A SADDLEBROOKE WATER PRIMER Revised March 2012 by Bob Simpson

Transcription

1 A SADDLEBROOKE WATER PRIMER Revised March 2012 by Bob Simpson TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION 2 II. ARIZONA'S PROGRESSIVE WATER LAW 5 III. TUCSON ACTIVE MANAGEMENT AREA 7 IV. RENEWABLE WATER FOR TUCSON The CAP and the CAWD 11 The CAGRD 14 State Versus Local Water Planning 15 The Key Role of Agriculture and Indian Water 17 Reclaimed Water 18 V. SADDLEBROOKE WATER Groundwater 18 SaddleBrooke Water Companies 21 Assured Water Supply (AWS) 24 Water Deliveries and Groundwater Trends 26 Water Pricing 29 Water in Annual Property Taxes 30 VI. SADDLEBROOK'S WATER FUTURE 31 CONCLUSIONS 36 1

2 A SADDLEBROOKE WATER PRIMER Revised March 2012 by Bob Simpson Note: This revises a paper originally published in January, For convenience, general references to "SaddleBrooke" are meant to apply also to SaddleBrooke Ranch (SBR) unless information specific to one or the other is indicated. I. INTRODUCTION - WELCOME TO THE DESERT Most newcomers to the Tucson area do not know that vast amounts of water underlie parts of our arid Sonoran Desert. As the Santa Catalinas and other mountains have eroded away, basin-fill aquifers developed to great depths. For example in the central area of Tucson a well (not for water) was drilled to a depth of 11,987 feet through water-bearing structures without encountering bedrock. In the central part of Falcon Valley, just north of SaddleBrooke, depth to bedrock ranges from minimal to more than 3,200 feet. Although the potential water quantity is vast, recovering deep water would involve very high costs for extraction and for treating higher levels of dissolved solids and possible toxic contaminants. Under current Arizona law, extraction is not contemplated at depths greater than 1,000 feet (see AWS Certificates below). Another possible surprise to newcomers is that high water tables have historically supported local surface waters that met the needs of a limited human population. Until the 20 th century boom in irrigated agriculture and urban expansion, the Santa Cruz River flowed through Tucson year-round, nourishing rich riparian habitat into the 1940s. Before that, local Indians farmed along the River, and, after the railroad arrived 1880, local Chinese used the same fields to raise fruits, and vegetables to sell in local markets. In the 2

3 1920s even the Rillito River had so much water that a Tucson Mormon settlement, Binghampton, flourished near its banks, drawing water through canals to irrigate farms on both sides of the River. In the past half-century things have changed dramatically. Ground water levels have declined an estimated 150 feet at the site where George Pusch established his hand-dug Steam Pump well in the early 1900s. 1 In Tucson s central well fields, T14S, R14E, measured groundwater declines have reached 225 to 250 feet since the 1940s. Lakes Powell and Mead, crucial storage reservoirs on the Colorado River, have been threatened by a decade long drought that has reduced snow pack in most years (88% of the water in the River come from precipitation and snow melt upstream of Glen Canyon). By November, 2010, the water level in Lake Mead had declined to an elevation of 1,082 (above sea level) -- just 7 feet above the level of 1,075 that triggers a shortage declaration and rationing to lower priority users such as the Central Arizona Project (CAP). 2 A much improved snowpack in resulted in a revised forecast that first stage rationing is not foreseen until at least Another result of the over-use of groundwater in our region is that Pinal County is a principal area where land has subsided and the earth has fissured -- thousands of cracks, some of which have damaged highways, canals, homes and other infrastructure. Some agricultural land in the Eloy area subsided feet (Figure 1). Finally, there is now the issue of global warming and its unknown long term effects on flows in the Colorado River and its users. 1 The location of the well is between Home Depot and the Steampump Village shopping center on Oracle. 2 At this level, "excess" CAP users (farms, mines, and others) could lose 288,000 acre feet per year. Municipal users of CAP water would not be affected until the level in Lake Mead reaches about 1,025 feet. Source: Arizona Daily Star; Nov. 17,

4 So, how secure should we feel about living in SaddleBrooke which, except for its recaptured effluent, is entirely dependent on pumped groundwater? As will be seen below, SaddleBrooke s short term water prospects seem good because there is no evidence of any significant drop in local groundwater levels. With current population density and rainfall patterns, annual local recharge of underground water seems to still be not greatly out of balance with pumped withdrawals. Future threats to our water supply could, however, come from additional large residential developments dependent on pumped groundwater from the same aquifer. Figure 1 Eloy Land Subsidence Source: Land Subsidence and Earth Fissures in Arizona AZGS

5 However, SaddleBrooke also has a stake in a healthy, viable Greater Tucson metropolitan area. If the regional economy falters, our home values are not likely to be immune. Thus, it is relevant to SaddleBrooke residents that the economic viability of the entire Tucson area will depend on slowing, and ultimately stopping, the mining of area groundwater. Twenty years ago, Tucson was 100% dependent on groundwater. Today, the CAP accounts for about two-thirds of Tucson Water's deliveries, and the target is for 100% within the next few years. However, with projected continued increases in population growth, and with possibly declining future CAP supplies, the city will almost certainly again face the need for creative and expensive measures such as much greater conservation, purchasing CAP allocations from Indian tribes, engaging in "water farming" (buying up farmland for groundwater pumping rights), and even, in the long term, purchasing water from desalinization plants in California or Mexico (e.g., via CAP swapping arrangements for more Colorado River water). We will now look in more detail at the regulatory framework for water in our region and community. II. ARIZONA'S PROGRESSIVE WATER LAW In a 2007 Arizona Law Review article (Vol. 49, No. 2), University of Arizona Professor Sharon Megdal, and co-authors gave a brief history of Arizona s principal water statute as follows: In the late 1970s, a number of forces coalesced to produce the perfect scenario for overhauling Arizona s antiquated groundwater law. The chronic overdrafting of the state s reserves posed a threat to the state s economic well-being. Secretary of State Cecil Andrus threatened the state with loss of funding for construction of the CAP [Central Arizona Project] unless the state reformed it groundwater law. And the Arizona Supreme Court threatened to 5

6 prohibit any transportation of water off the overlying land, something mines and major cities had come to depend on. The 1980 Groundwater Management Act (GMA) was truly progressive. The GMA established a system of quantified rights for all existing groundwater users within Active Management Areas (AMAs), made most rights transferable, restricted initiating most new groundwater uses within AMAs, established strong management by the Department of Water Resources [ADWR], and required conservation programs. Since the GMA was enacted, other players have become more involved in the management of Arizona s water. The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) has restricted water use in specific sensitive locations. Locally, ADEQ requires that water company wells must be tested for water quality, and the results sent annually to all user households. The Arizona Corporations Commission has prohibited, or placed restrictions, on providing water to irrigate future golf courses in the course of awarding or extending certificates of necessity and convenience (CC&Ns) see e.g., Decision Number of Dec 5, Private environmental and other organizations are supporting legislation, and/or bringing court cases, to protect water supplies. In 2007, for example, the State Legislature passed HB 2300 requiring election plans for a special water district for the upper San Pedro Groundwater Basin. In November, 2010, creation of such a district was narrowly voted down; another local vote could be taken in The San Pedro, threatened by development, is southern Arizona s last continuously flowing river and a crucial riparian habitat area and bird migration corridor. These are only a few examples of the broader context within which water could be viewed. For SaddleBrooke, however, the role of the ADWR, through its oversight of the Tucson Active Management Area (TAMA), is key. 6

7 III. TUCSON ACTIVE MANAGEMENT AREA (TAMA) Arizona has five active management areas: Santa Cruz, Tucson, Pinal, Phoenix and Prescott. SaddleBrooke is located in the TAMA which covers 3,866 square miles and extends from the Mexican border north to the Falcon Valley and Oracle. The TAMA has an overriding statutory goal of achieving Safe Yield by the year Safe Yield means that the amount of groundwater pumped in the AMA does not exceed the amount of natural and artificial recharge on an annual basis. TAMA has two primary regulatory mechanisms governing new water : Permitting new wells. For non-exempt wells (wells producing more than 35 gallons per minute) TAMA administers well spacing requirements to address: three types of unreasonably increasing damage: (1) additional drawdown of water levels at neighboring wells of record; (2) additional regional land subsidence; and (3) migration of contaminated groundwater to a well of record. It also administers well construction standards. These regulations involve fairly extensive and complex guidelines and will not be presented here. The lighter statutory requirements for the regulation of exempt wells have been criticized. However, outside of active management areas, such wells are largely unregulated. Assured Water Supply. Under Arizona law, new residential developments located in an AMA cannot be platted unless the developer has obtained a Certificate of Assured Water Supply (CAWS) from the AMA, or has a firm supply commitment from a water provider that has a Designation of Assured Water Supply (DAWS). One of the five statutory criteria for acquiring an AWS is demonstrating the physical, legal and continuous availability of the water supply for 100 years. To meet "continuous availability", 7

8 well water levels must be maintained no lower than 1,000 feet below the surface for the 100 year period. To qualify for a CAWS, developers typically hire a hydrogeology firm to prepare an analysis based on area hydrogeologic data and anticipated water demand. The ADWR reviews such analyses using demand estimates calculated at full build-out, and with different criteria and formulas for residential units, golf courses, common landscaping areas, commercial units, etc. Since a 1995 strengthening of AWS Rules, applicants must also demonstrate the use of renewable water, rather than groundwater, to meet most of the demand of the development for 100 years. However, recognizing that sufficient renewable sources may not be available at the location of the development, an AMA permits this requirement to be met if the developer becomes a member of the Central Arizona Groundwater Replenishment District (CAGRD). The CAGRD, a quasi-government entity, describes its role, in part, as follows: "Development, is not necessarily stymied for those landowners and water providers who have no direct access to CAP water or other renewable supplies. If a water provider or a landowner has access to groundwater and desires to rely exclusively on groundwater to demonstrate a 100 year water supply, it may do so, provided it joins the CAGRD. As a member of the CAGRD, the landowner or provider must pay the CAGRD to replenish any groundwater pumped by the member which exceeds the pumping limitations imposed by the AWS Rules." Replenishment means that the CAGRD recharges somewhere in the same AMA the amount of renewable water needed to offset most (currently about 90%) of the groundwater that the developer will be pumping for 100 years. In other words, an AMA s rules aim at achievement of Safe Yield on a AMA-wide basis. This flexibility is crucial. It enables new large residential developments 8

9 to rely almost solely on the pumping of groundwater which could, over the years, result in significant drops in local water tables while the CAGRD is recharging replacement water elsewhere in the basin. To illustrate how TAMA s rules work, we may look at SaddleBrooke Ranch. On February 6, 2003, the ADWR issued a Certificate of Assured Water Supply to Robson Ranch Mountain, L.L.C. for the SBR development. The certificate was based, in part, on the following information which I have taken from the developer s application and the TAMA final approval: Number of lots 5,619 Golf three eighteen hole courses, three clubhouses Other 50 room hotel resort Other shopping center Water provider Arizona Water Company- SaddleBrooke Sewage utility Mountain Pass Utility Co. Type of water groundwater and treated effluent Consistency with Management Goal CAGRD enrollment 9/19/2000 Total Water Demand, Acre Feet/Year (AF/yr): Residential Non-residential Construction Lost+Unaccount TOTAL/YEAR (applies only during construction phase) Total 100 Year Demand 265,457 AF 9

10 Basic Groundwater Allowance 23, AF (groundwater that may be mined ) Percentage that may be mined 9% (23, divided by 265,457) Percentage to be replaced 91% (by CAGRD + effluent) Thus, SBR will be supplied almost entirely by new groundwater, with CAGRD recharging in a distant location (e.g., Avra Valley) 86% of the total 100 year demand (assuming effluent provides 5% of SBR usage). To further illustrate the flexibility of AMA rules, the SBR golf course is being irrigated by a recovery well. This means that the groundwater being pumped is not being recorded against the Ranch s groundwater allowance but rather against credits that the developer obtained by recharging effluent elsewhere in the TAMA. Also, because Arizona Water Company-SaddleBrooke was originally new (it was incorporated separately by the existing Arizona Water Company which serves Oracle) it was held by TAMA to lower conservation standards until it qualified as a large municipal supplier by achieving annual groundwater withdrawals of at least 250 AF. Finally, in becoming a member of the CAGRD the developer commits future homeowners to paying for groundwater replenishment. Thus, residents of SaddleBrooke Ranch pay in their annual Pinal County Real Estate Tax bills an amount, based on their water usage, at a rate that will increase as CAGRD's future cost of obtaining replenishment water increases. This "Pinal Groundwater Replenishment District (GRD)" tax is in addition to the ad valorem "Central AZ Water Conservation" property tax that all owners in Pinal, Maricopa and Pima counties now pay to help amortize the financing of the Central Arizona Project (CAP). 10

11 IV. RENEWABLE WATER FOR TUCSON As previously stated, the future economic health and growth of Tucson depends on halting groundwater mining and finding new sources of renewable water. The CAP and the CAWCD In 1922 the seven basin states of the Colorado River and the federal government negotiated the Colorado River Compact which divided the states into upper and lower basins, and apportioned 7.5 million acre feet (AF) of water annually for each basin. Arizona was the last to sign the Compact and obtained 2.8 million AF compared to California s 4.4 million. After 22 years of lobbying, and finally winning in the Supreme Court a suit filed against California, Arizona obtained Congressional approval for federal funding of a project to distribute River water to Pima, Maricopa and Pinal counties. Construction was begun in 1973 at Havasu on a canal system that today brings water 336 miles to a terminus 14 miles south of Tucson. 3 The Central Arizona Project (CAP) cost was about $4 billion; Arizona's share, reimbursable to the Federal Government was approximately 1.7 billion. As previously noted, residents of the three CAP counties pay Arizona's share via their property tax bills. CAP water is allocated to municipal, agricultural, mining, and certain Indian community users. The CAP canal system conducts about half of the total amount of Colorado River water allocated to Arizona to agricultural and urban users.. The other half goes from Yuma to users such as the Colorado River Indian Reservation and the Gila Project (agricultural irrigation districts). Tucson is at the end of the CAP canal system. The City (Tucson Water) and other local holders of 3 The CAP also lifts the water about 2,900 feet, using 14 pumping plants powered mostly by the coal-fired Navajo Generating Station near Page whilch is jointly owned by the Bureau of Reclamation, Tucson Electric Power, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, Salt River Project and other entities. 11

12 CAP allocations are recharging CAP water in the Marana/Avra Valley area and in South Tucson. Combined with other factors such as the purchase and retirement of farmland, and re-charging effluent into the Santa Cruz River bed, groundwater levels in certain locations have made some recent recovery e.g., a rise of feet in the Marana area. Unfortunately, CAP water as now allocated is almost certainly not going to be sufficient to meet Tucson s projected growing needs, especially as other basin states demands on the River increase, and especially during periods of reduced River flows. In 2007 the ADWR website described its overview of the situation, in part, as follows: When the Colorado River Compact was negotiated, average annual flows were estimated to be about 18 million acre-feet. Today a more accurate flow estimate is about 16.3 million acrefeet, however total Colorado River allocations, including the Mexican Treaty obligation, total 16.5 million acre-feet. Annual flows are highly variable ranging from a low of 6.3 million acrefeet to a high of 27 million acre-feet Since 2007, scientific reports have been released raising the possibility of severe shortages of water in the Colorado River. On July 27, 2009 the Denver Post carried an article stating that scientists at the University of Colorado found that all reservoirs along the Colorado River which provide water for 27 million people in seven states could dry up by 2057 because of climate change and overuse. Specifically, one finding was that if warming led to a 10 percent reduction in the river's flow, it would create a 25 percent chance of depletion. This followed a 2008 study by scientists at the Scripps Institute of Oceanography in San Diego indicating that climate change and increased demand for water on the Colorado River could, with a 50% probability, "drain" 12

13 Lake Mead by The terms "dry up" and "drain" are from press accounts and do not reflect the fact that the Colorado River will continue to flow, but likely at some future time in quantities insufficient to maintain lake storage levels without significant cutbacks in water deliveries. To plan to manage possible shortages, the Basin States agreed to Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and the Coordinated Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead, signed by the Secretary of Interior in December According to the CAP website, these guidelines are especially important to Arizona "because CAP holds a "junior" priority water entitlement to Colorado River water among the Lower Basin states (Arizona, California, and Nevada). Other low priority Colorado River contractors in Arizona, such as the Mohave County Water Authority, also will be subject to reductions during times of shortage". Details of the Agreement and how CAP plans to manage future reductions in its deliveries are found at Long-unresolved Indian water claims could further complicate Tucson s future access to CAP water. In its shortage planning, CAP designates 475,000 AF of its High Priority water to "Tribal Customers" -- an amount larger than designated to its Municipal and Industrial Customers (450,000 AF). This amount for Tribal Customers includes existing allocations (to 12 tribes) and foreseen allocations pursuant to the settlement of additional claims. 4 While the CAP takes no position on the reliability of climate change estimates, or the outcome of Indian claims, in 2007 it stated that long term water demands in CAP's three-county service area are projected to exceed currently available supplies. Accordingly, 4 For example, the White Mountain Apache Tribe Water Rights Quantification Act was passed in 2010 affording the WMAT 25,000 AF/YR of Colorado River water. The Tribe is currently negotiating an agreement to lease 2,500 AF/YR of that water for 100 years to the CAGRD for its replenishment program. 13

14 it has created the Add Water Program to determine when new supplies need to be acquired and what entities get those supplies. In November, 2010 the Staff presented a proposal, the Executive Summary of which outlined a water acquisition plan: Phasing. The program envisions six 50,000 acre-foot phases with the first phase beginning in 2015 and a new phase commencing every five years until a total of 300,000 acre-feet has been acquired and developed or until water supplies targeted for ADD Water have been exhausted, whichever comes first. Types. ADD Water plans to target three water supply sources: Colorado River water, imported groundwater and potentially, brackish groundwater. ADD Water will not target ocean desalination. The Proposal is currently undergoing discussions and revisions which can be followed on the CAP website The CAP is managed and operated by the Central Arizona Water Conservation District (CAWCD), a municipal corporation formed to repay the federal government for the reimbursable costs of construction, and to operate the CAP. Members of its 15 member Board are elected from the three member counties served by the CAP. The CAGRD Also operated by the CAWCD is the previously-discussed CAGRD which makes developments like SaddleBrooke possible by replenishing renewable water in the AMAs. In the past, CAGRD has obtained excess CAP water for this purpose -- ie, water not used by allocation holders. However, in 2009 for the first time there were more orders for CAP excess water than was available. CAGRD has recognized that it will need to develop additional supplies of renewable water 5 and that possible sources are the 5 CAGRD currently believes that it can meet its projected 2035 recharge target of 227,000 AF, but, after that, additional sources will be needed. 14

15 Colorado River (agricultural), Indian leased CAP, effluent, and legally imported groundwater (not truly renewable, but a firm supply in the sense it is contractually purchased). These are some of the same sources that are being considered in the CAP's ADD Water planning. 6 Because new water will be significantly more expensive than excess CAP water, CAGRD will be forced to increase the property taxes imposed on affected homeowners. In its most recent Rate Schedule, the Assessment Rate for the Tucson AMA is $427/AF for 2011/12, rising to $617/AF in 2016/16. Thus, affected homeowners in SaddleBrooke will see their CGRD property tax component increase by about 44% during this period unless they reduce water usage. State Versus Local Water Planning Although state law provides the primary regulatory framework for water in southern Arizona, local jurisdictions also can play a very important role. In water conservation, for example, the state's actions are pursuant to the statutory provisions of the 1980 GMA -- i.e, achieving safe yield in the AMAs. The GMA provides no authority to act to protect riparian habitat or sustain stream flows, or otherwise to support a sustainable environment. Here, some local governments have stepped in. Conservation is the equivalent of finding renewable water. Switching to a more efficient irrigation system, or installing a low flow bathroom shower head are examples of the many permanent changes homeowners can make that reduce water usage every year. TAMA has rules for municipal water suppliers to reduce per capita water consumption, or alternatively, adhere to best management practices to achieve conservation. Farmers have been subject to 6 In the current version of the ADD Water proposal, the CAGRD would ultimately be relieved of the task of finding new sources of renewable water; that function would be folded into the ADD Water project. 15

16 non-expansion of irrigated acreage requirements, and limited phased reductions of groundwater use per acre. Farmers must have meters on their wells and report usage, while remaining free to decide whether to plant lower water requirement crops, use watersaving irrigation techniques, etc. Tucson Water recently increased its residential water rate by 10 percentage points, 2 and ½ percent of which is to provide revenues for conservation (e.g. incentives for low water use fixtures). The City of Tucson and the County of Pima have jointly initiated a Water Infrastructure, Supply and Planning Study (WISP) in a joint effort to plan water for a sustainable economic future for the region. Major new water policy initiatives have recently been taken by the Town of Oro Valley which has been experiencing significant declines in groundwater levels. On Feb. 10, 2012 it dedicated new facilities to receive 2,000-4,000 AF per year of its allotment of CAP water by paying for its treatment and delivery (to OV water connections) by the Tucson Water Co. This process of contracting with another party to convey water is known as "wheeling" and will cost OV about $500 per AF delivered. By a combination of wheeling and future investments in its own direct connection to its 10,000 AF/year CAP allocation, OV expects to reduce groundwater pumping and be able to stabilize its groundwater levels while still growing its population. Already in 2012, OV expects that its groundwater pumping will be reduced by 37% from its former peak because of its new CAP water combined with locally-generated effluent to water golf courses. Renewable water use is reflected in OV's plan, adopted Nov. 19, 2008, to govern the future annexation of State land known as the Arroyo Grande project a development that would eventually add 38,000 or more residents to the Town. In addition to requiring a wildlife corridor and buffer protection of biologically-sensitive 16

17 areas of the County's Sonoran Desert Protection Plan, the Council adopted the policy that the development will be served 100% by renewable physical (CAP or reclaimed) water supplied by the eventual developers: It is significant that Oro Valley has apparently moved to deny developers the right, under State AMA regulation, to meet groundwater replacement requirements by CAGRD contracts i.e., paper water. It remains to be seen whether the State Land Department will concur in the negotiation of an annexation agreement between the two parties, and whether there will be legal challenges to such a provision. Pinal County adopted a new Comprehensive Plan on November 18, 2009 which foresees major County population growth for which existing water resources will be clearly insufficient. However, the Plan cites the State's primacy in the role of regulating development from the standpoint of water resources. Unlike Pima County and Oro Valley planning, the Pinal Plan contains no provisions for County regulation of water to preserve riparian areas or a sustainable environment. The Key Role of Agriculture and Indian Water Agriculture represents a large factor in Southern Arizona s water picture. State-wide, it accounts for 75% of total water consumption. In the TAMA agriculture consumes 26%, but in Pinal County, over 95%. However, agricultural acreage in southern Arizona has decreased dramatically since the mid-1980s. A recent Morrison Institute study notes that, to a large extent, farm land and water have been converted to subdivisions in the same place. 7 This has helped 7 Watering the Sun Corridor, Managing Choices in Arizona's Megapolitan Areas, The Morrison Institute for Public Policy, Arizona State University, August P

18 sustainability since an acre of houses generally uses less water than an acre of cotton, alfalfa or other high water-use crops. The Morrison study also notes, "The AMA s irrigation districts (excepting the San Carlos Irrigation District) have been using CAP water for the most part during the past 20 years." Thus expected future declines of farm acreage are expected to free up substantial quantities of both renewable and ground water for municipal and industrial growth. "One large potential source though one with huge political ramifications would be moving some Colorado River water from western Arizona agriculture to the Sun Corridor. There may be 200,000 acre feet or more available annually." Water farming is not new. In the 1970s the City of Tucson purchased some 10,000 acres of farmland in the TAMA for groundwater rights. Phoenix has also acquired water rights in this 18

19 way. In California, the Imperial Irrigation District is transferring agricultural water to the City of San Diego with payments to Imperial Valley farmers for the diverted water. Arizona Indian tribes have acquired substantial amount of water in settlements of long-standing claims. For example, the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC) has a settlement which will provide 653,500 acre feet of water annually from various sources, including CAP allocations. 8 Already, the CAP distributes over 333,000 AF per year as "Federal Water" (ie, Indian water), about 70% of which is leased to local municipalities, mining companies or irrigation districts. 9 Reclaimed Water According to a 5/28/2010 TAMA draft study, reclaimed water (used mostly on golf courses, parks, etc.) would account for about 5.6% of total water supply in 2025 (under base scenarios), up from 4.9% in Under an enhanced use scenario, reclaimed could increase to about 11% and allow Safe Yield to be achieved. ( V. SADDLEBROOKE'S WATER Groundwater SaddleBrooke is located in the Upper Santa Cruz Basin. Our aquifer is often referred to as the Falcon Valley Aquifer because we benefit from the southward movement of groundwater from that Valley which is hydrologically bounded by the northern limits of the TAMA. This southward flow is illustrated in Figure 2 which shows the elevations of the water table -- over 3,000 feet in the north descending to 2,200 feet as groundwater exits Oro Valley. 8 Morrison Report, p CAP Water Deliveries, Calendar 2010 Report. 19

20 Figure 2 Water Level WATER LEVEL ELEVATIONS IN TUCSON AMA FALL 2004 Elevations AND SPRING in 2005 TAMA 2004/2005 The alluvial structures from which SaddleBrook's wells draw water are relatively deep. Figure 3 shows the depth to bedrock contours in the area. The SaddleBrooke and Mountainview clubhouses, as well as Desertview are within the contours where depth to bedrock is 3,200 feet or more. In some areas to the west, beyond the Tortalitas, depths become even greater -- to 9,000 feet (purple). 20

21 Figure 3 Depth to Bedrock Contours in Feet Water levels in these deep structures receive annual recharge, largely from mountainside runoff -- the Catalinas and Tortalitas in our area. Figure 4 shows color coded sources of recharge near Saddlebrooke (blue star)-- green providing an historical average of acre feet per mile per year, and purple Measured along the entire yellow line west of SaddleBrooke, Big Wash historically recharged 1,400 af/yr. The dotted line at the top marks the northern boundary of the Tucson AMA and of Falcon Valley. The purple line to the right of SaddleBrooke is the Canada 21

22 del Oro, while the green/purple line further to the right is mountain front recharge. Figure 4 Historical Annual Recharge Along Mountain Fronts and Stream Channels Source: WR Osterkamp 1973 SaddleBrooke Water Companies. Two companies serve SaddleBrooke with interconnections for redundancy. SBR is served by a separate company. 22

23 Lago del Oro Water. Lago is a large municipal supplier regulated by TAMA. The Board of Directors consists of Edward J. Robson, Steven Robson, Lloyd W. Golder, III, and Vicky J. Cox-Golder. The Company had 13 wells producing water in 2009 as shown in Figure 5. Figure 5 Wells and Production (acre feet) 2009 Lago del Oro Water Company GWSI Site ID Legal Description Water Well Depth Drill Date Level (ft) 2009 Output D DCC /1/ D BDD /28/ D BDD E+14 D DBC /5/ D BCA D CBD D CB D DDC D ACB /23/ D BAB /17/ D BCD /22/ E+14 D AAA /11/ E+14 D ADD /1/ E+14 D DCC /1/ E+14 D ACC /1/ E+14 D DBD /1/ E+14 D DDD /8/ E+14 D ABD /1/ E+14 D B /1/ D BBD 370 5/19/ Total Output 2677 Top Two wells 50% Top Four wells 73% 23

24 Ridgeview Utility Co. According to Arizona Corporations Commission (ACC) on-line records, Ridgeview Utility Company was incorporated on Feb. 2, Its officers include Edward J. Robson, Chairman; Mark Robson, President; and Steven M. Soriano, Vice President. On Jan. 17, 2005 Ridgeview informed the ACC that it was establishing service to its first permanent customer. The company today is a Large Municipal Provider, serving The Preserve and a few more recent parts of SaddleBrooke (HOA#2). Three wells are registered for Ridgeview as shown in Figure 6. Figure 6 Ridgeview Utility Co. Legal Description Drill Date 2009 Output Well Depth (ft) Water Level D CBA 1/22/ D CCB 5/13/ D BCB 11/2/ Total Output Indicating the interconnectivity between the two systems, in 2009 Ridgeview delivered 22.7 AF to Lago del Oro Water, and received 66.5 AF from Lago. At the end of 2009, Ridgeview had 139 residential connections. Arizona Water Company AZWC is a large company that serves more than 70,000 customers in various parts of Arizona. A sub-unit, "AZWC-SaddleBrooke" was the provider to SBR until 11/19/2007 when it was merged with the AZWC-Oracle system. The last AZWC-SB annual report to ADWR was for 2007; since then data for SBR are included in AZWC-Oracle Reports, and not separated. 24

25 Assured Water Supply (AWS). When SaddleBrooke began construction in 1986, AWS rules had not yet been promulgated by the ADWR. Following the adoption of rules in 1995, SaddleBrooke Development Company applied for and received Certificates of AWS (CAWS) as follows: 10/24/ Unit 21 (North Expansion) ADWR File # /3/ Units File # /3/ Units File # The CAWS application and review files are available as scanned documents on the ADWR website: azwater.gov (data center, imaged records). From these records Figure 7 shows that a hydrogeological study dated 10/13/2000 was used to support the issuance of the CAWS for Unit 21 in addition to the CAWS for Units The key determination the ADWR must make is that the 100 year impact of the proposal will not lower the depth to water to more than 1,000 feet below ground level. The chart shows that the applicant's projection is a lowering of the Year 2000 depth of 500 feet to a depth of ft. in 100 years. Of this ft. decline, 100 ft. is attributed to a "regional groundwater level decline trend" of one foot per year. Such an area trend decline is a conservative factor required by the ADWR for relatively simple models such as the one (Theis) used for these applications. The 100 year projection takes into account, through "image wells" the combined 25

26 impacts of previously-built SaddleBrooke Phases I and II. 10 The Theis model used did not take into account any natural recharge during the 100 year period; i.e., the projected water level drawdowns were based conservatively only on water already in the aquifer in year 1. Analytical Parameters Figure 7 CAWS Application and Review by ADWR SaddleBrooke Units 21, Consultant Study 10/13/2000 ADWR AWS Review 10/24/2001 (Unit 21) ADWR AWS Review 6/3/2002 (Units 42-45) Analytical Model Theis Thwells (Theis Theis Impact Analysis Non-Equilibrium Method) Dwelling Units Demand 525 units af/yr (215 units) 99.7 AF/YR (525 units) AF/YR Golf Course Demand af/yr Depth to Groundwater (well 500 ft 510 feet 500 feet 16) Bedrock Bounderies (Pirate Fault and un-named western boundary) 2 image wells Number of Production Wells 1 Regional GW level decline 1 ft/yr 2.14 Ft/Yr 1-2 Ft/YR trend SaddleBrooke Phase I and II 61 ft Impact years North Expansion Impact ft 100 years North Expansion 100 Yr ft feet feet Depth to Water CAGRD Membership Yes Yes Letters of Objection Received Letters of Objection Denied/Dismissed The last two columns in the table show that, in some instances, the ADWR reviewers used slightly different assumptions, but arrived at a range of impacts consistent with that of the applicant. 10 The number appears to be in error because 500 ft. plus 61 ft. plus 16.9 ft equals ft. 26

27 An excerpt from the consultant's study for a CAWS for Units is shown in Figure 8. The 100 year depth to water estimate is shown to be higher than those shown in Figure 7. This seems to be explained largely by the different location of the reference well (higher beginning water level) used for the analysis. Figure 8 Excerpt from CAWS Application, Units A CAWS for SaddleBrooke Ranch was obtained by Robson Ranch Mountain, LLC on 2/6/2003. The ADWR's Analysis of Assured Water Supply, dated 3/21/2002, states that a "Water Availability Report was issued on July 21, 1995 that agreed with the Hydrogeology Investigation Falcon Valley Ranch by Southwest Groundwater Consultants dated April 17, Falcon Valley Ranch is the same area, minus 308 acres, as SaddleBrooke Ranch. The Report estimated that sufficient groundwater to serve a total demand of 2,736 acre feet per year...is available for 100 years. This slightly exceeds the potable demand estimate at build-out for SaddleBrooke Ranch..." 27

28 Water Deliveries and Groundwater Trends Figure 9 shows water delivered by local companies, including the Goodman Water Co. serving Eagle Crest. Figure Water Deliveries SaddleBrooke Area Groundwater Lago del Oro Water Ridgeview Water SaddleBrooke Ranch Goodman Water 2010 Number of wells Single family units Total GW delivered To single family To turf (Golf) To commercial To other To Lago del Oro 23 - To Ridgeview 67 Lost/Unaccounted 12 Percent family units 67% 7% 84% 2009 SaddleBrooke Water Deliveries to Golf Courses (Acre feet) Total LDO SB Courses Mountainview Course Total Ridgeview Preserve Groundwater Percent GW of total 56% 44% 75% 93% Golf delivered SB Ranch 28

29 LDO SB Mtnvw Ridgeview Effluent Percent effluent of total Golf 44% 56% 25% 6% Total Water to Golf Trends in local groundwater tables are difficult to analyze. Local water companies do not report depth to water in their wells to the ADWR, it being optional reporting. According to a Lago del Oro official, Lago does not report water levels because its wells are pumped so heavily that reliable static water level readings cannot be obtained. 11 Limited evidence of water level stability in the area does, however, exist. Figure 10 is a hydrograph showing the water levels in an official Index Well tested annually by the ADWR. The well is located adjacent to the corrals on left side of SaddleBrooke Blvd., shortly after starting uphill from Oracle Rd. The graph shows considerable fluctuations in water levels from about 1950 to The steady down trend since 1990 may be weather-related since it correlates roughly with official Tucson rainfall measurements superimposed in black during Another indication of a stable water table is reporting to the ADWR by the Arizona Water Company on one well in the Oracle Junction area. This well had November depth-to-water measurements of 345 feet in 2003 and 344 feet in Spring measurements were 342 feet for all three years, Anecdotal evidence also indicates relative stability in local groundwater tables. For example, the owner of one privatelyowned well in Catalina located near Capstan and Edwin Rd., and within the impact zone of one of Lago del Oro's primary producing 11 Providers with a AWS certificates (CAWS) are not required by ADWR to report well water levels; those with designations of AWS (DAWS) are so required. A.A.C. R (A)(4) 12 The rancher who uses the corrals states that the well has not been pumped for many years; he obtains water from Lago del Oro. 29

30 wells (depth over 1,200 feet), reports no significant water level changes. More generally, there apparently have been no reports of well problems in the Catalina area. Figure 10 Index Well SaddleBrooke Blvd. 30

31 Water Pricing Because it has an older system, built at a lower cost, Lago del Oro Water has a lower price structure for water than other local utilities. At the SEIC-sponsored Water Forum at Desertview on April 20, 2011, Steven Soriano, Vice President of Lago, presented a summary of area company water rates and estimated monthly costs for a typical user as shown in Figure 10. Figure 10 Source: Steve Soriano Robson Communities Water in Annual Property Taxes As explained in Part V, the annual Pinal property tax bills of SaddleBrooke residents contain a water conservation tax, and some also contain a GRD (groundwater replenishment) tax. Information for 2010 is shown in Figure

32 Figure 11 Central AZ Water Conservation Tax Assessed annually on homes in Maricopa, Pinal and Pima counties to repay AZ reimbursable share ($1.65 billion) of CAP construction ($4 billion) Rate is 6 cents/$100 of assessed valuation, plus 4 cents/$100 to purchase water for AZ Water Banking Authority for underground storage to confront future shortages Typical charge in SaddleBrooke -- $30-40 Pinal GRD Tax Applies in SaddleBrooke to homeowners in Units for which the developer obtained a CAWS (Units 21, 42-50) and all of SBR Proceeds go to Central Arizona Groundwater Replenishment District (CAGRD) to meet developer s obligation to replace a percentage of pumped groundwater with recharged renewable water in the same AMA. Calculated on annual metered water consumption by residence Typical charge in SaddleBrooke -- $97 32

33 VI. SADDLEBROOKE'S WATER FUTURE As has been seen, the hydro-geological analysis submitted by SaddleBrooke Development Co. for the most recent North Expansion shows a groundwater decline from about 500 feet below surface, to about 680 feet below surface in 100 years. One ADWR reviewer of this study found a 100 year groundwater level of feet below surface. Of course, these analyses do not take into account future area development. From the experience of nearby Oro Valley, it is clear that over-development can cause an acceleration of groundwater decline. As shown in the map, the recent ten-year decline in parts of OV was feet. At this rate, the decline would be feet in 100 years, lowering groundwater well below the 1,000 feet statutory minimum in the TAMA. WATER SURFACE ELEVATION CHANGE Red -70 to -50 Ft Yellow -50 to -30 Dark Blue

34 This is, of course, not sustainable and is the reason Oro Valley plans to spend $150 million or more (in two phases) for a pipeline and other infrastructure to provide more of its 10,305 AF/YR allocation of CAP water to residents by either re-charge or direct distribution. There are reasons that SaddleBrooke should never get into OV's situation. It is located "upstream" in groundwater elevation and has first access to annual recharges shown in Part V. Moreover, it is protected by the requirement that any future area developments meet the AWS requirements of the TAMA (requirements that were not in place in time to protect Oro Valley). At the present time, two new major developments in our area are on the horizon (both temporarily at a stand-still due to a depressed housing market). Willow Springs is the site of a proposed community to be located in Falcon Valley near the Black Mountains, some 8 miles north of SaddleBrooke Ranch. Initially proposed as a large development (80,000 people according to one report), the current plat, tentatively approved by the County, is for only two units of Willow Springs South, totaling 1,105 lots. Pinal County has had no activity on the application for 3 years, and the current tentative approval expires in August, On April 15, 2008 the ADWR issued to Willow Springs Utilities, LLC. a DAWS in the amount of 2,875 AF/yr. This is about the same amount of water projected to be used by SBR. Figure 12 shows that the three Willow Springs wells could lower water levels in SaddleBrooke wells by feet in 100 years, 100 feet of which is an assumed area trend and not calculated from the analytical model. On 2/3/2011 the ADWR issued a Notice of Violation of the terms of the DAWS, WS having failed to submit annual reports and failed to demonstrate required water rights. Since then, WS has come into compliance. 34

35 The other major development proposed for the SaddleBrooke area is Arroyo Grande, previously discussed in Part IV. As noted, Oro Valley has adopted Plan policies to require that this development be supplied entirely by renewable water -- not local groundwater. It remains to be seen whether the State Land Department will agree to an annexation agreement on these terms. Skeptics also point out that a future town council could change policy -- as it recently did, with new elected members, in withdrawing its opposition to the Rosemont Copper Mine project. Figure 12 Willow Springs 35

36 In such an event, however, the project would still be under the AWS provisions of the TAMA and, located adjacent to Oro Valley which is already experiencing unsustainable groundwater declines, could be curtailed by the 100 year supply requirement. Discussion of groundwater in our area is somewhat handicapped by the lack of hydro-geologic data. In 2001 a Water Roundtable was held at Biosphere to assess the known facts about the basin surrounded by the Catalina Mountains, the Tortalita Mountains, the Black Hills, and the Oracle Divide (ie, Falcon Valley ). Participants included officials of the ADWR, and the TAMA, as well as private hydrologists, geologists and other private interests, including Robson Communities and the Arizona Water Company. No consensus findings emerged, and the lack of hydrologic data was clearly an issue. A State groundwater modeling report issued in estimated groundwater outflow from Falcon Valley to be relatively small, probably about 500 AF/yr. 14 In 2006, SBR pumped 700 acre feet for its new golf course a new withdrawal that alone exceeds the estimated Falcon Valley outflow. In 2009 The Preserve Golf Course and other turf accounted for 455 acre feet of new usage. New withdrawals in the Valley may increase to an estimated 3,000 AF/yr at build-out for SBR, and to an additional 2,875 AF/yr at build-out for the Willow Springs development (see Appendix). Since these amounts are far in excess of the annual surplus of recharged underground water that has flowed out of Falcon Valley, the Valley will experience declining water tables in the future. 13 "Model Report #13, Arizona Department of Water Resources Regional Groundwater Flow Model of the TAMA, Tucson, AZ, Simulation and Application" by Dale A. Mason and Liciniu Bota. 14 Modeling studies of this nature, primarily because of data deficiencies, are subject to substantial margins of error 30 to 40% in the judgment of some analysts. 36

37 This finding, of course, is not inconsistent with the hydrogeological studies discussed in Section V.3. above. The rate of decline is difficult to predict. Water moves very slowly and it may take many years for the effects of a new major well to spread widely. More importantly, the total volume of water stored in the Valley is difficult to estimate because most of the land is undeveloped and there are relatively few wells from which data can be taken. A further longer term unknown is whether future heavy pumping in the Valley could lower water elevations and trigger at least a temporary reversal of water flow ie, a flow of groundwater from the greater SaddleBrooke area back into Falcon Valley. In this event, future housing developments in Falcon Valley could have an enhanced impact on Lago del Oro wells. Finally, some controversy has existed as to the future impact of the Page-Trowbridge landfill located adjacent to SaddleBrooke Ranch. PTRL was operated by the University of Arizona from 1962 to 1986 for low level radioactive and chemical wastes. The facility, closed in August 1997, is subject to a post-closure Permit issued by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) on Nov. 6, A monitoring program, involving a solar powered air capture system and four 800 foot deep monitoring water wells, is in place pursuant to the Permit. The Federal EPA also has jurisdiction for the site. A detailed explanation of the monitoring program is found on SaddleBrooke Television's website, sightsnsounds.org. (Videos: Ongoing Series, Water Issues for SaddleBrooke). The SaddleBrooke External Affairs and Information Commission (SEIC) has also made a preliminary inquiry into PTRL and is considering having an educational forum on the matter in CONCLUSIONS 1. SaddleBrooke s Current Water Situation Looks Favorable. 37

38 Since 2000, the ADWR has issued several Certificates of Assured Water Supply, for SaddleBrooke, Willow Springs, and other developments, finding that there is sufficient groundwater to serve developments in the greater Saddlebrooke area for 100 years, with groundwater levels not declining below 1000 feet from surface. Local index well performance and other anecdotal evidence do not offer contradictory information. Annual water quality reports for local water companies remain favorable and the PTRL site is being carefully monitored.. 2. Future Regional Water Risk Factors. Major population growth is still projected for Pima and Pinal Counties, after the current economic downturn ends. Groundwater alone cannot support such growth. More than a decade of drought has reduced flows on the Colorado River, and the ADWR acknowledges that Arizona's existing CAP water will not be sufficient to support growth with current per capita use levels by consumers. Significant climate change, man-made or natural, appears underway and likely to exacerbate future water problems. The cost of obtaining and distributing additional renewable water (from desalination, buying up agricultural and Indian rights, using more reclaimed water, etc.) will be very expensive. How and when water issues like these could affect property values and quality of life in the Tucson region are questions without clear answers. 3. SaddleBrooke's Long Term Exposure. In its Five Year Action Plan for Water Sustainability, posted online Oct. 2010, the ADWR states that "given current projections, the TAMA will not reach safe yield by 2025". It continues: "Although of critical importance, even if the safe yield goal were met, it would not solve all the issues related to groundwater overdraft. Under the 1980 GMA, development may continue to mine groundwater through purchase of paper water recharge credits from the Central Arizona Project. State law allows for withdrawals 38

39 in one part of the AMA to be offset by recharge in another, hydrologically disconnected location. As such, safe yield applies strictly on an AMA-wide basis and can result in continued problems related to localized overdraft within sub-basins." SaddleBrooke is in a sub-basin significantly disconnected from existing groundwater recharge facilities (e.g., in Avra Valley). It's water future will thus remain especially dependent on the validity of ADWR's reviews of future groundwater supplies related to new large area developments. 4. The Question of a Sustainable Environment. In 2008 Pima County enacted an amendment of its Comprehensive Plan to integrate land use and water resource planning. A County report providing background to support this amendment stated, "OroValley, Marana and Flowing Wells Irrigation District, have realized that the state regulated system does not provide a sustainable future for their customers. All of the areas have experienced water level declines and realize that delivering renewable water is the only sustainable path." 15 The Report further notes that Reducing groundwater levels by much less than 1,000 feet could likely cause significant problems with subsidence and water quality. The physical, environmental and economic costs would be so great that it is unlikely that water providers would actually draw aquifers down his low." Thus far, Pinal County, unlike Pima, has not adopted in its Plan the integration of land use and water resource planning to address issues such as protection of wildlife and riparian habitat and other sustainability issues. 5. State Trust Lands Pose An Issue. 15 Recently, the capital investment for extending to these providers their CAP allocations was estimated at over $300 million. 39

40 As SaddleBrooke s experience with neighboring Eagle Crest is demonstrating, State Constitutional provisions requiring the disposition of State trust lands at their highest value (to support public education and certain other functions) poses a threat to ecological and aesthetic values. Moreover, depletion of local aquifers is a future issue. A glance at a map indicates that more than 90% of Falcon Valley is Trust land as is almost all of the land surrounding SaddleBrooke to the north and west to the Tortalitas. 16 The extent of the threat to local groundwater of further State trust land auctions to developers will be determined by the policies of Pinal County and other local jurisdictions working with the State Land Department to ensure that new developments have access to sufficient wet (on-site) renewable water and preserve environmental and wildlife values. * * * It is hoped that this presentation for SaddleBrooke residents will heighten awareness of water as the underpinning of our long term well-being in this community, and encourage participation in the political process bearing on the sustainability of this desert land for ourselves and for generations to come. Bob Simpson March Over 1,000 acres of SaddleBrooke itself was obtained by the SaddleBrooke Development Company at auctions of State lands in 1994 and

41 APPENDIX Long Term Water Issues The present paper has pointed out that future water issues facing SaddleBrooke cannot be separated from those facing the larger Tucson region. But, equally important, our fortunes are, and will always be, linked to water issues facing the state and the Colorado River Basin states. In 2011 the following three studies were among those released providing treatments of these broader themes. Watering the Sun Corridor, Managing Choices in Arizona's Megapolitan Areas, The Morrison Institute for Public Policy, Arizona State University, August Arizona at the Crossroads; Water Scarcity or Water Sustainability?, Grand Canyon Institute, Karen L. Smith, Fellow, April 2011 Water Resources Development Commission; Final Report, Oct. 1, 2011, Arizona Department of Water Resources. This latter study 17 was a result of House Bill The Commission is tasked with the following: Compile and consider the projected water needs of each Arizona county in the next 25, 50 and 100 years; 17 ( df) 41

42 Identify and quantify the water supplies currently available in each county; Identify potential water supplies to meet additional demands in the next 25, 50 and 100 years and the legal and technical issues associated with using those supplies; Identify potential mechanisms for financing the acquisition, treatment and delivery of water supplies; and make recommendations regarding further studies and evaluations. * * * The following excerpt from the Sun Corridor Report addresses population growth. "This report will focus on the three big counties at the heart of urban Arizona: Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal. The original Sun Corridor report included Santa Cruz and Yavapai, and both of those counties are likely to fit the megapolitan s employmentinterchange factor in the near future. However, given the current growth of central Arizona, its three principal counties pose the biggest challenge. From 2005 to 2010, the prices of homes in Metro Phoenix, for example, fell by almost 50%. Arizona as a state went from creating 121,000 jobs between October 2005 and October 2006 to losing 183,000 jobs in The Sun Corridor s traditionally homebuilding-based economy saw housing construction plummet. In light of the realities of the 2008 economic collapse, Morrison Institute commissioned Marshall Vest, director of the Economic and Business Research Center at the University of Arizona s Eller College of Management, to revisit the population projections." 42

43 43