water Company also f i l e d an appl i c a t i o n f o r rate increases with the ACC. He
referred t o a handout showing the chronological events r e l a t i n g t o t h a t f i l i n g
( Attachment 6) pointing out the length o f time involved and the complexity of
having t o go through a rate case f o r the approval of these sorts o f programs.
The company spent i n excess o f $ 100,000 going through the r a t e case.
He noted t h a t what i s pertinent t o the meeting today i s t h a t included i n the
Company's program were two d i f f e r e n t conservation charges; the Alternative Rate
Program which i s something ADWR s p e c i f i c a l l y wanted the Company t o implement,
but because it i s a r a t e or charge f o r service, the ACC has t o approve it. The
second charge i s a water conservation surcharge ( 25 cents per customer b i l l ) t o
generate the funds t o finance the conservation program.
He s a i d t h e Commission ultimately denied the Alternative Rate Program
e s s e n t i a l l y f i n d i n g t h a t it wasn't appropriate. The ACC also denied the water
conservation surcharge on the basis that water conservation expenses are
" nonrecurring"; the cost o f implementation won't continue i n d e f i n i t e l y i n the
future.
His f i n a l point, he said, involves discussion at the ACC open meeting held on
September 28. During the course o f the open meeting, Commissioner Jennings
asked the Commission s t a f f i f they had discussed these conservation programs
with ADWR and they said they hadn't. He contended that there continues t o be
a problem with coordination between ADWR and the ACC. There should be some way
t o get these two companies together so that the e n t i t i e s can implement these
programs, have reasonable assurance they can recover the expenses o f doing so
and f u l f i l l the mandates o f the Groundwater Code, while allowing the ACC t o do
i t s job o f s e t t i n g rates and charges f o r a u t i l i t y service.
Mr. Chastain brought up the f a c t that it cost the Company i n excess o f $ 100,000
t o process t h i s rate case and it took over a year t o do it, submitting t h a t the
customers who use the water i n Paradise Valley w i l l pay f o r that. He agreed that
there should be better coordination between the two agencies.
Mr. James specified t h a t some o f those costs f o r conducting the rate hearing
w i l l be passed on t o the customers; some of them w i l l not. I n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r
case, the Commission allowed only $ 40,000 t o be passed on. He said he was not
t r y i n g t o make an issue out of the expense per se except t h a t it i s a lengthy
and time- consuming process; one o f the reasons it took a year and was so
expensive was t h a t there were a l o t o f other issues involved. I n fact, the
conservation issues, frankly, were l a r g e l y ignored.
When asked by M r . Chastain about possible ideas f o r l e g i s l a t i o n , M r . James said
he i s not prepared today t o provide specifics but Association members would be
glad t o discuss t h i s with him. He suggested deregulation o f some o f the
GROUNDWATER CODE STUDY COMMITTEE
14 OCTOBER 12, 1993
extremely small water providers; the amount o f water they withdraw i s minuscule
compared t o other segments o f the economy.
Chairman Overton asked Mr. James h i s opinion of completely doing away with the
conservation rules. Mr. James indicated t h a t he i s not f a m i l i a r with the
a g r i c u l t u r a l side o f the issue, but on the municipal side there are ways t o
modify what i s being done t h a t would eliminate some o f the problems, e. g.
instead o f using the GPCPD rate, ADWR could come up with some general standards
f o r smaller companies; something which i s a l o t more manageable.
Chairman Overton asked the cost o f water f o r a normal cotton farmer.
David Iwanski. Executive Vice President. Asri- Business Council o f Arizona, noted
t h a t the cost o f water t o a farmer i s his lowest cost i n the overall l i n e item
f o r a farm budget even though that per acre- foot water cost varies from $ 9 t o
$ 10 an acre- foot w i t h i n the Salt River Project ( SRP) service area t o $ 65 plus
per acre- foot f o r a CAP I r r i g a t i o n D i s t r i c t .
Dennis Rule. Plannins Prosram Coordinator, City o f Tucson, noted t h a t most o f
h i s points have already been made. He stated that Tucson's story with GPCPD
goes back t o 1974. The City had d i f f i c u l t y with peak demands and couldn't
insure f i r e flow or domestic supply i n many cases; t h e i r average per capita
demand at t h a t time was approximately 205 GPCPD. Because o f t h a t s i t u a t i o n ,
they implemented several d i f f e r e n t programs such as " Beat the Peak" which was
mentioned earl i e r . This program had d e f i n i t e i n c i d e n t a l b e n e f i t s f o r water
conservation.
. He said they had some very d e f i n i t e i n f r a s t r u c t u r e requirements through the City
Council which governs them, and i n order t o meet these i n f r a s t r u c t u r e demands,
the Council i n 1975 implemented some very severe water rate increases. As a
r e s u l t o f that, three members o f the Council were recalled; w i t h i n 30 days, the
new members a1 so voted t o implement those same water rate increases.
He stated t h a t because of the " Beat the Peak" and other programs they
implemented, they reduced t h e i r average per capita demand t o 150 GPCPD by 1980,
but it has since gone up f o r reasons of which they are not even certain.
I n 1990, he continued, the City entered i n t o a S t i p u l a t i o n and Consent Order
with ADWR because they determined that they had exceeded t h e i r GPCPD goal f o r
1987 and 1988. I n addition, they were also c i t e d f o r withdrawing 508 acre- feet
o f groundwater from a couple o f nonexempt wells and not using them f o r
i r r i g a t i o n f o r which the wells were permitted.
He gave an overview o f the requirements o f t h e i r S t i p u l a t i o n and Consent Order
( Attachment 7) and referred t o handouts showing the methodology required by the
Order ( Attachment 8), t h e i r conservation programs ( Attachments 9 and l o ) , and
a l e t t e r from the previous Director o f ADWR, Betsy Rieke, s t a t i n g t h a t they have
met the requirements o f the Order ( Attachment 11). Unfortunately, an a r t i c l e
i n the newspaper i n June, 1993 ( Attachment 12) informed them that the local
o f f i c e o f ADWR had determined that they had exceeded t h e i r GPCPD requirement
s i g n i f i c a n t l y f o r 1991 which was the year they finished complying with the
GROUNDWATER CODE STUDY COMMITTEE
15 OCTOBER 12, 1993
Order. They have also learned through the newspaper t h a t t h i s year they might
be i n v i o l a t i o n because o f the f l u s h i n g program t h a t they have implemented t o
deal w i t h discolored water from the CAP.
He concluded by s t a t i n g t h a t the C i t y i s committed t o water conservation;
however, t h e i r fundamental b e l i e f i s t h a t the GPCPD program i s not the best way
t o measure municipal conservation. There are g r e a t u n c e r t a i n t i e s i n the
c a l c u l a t i o n o f per capita, as well as the c a l c u l a t i o n o f pumpage. He opined
t h a t because o f these uncertainties, there i s no way t o determine by a discreet
number whether or not they are i n or out o f compliance w i t h a c e r t a i n goal.
Mr. Schottel r e l a t e d the f a c t t h a t h i s neighbor i n s t a l l e d low- flow t o i l e t s and
cut down on the amount o f water coming out o f h i s showerhead. The plumber t o l d
him t o be sure and f l u s h t w i c e b u t he d i d n ' t do t h a t because he wanted t o
conserve water. A couple o f months l a t e r , he had t o r e b u i l d h i s sewer pipes
because the low- flow t o i l e t s , combined with the angle o f the pipes, weren't
using enough water t o f l u s h s o l i d s through the sewer pipes. This i s not
considered when t r y i n g t o conserve. He said, i n many cases, these rules and
laws are j u s t not p r a c t i c a l ; most o f the time they increase costs or cause f i n e s
o r penal t i e s .
Chairman Overton asked Mr. Rule the t o t a l cost t o the City t o comply with the
requirements o f the S t i p u l a t i o n and Consent Order. Mr. Rule estimated t h a t it
cost several m i 11 ion do1 1 ars.
Georqe Fletcher. Water Resources Manaqer, C i t y o f Tem~ e, noted t h a t the C i t y o f
Tempe i s a landlock community which means they are not going t o annex any new
land, and t h i s creates a p a r t i c u l a r problem f o r them when dealing with GPCPD
i ssues.
He explained t h a t almost a l l o f the water used i n Tempe i s surface water
provided from the S a l t River Project ( SRP), and i n order t o maximize use o f t h a t
water, they b u i l t two surface water treatment plants and secured a CAP p r o j e c t
subcontract f o r lands w i t h i n the C i t y which are not e l i g i b l e f o r SRP water.
This i s a very small amount but i n order t o use t h a t water, they also
p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the construction o f the f a c i l i t y t o connect the CAP t o the SRP
water supply f o r access t o t h a t water. They are also a p a r t i c i p a n t i n the
Granite Reef Underground Storage Project, i n order t o bank water i n case there
i s a surface water shortage and they have t o depend on groundwater t o make up
t h e i r supply.
He said from 1985 t o 1990 t h e i r primary goal was t o get completely o f f the pump
and as o f 1990, they are using zero groundwater on an annual basis. However,
because o f a canal outage i n 1989, they d i d pump 14 acre- feet o f groundwater t o
supply water t o a g o l f course. P r i o r t o t h a t , the maximum water they used i n
a three- year period where GPCPD was calculated was 200 acre- feet o f groundwater;
t h i s i s a service area using on an average approximately 40,000 acre- feet o f
water during t h i s period o f time. Because o f the GPCPD issue, they were found
t o be i n noncompliance with ADWR.
GROUNDWATER CODE STUDY COMMITTEE
16 OCTOBER 12, 1993
He said they had some other issues associated with r e g u l a t i o n i n the Groundwater
Management Act which were also incorporated i n t o the noncompliance. They spent
untold hours with ADWR and l e g a l representation negotiating a S t i p u l a t i o n and
Consent agreement. He noted t h a t i n a l l fairness, ADWR d i d the best they could
w i t h i n the confines o f t h e s t a t u t e s t o try t o prepare something reasonable f o r
them t o comply with.
He admitted t h a t from 1985 t o 1990 the City put a l l o f t h e i r available resources
i n t o the development o f service water supplies i n order t o get o f f the pump;
they d i d not put enough emphasis i n t o the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the GPCPD
measurement which 1 ed t o misunderstandings regarding t h a t and some other
requirements o f the Groundwater Management Act which l e d t o the alleged
v i o l a t i o n .
He brought up a problem with the GPCPD measurement, which i s the t o t a l amount
o f water used divided by the population base. Most o f t h e i r C i t y i s b u i l t out;
most o f the 1 and not yet b u i l t out i s zoned or planned f o r nonresidenti a1 use,
and because o f t h i s , looking at the long- term GPCPD goals, he opined t h a t they
w i l l never make compliance.
He pointed o u t t h a t the Arizona State U n i v e r s i t y campus i s considered
nonresidential use, noting t h a t when the summer water use goes up, they a c t u a l l y
have a drop i n water consumption which coincides with release o f the students
at the campus.
As a r e s u l t o f a l l t h i s , i n d e l i b e r a t i o n s with the ADWR and working through the
Arizona Municipal Waters Users Association ( AMWUA), they were able t o work the
non- GPCPD through t h e L e g i s l a t u r e l a s t year. He opined t h a t t h i s begins t o
address the essence o f the Groundwater Management Act; the achievement o f safe
y i e l d . It w i l l allow them t o implement programs which they believe are
e f f e c t i v e f o r water conservation w i t h i n t h e i r service area and reduce
groundwater pumping as the objective t o accompl i s h t h a t . It w i l l also recognize
t h a t some groundwater pumping, as long as it i s w i t h i n safe y i e l d , i s allowable.
Robert Musselwhite, C i t v Manaqer. C i t v o f L i t c h f i e l d Park, introduced Jerry
Ellsworth and Jerry West o f L i t c h f i e l d Park Service Company, the p r i v a t e water
company which supplies water t o the C i t y and the surrounding area. He said they
are avai 1 able f o r questions.
He r e f e r r e d t o a chart ( Attachment 13) p o i n t i n g out the acre- feet u t i l i z e d f o r
various users i n L i t c h f i e l d Park f o r 1992 and preceding years. A t t h e t o p o f
the page, by m u l t i p l y i n g t h e i r population by the GPCPD they are allocated, the
number o f acre- feet they are allowed t o use i n L i t c h f i e l d Park f o r a year i s
shown. He pointed out t h a t i n 1992 they are about one- third over t h e i r goal.
As the years pass, these GPCPD consumption requirements become t i g h t e r and
t i g h t e r so they w i l l have t o cut about h a l f o f what they are using under the
present r u l e s ; and by the year 2025, which i s a l i t t l e more complicated than
j u s t pumped water because it involves CAP water also, they w i l l have t o reduce
over t h e i r present use by about three- quarters. These are p r e t t y tough goals
and impossible t o meet.
GROUNDWATER CODE STUDY COMMITTEE
17 OCTOBER 12, 1993
He opined t h a t part o f the problem i s t h a t these goals are based upon
d e f i n i t i o n s which don't r e a l l y r e f l e c t e n t i r e situations confronting them i n
L i t c h f i e l d Park. He echoed the previous speaker's testimony concerning
population and determining that population as being the problem. I n L i t c h f i e l d
Park, they have a number o f people which the Mayor r e f e r s t o as " i n v i s i b l e
people." This includes those stationed i n the m i l i t a r y and 300- plus rooms at
the Wigwam Resort which are occupied year- round, which are not counted as part
o f the per capita equation. There are a1 so winter residents, and a school
system which involves three campuses and one community college ( s i m i l a r t o the
problem experienced by the City o f Tempe with the ASU campus).
He contended t h a t the d e f i n i t i o n o f what per capita consumption i s needs t o be
examined i n l i g h t o f these industries and uses that are being carried on i n
L i t c h f i e l d Park; They are a very important part o f t h e i r community, and
apparently, are not counted i n the water equation which hinders expansion.
He said t h e i r s i t u a t i o n i s also s i m i l a r t o the City of Tempe because they w i l l
not be able t o expand because they have been strip- annexed completely around
t h e i r community by other communities, so t r y i n g t o meet water requirements i n
the future w i l l be d i f f i c u l t and doubtful without a very severe change i n the
community.
He pointed out t h a t t h e i r consumption level i n the year 2000 w i l l be about 1,000
acre- feet, and t h e i r r e s i d e n t i a l consumption r i g h t now i s about 1,000 acre-f
e e t . T h e i r City has, i n the past, adopted conservation measures. Referring
t o the chart, he noted t h a t r e s i d e n t i a l and the City have trended downward i n
t h e i r water consumption; the Wigwam Resort has gone upward due t o expansion.
But the overall water consumption f o r the City has continued t o drop.
Mr. Chastain asked the source o f L i t c h f i e l d Park's water supply. M r .
Musselwhite said it i s from underground wells i n the area. He added that
information he has received from L i t c h f i e l d Park Service Company shows that
because o f differences i n the l a s t ten years, the aquifer i n t h e i r area i s
increasing i n height. He opined that t h i s i s because the farming operation i s
less intense compared t o when Goodyear Tire and Rubber was located i n the area.
Chairman Overton inquired i f by the year 2025 residents o f L i t c h f i e l d Park w i l l
be able t o obtain water. Mr. Musselwhite r e p l i e d t h a t the figures on the
handout are based on CAP or some other type of surface water being brought i n t o
the community. A t the present time, they don't have access t o that so something
w i l l have t o give p r e t t y d r a s t i c a l l y i f they have t o s t i c k t o these figures.
The present water consumption would have t o dip about three- quarters. He added
t h a t it w i l l be very expensive to bring CAP water i n t o the City.
( Tape 4, Side B)
Gene Jensen, r e ~ r e s e n t i n qS un C i t y Homeowners Association, noted t h a t ADWR has
made a 25 percent p r r o r on the amount o f people served i n t h e i r community; there
are a l o t o f people l i v i n g i n Sun City who maintain t h e i r tax- paying residence
el sewhere.
GROUNDWATER CODE STUDY COMMITTEE
18 OCTOBER 12, 1993
He observed t h a t p a r t o f the wastewater from Sun C i t y goes i n t o cooling o f the
Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station ( PVNGS) and they should get some c r e d i t
f o r use o f t h a t water; they have applied t o ADWR a number o f times but have not
had any success.
He added t h a t when the conservation program was negotiated between t h e i r p r i v a t e
water company and ADWR, the Homeowners Association was t o l d t h a t t h i s was a
p r i v a t e communication between the two and they could have no p a r t whatsoever i n
devel opment o f the p l an.
He s a i d t h e r e are other costs t h a t go along with t h i s . I n order t o meet t h i s
conservation requirement, they w i l l have t o dry up the one p o r t i o n o f urban park
they have i n Sun City. This w i l l cost about $ 4 m i l l i o n during a time i n which
t h e i r groundwater l e v e l s are remaining more or less constant.
Chairman Overton asked about the loss o f a park. Mr. Jensen c l a r i f i e d t h a t they
have a system o f urban parkways, very wide medians, which are mainly used f o r
walking; less than one percent o f the homes have very 1 i t t l e grass. He said
they also have a very l a r g e hospital which provides extended care i n the
community.
Arve H. Dahl. representins Propertv Owners and Residents Association o f Sun C i t v
- West, endorsed the comments o f M r . Jensen. He expressed a concern about water
q u a l i t y , s p e c i f i c a l l y CAP water, and how it i s used w i t h i n the state. He said
they do not have a water treatment p l a n t and they do not need one; yet M r . Ward
mentioned plans f o r recharge o f the underground aquifer i n h i s area ( i n the Agua
F r i a River) which w i l l d e t e r i o r a t e the q u a l i t y o f the water they now have. He
said t h i s i s one issue o f t o t a l management o f water t h a t needs t o be reviewed.
He addressed the f a c t t h a t today they are t a l k i n g p r i m a r i l y about urban water
( about 30 percent o f the water used i n t h e S t a t e o f Arizona) not a g r i c u l t u r a l
water. He noted t h a t somehow, as the o v e r a l l balance i s taken i n t o
consideration, everyone should work together because i f the groundwater l e v e l
i s used as a means t o determine overcharge i n the assured water supply r u l e s ,
then a g r i c u l t u r e i s g r e a t l y involved i n what i s charged against the urban areas.
He also addressed the population issue. He stated t h a t i n t h e i r community Del
Webb should be taken i n t o consideration because they use p a r t o f the water f o r
construction and development o f the community. The whole question o f how much
water i s used and who uses it i s a subject t h a t needs some a t t e n t i o n .
James Matteson, Member. Sun C i t v Homeowners Association, questioned the
c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y o f what t h e L e g i s l a t u r e has been doing since 1980. He claimed
t h a t ADWR i s taking water without j u s t compensation. He noted t h a t when he
moved from Wisconsin, where he was an attorney and had q u i t e a b i t o f experience
i n water matters, he i n v e s t i g a t e d water matters before moving t o Sun C i t y . He
found o u t t h e r e i s a l a r g e aquifer under Sun C i t y which contains the best water
i n the Valley, and with the cessation o f a g r i c u l t u r a l use, he r e a l i z e d t h a t the
aquifer would probably be r i s i n g or remaining steady and there would be an
adequate supply o f water. Now ADWR wants t o take t h a t water without
compensation.
GROUNDWATER CODE STUDY COMMITTEE
19 OCTOBER 12, 1993
Chairman Overton reiterated his earlier statement that the next meeting is
November 16 which will be the last meeting for testimony. He said he and his
staff are available for discussion of items which anyone would like to address
at that meeting.
Without objection, the meeting adjourned at 12: 14 p. m.
Linda Taylor, Committee Secretary
( Attachments are on file in the Office of the Chief Clerk.)
GROUNDWATER CODE STUDY COMMITTEE
2 0 OCTOBER 12, 1993
ARIZONA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
I N T E R I M MEETING N O T I C E
Open to the Public
INTERIM GROUNDWATER CODE STUDY COMMITTEE
DATE: Tuesday, November 16, 1993
TIME: 9: 00 a. m.
PLACE: House Hearing Room 1
AGENDA :
1) Steve Olson, Special Assistant to the Director, explaining the Arizona
Department of Water Resources proposal to el imi nate the administration and
regulation of small water rights.
2) Randy Sable, Chief of Accounting and Rates, Arizona Corporation
Commi ssion, expl aining the Small Water Company Short - form Rate
Appl i cat i on.
3) Steven Olson, Special Assistant to the Director, Arizona Department of
Water Resources, outlining suggested changes in the non- per capita
conservation program in the second management period as it appl ies to
nonagricul tural uses.
4) David Iwanski , Executive Vice President, Agri - Business Counci 1 of Arizona,
discussing possible changes to the conservation program as it relates to
agricul tural uses.
5) Pub1 ic testimony.
Jerry Overton
Chai rman
MEMBERS :
Representative Schottel
Representative Chastain
ARIZONA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
F o r t y - f i r s t Legislature - F i r s t Regular Session
I n t e r i m Committee Meeting
GROUNDWATER CODE STUDY COMMITTEE
Minutes o f Meeting
Tuesday, November 16, 1993
House Hearing Room 1 - 9: 00 a. m.
( Tape 5, Side A)
The meeting was c a l l e d t o order at 9: 02 a. m. by Chairman Overton and attendance
was noted.
Members Present
Mr. Chastain Mr. Overton, Chairman
Members Absent
Mr. Schottel ( excused)
Soeakers Present
Mark Frank, D i r e c t o r o f Phoenix Active Management Area, Arizona Department o f
Water Resources ( ADWR)
Randy Sable, Chief o f Accounting and Rates, Arizona Corporation Commi ssion ( ACC)
Steve Olson, Special Assistant t o t h e D i r e c t o r , Arizona Department o f Water
Resources ( ADWR)
David Iwanski, Executive Vice President, Agri- Business Council o f Arizona
Guest L i s t ( Attachment 1)
Mr. Overton noted t h a t a proposal surfaced a few weeks ago t o eliminate
regulations by ADWR on small water r i g h t s .
Mark Frank. D i r e c t o r o f Phoenix Active Manaqement Area, Arizona De~ artment o f
Water Resources ( ADWRZ, stated t h a t it i s somewhat unusual f o r a regulatory
agency t o recommend deregul ation but he be1 i eves there i s compel 1 ing evidence
which suggests t h a t small water r i g h t s holders should not be t r e a t e d the same
as l a r g e water r i g h t s holders i n the Phoenix Active Management Area ( AMA)
( Attachment 2).
Mr. Chastain inquired i f anyone i s opposed t o t h i s idea.
M r . Frank r e p l i e d t h a t there has been discussion i n two areas t h a t could be
perceived as opposition:
GROUNDWATER CODE STUDY COMMITTEE
NOVEMBER 16, 1993
1. Some a g r i c u l t u r a l interests be1 ieve t h a t el imination o f
c r e d i t s t h a t have been accrued by small r i g h t s holders .
would be removing a r i g h t or something o f value t h a t
they currently have. There i s no opposition t o
eliminating the d e b i t p o r t i o n but they believe t h a t the
c r e d i t portion should be sold t o someone else i n a
l a r g e r category who may need them.
He contended t h a t most large farms i n a debit s i t u a t i o n ( which i s normally by
a couple hundred acre- feet), would not spend the time and money ($ 100 f o r every
c r e d i t transaction performed by ADWR) going t o several small farms t o purchase
credits; they would rather go t o a larger farm f o r one c r e d i t transaction.
I n t h e T h i r d Management Plan f o r AMAYs, the requirement
f o r farms i s t o take the current water duty f o r a l l
i r r i g a t i o n grandfathered r i g h t s ( IGFRs), review the top
25 percent ( the highest water duties w i t h i n i r r i g a t i o n
d i s t r i c t s ) and reduce that top 25 percent by up t o 10
percent. If the small water r i g h t s are taken out o f the
equation and are no longer subject t o t h i s provision,
more large water holders would be subject t o t h a t top
25 percent and may suffer a 10 percent reduction i n
t h e i r water duty which they otherwise would not have
had.
He noted t h a t the Arizona Municipal Water Users Association ( AMWUA) has
suggested t h a t as a c o n d i t i o n o f deregulating the small water providers, they
must j o i n the Groundwater Replenishment D i s t r i c t ( GRD). He said ADWR does not
support t h a t suggestion.
Mr. Chastain asked how ADWR can t e l l i f a small water user expands his acreage
a f t e r bei ng deregul ated .
Mr. Frank said they probably would not be aware o f it. He said they have a
s i