We can all use less groundwater

Arizona’s groundwater supply is finite and dwindling, even in the areas of the state that regulate its use. We need to use less. But how much are we really willing to conserve?

It’s a key question to ponder in 2021. Arizona has spent the last year studying concepts to include in its fifth groundwater management plans. State law requires regular updates to these plans, which set mandatory conservation measures for cities, farmers and industrial users in five groundwater Active Management Areas (AMAs) — Phoenix, Pinal, Tucson, Prescott and Santa Cruz.

More than 80% of the state’s population are subject to these requirements.

The state Department of Water Resources is planning to draft the plans this year and adopt them in 2022, so the changes can go into effect in 2025. That’s an important date because the groundwater management act requires no updates beyond this final management period.

Unless lawmakers change the law, the requirements set in 2025 could remain in effect for quite some time.

So, if the goal is to use less groundwater over time — something that most AMAs have not yet achieved — the stakes are high to get these fifth and final plans right.

The pandemic has not made this easy. Online meetings have attracted more participants than previous in-person meetings, which is good.

But it also can be tough for such a large and diverse crowd to debate ideas through a screen. Sometimes, there is no substitute for getting in a room and working out differences face to face.

Some complained initially that too much information was being introduced during meetings without adequate time to digest it, much less offer feedback. Many were confused about what was being proposed.

That has improved somewhat. The department is taking longer pauses during meetings so people can ask questions and has created questionnaires to gather more specific feedback, among other measures.

Even still, fireworks erupted in the fall over the fourth management plans for Phoenix, Pinal and Santa Cruz, which also passed in 2020 on a compressed schedule.

The plans were supposed to have been completed years ago but fell woefully behind, so the department decided to pass quick updates that would serve as a bridge from 2023 until the fifth plans take over in 2025.

But some felt like their concerns were ignored — particularly those involving a popular best management practices program that allows farmers to exceed their annual water allotments if they are using the water efficiently. Farmers must earn a certain number of points to participate, with more efficient measures earning more points.

Some argued that the department used overly simplistic assumptions to boost point values for measures like drip irrigation. These systems can use less water, farmers said, but not in all applications and only if the systems are regularly maintained — nuances the fourth management plans never addressed.

They worried that if these assumptions carried over into the fifth plans, it could end up costing farmers a lot to comply without necessarily saving more water — which is ultimately what the department wants.

Similar though less contentious debates have occurred in other committees. There is general agreement, for example, that cities need to use less groundwater. But how do we quantify “less,” particularly when the bar is set differently for each water provider?

How do we simplify confusing turf conservation programs for golf courses and extend similar concepts to athletic fields or ornamental grass areas, as the department has proposed?

And how do we make sense of “safe yield” — the point at which we are roughly replacing what we are pumping from the aquifer — given its nebulous definition in state law? (Not to mention that safe yield isn’t even the goal in the Pinal AMA, but rather to allow non-irrigation uses while preserving agricultural uses for as long as feasible ... whatever that means.)

Oddly, previous management plans haven’t necessarily ensured that required conservation methods are translating into gallons (or, better, acre-feet) of water saved. That’s something the department wants to change.

It has worked hard to more quantifiably measure safe yield in the short and long term, and has proposed a dashboard to offer an easy-to-follow assessment of where each AMA stands.

Participants in multiple study groups also have said repeatedly that if no one understands a program or it doesn’t work in real life, it’s not going to result in a quantifiable water savings.

There’s a big focus on practicality and simplicity, and that makes sense.

If we want real, measurable groundwater savings — and we should — we need to make these requirements as clear and doable as possible.