City-Pima water-use solutions elusive

Yet it's not clear whether area water providers want what Pima County has to offer.

Interviews with the water providers found them united in saying the most pressing issue is securing more water supplies, whether from desalinization, from remote groundwater basins in Western Arizona or from farmers selling their water rights.

Pima County officials, in contrast, are proposing far greater use be made of the effluent produced by the county-run wastewater system, and possibly even using the county's taxing authority to develop the infrastructure to do that.

But Tucson Water already controls most of the effluent, feels confident in its long-term water supply and plans only incremental expansion of the reclaimed water system.

Meanwhile, many smaller water providers, some of whom are in dire straits, wonder why they aren't at the table and what broad new powers the county may be seeking. They also are forming their own cooperative groups, independent of the city and the county.

Pima County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry said the county is in a unique position to advocate for conservation and more water for the environment without fear of lost revenue.

"One of the problems with water utilities is they are dependent on the sale of a product for their revenue," he said. "That makes them less concerned about sustainability. We're probably uniquely suited to be the conscience of water providers that they can't be or won't be."

The Tucson City Council will decide in February whether it wants to pay for a joint study with the county to look at potential areas of cooperation. But when the issue was raised earlier this month, most City Council members' first reaction was to insist they will not give up any authority or water.

Huckelberry said he is not surprised at the reactions.

"It's probably more complicated than the RTA by a factor of five, and that took four tries," Huckelberry said, referring to the Regional Transportation Authority plan approved by voters in 2006.

Water providers had proposal

The last proposal for regional water cooperation came from the water providers themselves. Members of the Southern Arizona Water Users Association wanted to form a water authority that would seek out new renewable supplies. Each water provider would maintain its own distribution system and customers but would work together to find more water.

But the Tucson City Council balked at the idea. Tucson Water has a large Central Arizona Project allotment and significant recharge infrastructure already, and the council members feared giving up the city's ability to pursue new water sources to a new organization that might fail.

The new proposal for cooperation is far more nebulous, and that is by design. Council Member Karin Uhlich, the council's strongest supporter of regional cooperation, said it makes sense to identify common goals and resources before committing to any new arrangement.

And that process includes the city and the county, but not the smaller water providers.

The justification for that is this: Tucson Water provides water to 73 percent of the households in the metro area, while Pima County provides sewer service to more than 80 percent of the households.

The two entities have 196,000 customers — households or businesses — in common. And Pima County treats the effluent that could be an increasingly important resource for recharge, reclaimed water and restoring natural areas.

More ways to use water sought

Rather than focus on securing new supplies from remote groundwater basins in Western Arizona or looking to farmers to sell their water rights, Huckelberry wants to find more ways to use the water we already have.

The Wastewater Management Department recently changed its name to the Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department.

Huckelberry said terms like treated sewage and effluent will be talked about instead as recycled water that will be cleaner than the water we drink today, though he said reclaimed water should be reserved for non-potable uses.

Jurisdictions without a renewable water supply, like Marana, are looking to effluent as a solution. The town has sued Pima County to get control of a sewage-treatment plant because it wants the effluent for recharge. The town estimates it needs 35,000 to 40,000 acre feet of renewable supply to meet its future growth, but has just 47 acre feet of CAP allotment.

But Tucson Water already controls 90 percent of the effluent from Pima County's Roger Road and Ina Road treatment plants and plans only incremental expansions of its reclaimed system.

"Even in the future, we don't really see a big expansion of the reclaimed system," said Tucson Water Administrator Dennis Rule. "We're basically where we need to be."

County has land-use authority

Though Rule could see a benefit to working with other water providers, the benefits of working with the county were mostly in the county's land-use planning authority in areas outside the city limits and within Tucson Water's service area, he said.

Council member Uhlich said one area of potential cooperation between the city and county is planning new treatment plants based on where reclaimed water lines are needed. That could reduce infrastructure costs and save ratepayers money, she said.

Huckelberry said there may be other savings to ratepayers. Traditionally, expansions of the reclaimed water system have been paid for through revenue bonds, which must be paid back by ratepayers.

But Huckelberry said there is a good argument that water sustainability is a "common good," one that could be funded by the taxpayers, just as the CAP pipeline is paid off through a property tax levy. "Preserving the water table, preventing subsidence, just having a secure water supply, those are all common goods," Huckelberry said.

The county's bond advisory committee has discussed using general obligation bonds to expand the reclaimed water system to future county parks.

Huckelberry said he had no plans to propose a tax just for water infrastructure, and most likely the county would need special authority from the state Legislature to do so.

But he saw no problem with using the county's taxing authority to build infrastructure for a particular water provider.

"It would be different if we had a different customer base, but their customer base is the county taxpayer," he said. "There are exceptions but they are not the majority."

That thinking bothers some smaller water providers.

"If they are going to do that, then the county bonding capacity should be available to every water provider," said Marana utilities director Brad DeSpain. "But I think there are plenty of things for the county tax money to be spent on rather than a water provider's infrastructure when the water providers can bond just like the county."

And it confuses others.

Pima County has said it cannot help Community Water Co. of Green Valley build a pipeline to bring its CAP allocation to the Green Valley and Sahuarita area, even as it has criticized the water company for accepting money from a mining company to build the pipeline.

"That sounds like a mixed message," said company President Arturo Gabaldon.

Conservation not enough

Like many water providers, Gabaldon said conservation won't be enough if new supplies aren't found.

"What we need are new water sources and funding partners," he said.

Because the CAP pipeline ends at Pima Mine Road, water users south of there face a particularly dire situation. None of the groundwater being pumped is being replaced. There is substantial risk of subsidence and contamination from nearby mines. They recently formed the Upper Santa Cruz Providers and Users Group to look for new supplies, including from desalinization, and to raise money to pay for infrastructure.

At the other end of the county, Marana, Oro Valley, Flowing Wells and Metro Water are discussing a joint Northwest CAP treatment system that would treat CAP water for direct delivery. The plant would cost around $180 million and probably go on-line around 2014. Those water providers also have discussed forming a regional group to look for new water supplies.

Uhlich said she believes smaller water providers are going out on their own because the city and the county haven't made any progress. Another way regional cooperation could help, she said, is that Tucson Water could use its infrastructure to deliver smaller providers' CAP allocations to them, rather than those providers building their own treatment and distribution systems.

Smaller providers would pay Tucson Water for that service, but at less cost than an entire treatment system. That revenue could make up for money lost to conservation and keep the per-unit cost reasonable for Tucson Water customers.

DeSpain said that was a proposal smaller providers would be interested in, but he said the city needs to bring those providers, not the county, to the table.

"If it's going to be truly regional, there need to be a lot of other providers that should be talking to the city," DeSpain said. "I don't mind the county being there, but I don't see what their stake in the issue is."

CAP water may last 20 years

Rule, of Tucson Water, said there is enough water in the Central Arizona Project to serve the needs of Tucson area residents for at least the next 20 years. Even in a prolonged drought, agricultural and industrial users would be cut off first, leaving plenty of water for people to drink.

"There is nothing between now and 2025 that would impact the highest-priority users," he said.

But Huckelberry said there needs to be enough water for all the users, no matter how severe the drought.

"If you have to kick other users off to have enough water, those are the sectors of the economy on which we depend," he said.

Huckelberry suggested those who think our water supply can weather a sustained drought need to take a longer view.

"I'm sure the Hohokam thought the same thing," he said.

On StarNet: Read more about water rights and conservation at azstarnet.com/environment