The following is the opinion and analysis of the writer. Abraham is a state representative from Tucson, representing Legislative District 10. He is a candidate for state senate in Legislative District 18:
Morgan Abraham
Morgan Abraham
It’s no secret that Arizona has a major water problem. Wells are going dry in rural Arizona, Lake Powell and Lake Mead are at record lows, and a federal Tier 1 water shortage has been called in our state.
Water can be a complicated and an intimidating subject, but the potential solutions are simple in concept. The problem is that we are not going to have enough water in Arizona in the future based on our current uses and projected growth. The solution can be broken down into two approaches — to bring more water to Arizona (augmentation) or to use less water (conservation).
The governor has released his idea for solving our water problem in the form of the Arizona Water Authority. This water authority would be an entity that would help finance water augmentation projects, such as a desalination project in the Sea of Cortez.
I am glad to see the governor focus on Arizona’s water problem and propose to spend $1 billion to address our water needs. But I believe water conservation should play a major role in our efforts to solve this crisis.
As a legislator, I take the experiences I have had and apply them toward problems we face in Arizona. As a small business owner, I am always limited by the recourses my business has and decide on which projects to pursue based on the rate of return. As an Army officer, when I’m tasked with a mission, I decide on the best course of action based on how much time each approach would take, and its probability of success.
I look at water the exact same way as I run my business and lead in the Army. We need to measure conservation versus augmentation based on the rate of return, probability of success, and time frame of each approach.
Water is commonly measured in the unit of an “acre-foot,” which equals about 326,000 gallons, or enough water to cover an acre of land, about the size of a football field, one foot deep. The best projects save water at the lowest cost per acre-foot over the lifetime of the project and can be completed in the shortest time. When you compare the two, conservation is simply cheaper, more reliable, and faster than augmentation.
Conservation is a model that we’ve proven locally. Tucson Water reports that their high efficiency toilet incentives save water at a cost of less than $250 per acre-foot over the lifetime of the project. Their programs to upgrade irrigation systems and washing machines save water at a cost of around $1,000 per acre-foot. These projects are easy to replicate and take no more than a month to complete.
Beyond our cities, there are plenty of opportunities to incentivize water conservation. Transitioning agricultural land from flood irrigation to drip irrigation can save water for under $250 acre-foot over the lifetime of the project — even after factoring in transition costs, irrigation experts testified at the Legislature. Again, these projects are easy to replicate and a take less than a month to complete. When you consider that over 70% of the water used in Arizona is used for agriculture, these projects alone can save hundreds of thousands of acre-feet of water per year.
Now, compare that to our best estimate for an augmentation project. The desalination project in the Sea of Cortez is estimated to deliver water at a cost of as much as $3,000 to $4,000 per acre-foot – 3 to 12 times more expensive than conservation solutions. It will also take at least a decade to complete and has a much smaller probability of success due to the complexities of the project — including environmental impact studies, international coordination, land acquisition, construction, maintenance, and more.
Arizona has major water challenges, and all options should be available to us. Augmentation will play a role in our future, and for Arizona to thrive in the long run, we need a healthy balance of water conservation projects and water augmentation projects.
But we don’t have time to wait for solutions — we need water now. The best bang for our buck is conservation policies that incentivize projects and promote better water use now. Conservation is cheaper, easier, and will yield water on a quicker timeline.
That is why I am fighting at the Legislature to expand the scope of the Arizona Water Authority to include conservation, not just augmentation. The water crisis is too important for us not to fight with everything we have.
