Scottsdale, county to negotiate on water
Assistance sought for Rio Verde Foothills
Scottsdale leaders voted unanimously Tuesday to engage in talks with Maricopa County on providing water to Rio Verde Foothills, the first step in a potential temporary agreement on the issue.
The item came onto the Scottsdale City Council agenda last week after a series of talks with state Rep. David Cook, R-Globe, and a pressure campaign from Rio Verde Foothills residents and some Republican state lawmakers. The unincorporated community, which lies just outside city boundaries, has been without a stable water supply since the start of the year.
But the negotiations have a long way to go for city and county officials to come to consensus — and it’s unclear whether they are starting off on the same page. Scottsdale officials displayed a proposed agreement at Tuesday’s City Council meeting, but county officials said they weren’t involved in writing several of its provisions.
Maricopa County Supervisor Tom Galvin, who represents the district encompassing Rio Verde Foothills, wrote a letter to Scottsdale Mayor David Ortega on Tuesday afternoon asking about a plan he proposed last year that would have the city partner with Epcor, a private water utility, to provide water to Rio Verde Foothills residents.
In the same letter, he said he had “questions” about Scottsdale’s draft agreement, particularly in regard to the source of the water and its costs.
“The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors has not yet had an opportunity to discuss the document drafted by the City of Scottsdale,” he wrote. “I anticipate, however, that my colleagues will share my concerns and questions about the proposed agreement, which will need to be discussed, addressed, and rectified, as part of a negotiation process, if the proposal is to move forward.”
County officials also previously said that any agreement would need to be reviewed by the county’s attorneys.
Meanwhile, Scottsdale officials gave mixed signals on how likely they are to budge on the specifics of their
draft. Councilwoman Betty Janik said it has been a “difficult, emotional situation for everyone” and that negotiations would march forward.
“More work does need to be done,” she said. “We know that. But this is a wonderful, giant step forward.”
But Brian Biesemeyer, executive director of Scottsdale’s Water Department, framed the numerous provisions in the city’s proposal as “critical elements.”
And Rio Verde Foothills residents have concerns too. They said they are grateful that Scottsdale is agreeing to speak with the county about their predicament, but they worry about the costs of the city’s proposal and a provision that stipulates that the water it provides would be exclusively for those living in the community before Jan. 3, 2023.
“I have serious concerns with the proposed solution when it comes to affordability,” said Rio Verde Foothills resident Cody Reim. “Prior to Jan. 1, I realized that we won’t get back to the old pricing — I understand that. But the pricing that is being proposed today is severely elevated in comparison to what we were paying prior.”
But they may not be in much of a position to ask the city for any favors. Ortega has previously made clear that the county residents are not the “stepchild” of Scottsdale. And at Tuesday’s meeting, other city leaders showed signs of their patience on the issue wearing thin, praising Ortega for taking “arrows” and “hits” from community residents, other politicians and the media.
Scottsdale sold water to private haulers for Rio Verde Foothills
Rio Verde Foothills, east of Scottsdale, is largely a collection of “wildcat” subdivisions built without regard for future water supplies.
Usually, if developers build subdivisions on county land, they must secure water and prove that the community has enough to last 100 years. But some developments across the state fall into a loophole in the law. There, developers split properties fewer than six times to build new homes, meaning the houses aren’t technically inside subdivisions. These “wildcat” subdivisions never were required to prove a 100-year water supply.
For Rio Verde Foothills, that wasn’t a problem until recently. For years, the community relied on Scottsdale to sell water to private haulers, who bring it to about 1,000 residents without working wells.
But then the city turned off the tap Jan. 1.
Since then, private haulers have still been able to provide some water to the community through sources beyond Scottsdale. But those sources are unstable and could stop doing business with the haulers at any time. And the cost of water for residents has skyrocketed.
Residents need two plans: a longterm solution and a short-term agreement to temporarily provide them with water as the permanent one is hashed out and shored up.
The potential agreement between Scottsdale and the county offers hope that at least a temporary plan might be imminent.
But the community will still need to work toward its long-term solution. So far, the search for one has deeply torn residents, who couldn’t come to a full consensus on what long-term plans to support and now blame different governmental parties for their plight.
Some were all in on a proposal to create a water-taxing district that was defeated in August when the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors unanimously voted it down. Galvin voted against the proposal after overseeing months of discussion and bickering between neighbors, citing concerns about the long-term viability of the district and its potential costs.
Instead, he favored a long-term agreement with Epcor. That solution, which other residents supported, is currently in the works. But since the company is regulated by the state, the plan first must go through the Arizona Corporation Commission.
The Scottsdale plan: Get water for community from third party
Scottsdale’s proposed agreement would see the city reopen water haulers’ access to a standpipe near its northeastern boundary. It also would procure water for Rio Verde Foothills residents from a third party, treat it and route it through its pipes.
It comes with some stipulations. Scottsdale expects the county to attempt to limit building in the community to the extent possible by state law, and if the amount of water given to Scottsdale is reduced for any reason, including drought, the city will reduce the
amount of water it gives to Rio Verde Foothills residents. The proposed agreement is also designed to be temporary — two years, with an optional third.
But other details remain hazy. Scottsdale officials didn’t reveal where they plan to procure water from, saying they are exploring options.
There’s also no timeline on negotiations. It is unclear when the Board of Supervisors will consider the matter, though its next meeting is March 1. City officials have previously said that water can begin flowing to Rio Verde Foothills residents as soon as a deal is reached.
What is clear is the cost. Scottsdale would charge the county $1,000 each month plus $21.25 per 1,000 gallons, or unit, of water.
That is substantially more than the $7 per unit that Scottsdale was previously charging haulers at the standpipe used by the community. It’s also more than Epcor’s estimated cost of $18 to $20 per unit in a permanent solution, and the water taxing district’s estimated costs of $10 to $12 per unit when it was before county supervisors.
Still, Scottsdale Councilwoman Solange Whitehead said the city won’t make a profit off the proposed fee schedule. The costs, Biesemeyer said, would cover the expense of the water, treatment and transportation for the city, as well as pay toward maintenance costs of Scottsdale’s water infrastructure.
“This is not a rate hearing,” Ortega told Rio Verde Foothills residents from the dais. “We are not a commission here.”
Some residents raised the possibility of the county subsidizing the costs. But Galvin shut down that idea when asked about it by The Arizona Republic on Tuesday evening.
“Any plan that requires subsidies is probably not a viable plan,” he said.
Compounding the cost issue for residents is that Scottsdale’s proposal wouldn’t allow individuals to haul water for only themselves, as they had previously. That spared some residents from having to pay higher prices for a commercial hauler to bring them water.
One self-hauler, Kasey Reeder, said her water bill would skyrocket under Scottsdale’s plan.
“This is unacceptable,” she said. “It’s obscene and insurmountable.”
And, some residents had concerns about a provision that stipulates that the water the city provides would be exclusively for those living in the community before Jan. 3, 2023.
“We actually have a neighbor that’s moving in a week or two,” resident Wendy Walker said. “It’s a beautiful custom home. They’re coming from Chicago and they can’t wait to be here ... but they actually aren’t occupying it; their home is finished in February (2024). And there’s several other people who are just like that. This is just one example.”
An expedited legal opinion from Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes, initially requested by Cook last month, asked whether Maricopa County could enter into a short-term lease agreement to provide water to county residents.
Ortega said Mayes’ opinion solely addressed the county’s ability to temporarily provide for the public health and safety of its residents under pressing, urgent circumstances, such as the situation that those who currently live in the area are dealing with.
He said he didn’t want to enable “speculators” and pointed to his city’s “swift action” to bring forth an agreement as proof that the city is making a best effort to address issues for those currently living in the area. And while he made clear that residents of Scottsdale are his first priority and he doesn’t support “irresponsible development in the county,” he said he isn’t without personal connections to his unincorporated neighbors.
“I know a couple city employees who live in Rio Verde Foothills,” Ortega said. “I talked to them last week ... these are people that we know.”
While Scottsdale Mayor David Ortega made clear that residents of Scottsdale are his first priority and he doesn’t support “irresponsible development in the county,” he said he isn’t without personal connections to his unincorporated neighbors.