Arizona's water chief is following Nevada's footsteps in asking the federal government to step in and cut water use on the over-tapped Colorado River, following months of inaction on that front.
Compensated turf removal; paying farmers to grow lower-water-use crops; and investing in water reuse, recycling and salt water desalination are among the dozen specific proposals that Arizona Department of Water Resources Director Tom Buschatzke outlined in an Aug. 30 letter, sent to three top U.S. Interior Department and Bureau of Reclamation officials.
"No single action will solve the current crisis, and some actions may be more feasible or result in more water savings than others," Buschatzke wrote. "We cannot afford to do nothing, and we cannot simply rely on the tools we have used to date. We must give due consideration to each of these ideas."
Buschatzke's letter went to Interior Secretary Deborah Haaland, Assistant Secretary for Water and Science Tanya Trujillo and Bureau of Reclamation Commissioner Camille Touton.
His letter came barely two weeks after Southern Nevada Water Authority General Manager John Entsminger wrote these officials asking them to consider most measures that Buschatzke now proposes. Buschatzke and Entsminger are lead negotiators for their states on Colorado River matters.
Both letters came after the seven Colorado River Basin states failed to reach agreement on reducing water use in the basin by 2 million to 4 million acre-feet a year. Reclamation's Touton had said in mid-June if the states didn't reach agreement by mid-August, the federal government would impose a plan "to protect the system."
But at an Aug. 16 news conference, federal officials did not produce their plan or provide another timetable for the states to come up with one. The officials said they would start work on a handful of proposals, but not nearly as many as Entsminger and now Buschatzke have suggested.
Some of the proposals in the two letters are quite sweeping and potentially expensive or controversial, whereas others are less so. Many have been discussed and debated by water officials and experts over the years.
Removing lawns
One that has drawn a lot of attention is the idea of a basin-wide municipal turf removal program, in which local governments pay homeowners with lawns to have the water-sucking grass removed.
Las Vegas has gained national prominence for its turf removal program. Los Angeles city and county water departments also subsidize conversion of grassy lawns to desert or other forms of low-water-use landscaping.
A proposal that is potentially controversial is one to create new standards for federal officials to determine what is a "beneficial use" of water, with the goal being to reduce the number of uses of federally run water projects that are considered beneficial.
Typically, beneficial use is a term used to define the amount of water deemed necessary to carry out a particular use. If rules on what uses are beneficial or how much water is needed to carry out a beneficial use are tightened, that could or would reduce the number of people, companies or agencies that could get access to water.
Entsminger and Buschatzke also proposed that officials expand programs that increase the efficiency of crop-growing techniques to save water.
They also want to set a high priority for the spending of federal drought mitigation programs on "projects that provide meaningful long-term and permanent reductions in use."
They favor requiring river water users to deduct a portion of their supplies to cover evaporation and other water losses the river incurs as its water moves downstream or sits in a reservoir.
That proposal could save a lot of water, but it would also reduce the supply available to users, since the river loses hundreds of thousands of acre-feet a year of water annually to evaporation.
One proposal made by Entsminger but not Buschatzke is to "eliminate wasteful municipal watering of non-functional turf." Non-functional grass typically means grass planted for decoration, as opposed to grass in parks, schools and golf courses for recreation. This proposal could also be controversial, given that many people can disagree over what "wasteful" watering means.
The Star asked ADWR Friday why Buschatzke's letter did not include that proposal. Department spokeswoman Shauna Evans replied that the department couldn't immediately respond to that and other questions about the letter, since "a lot of our folks are out of the office because of the holiday weekend."
Buschatzke and Entsminger did, however, endorse a companion proposal to require seasonal irrigation schedules for turf use in cities.
Markedly different in tone
Buschatze's list included a suggestion not found on Entsminger's list: "Provide proactive and aggressive federal leadership."
Reclamation and Interior Department spokespeople offered no immediate response to Buschatzke's letter. They also have not responded to Entsminger's Aug. 15 letter or to an Aug. 18 letter from top Central Arizona Project governing board members seeking federal intervention to curb river water use.
"We will respond to individuals directly," Interior spokeswoman Melissa Schwartz emailed the Star on Friday, responding to questions about whether it will reply to these letters or carry out any of the suggestions the officials made.
Schwartz added, "When we have news to share about next steps — you are most definitely on all of our lists."
Buschatzke's letter, while it advanced most proposals that Entsminger made, differed markedly in tone.
Entsminger had expressed frustration that the river basin states haven’t done anything in 62 days of talks to cut river water use. Saying “absolutely nothing” had been accomplished, he wrote it’s time for U.S. officials to order specific cuts in water use.
“We are at the stage where basin-wide, every drop counts, and every single drop we are short of achieving 2 to 4 million acre-feet in permanent reductions draws us a step closer to the catastrophic collapse of the system, as well as draconian water management practices to protect health and human safety that we have successfully staved off in the past through cooperation,” Entsminger wrote. “Each temporary action must be a bridge to permanent reductions and must be implemented posthaste.”
Buschatze's comments were more measured, although he did note many of Entsminger's proposals "are bold steps forward, and implicate longstanding issues, some of which the Colorado River Basin states and other stakeholders have avoided discussing for decades.
"The dire situation we are in requires the types of bold actions that Mr. Entsminger contemplates," wrote Buschatzke, adding he supports "a comprehensive process to address the adoption of some or all of those actions."
Arizona conservation history
Much of his letter was devoted to outlining Arizona's past actions in conserving water. Those include the state's slight total reduction in water use since 1957, even though its population has grown more than six times since then.
He also cited the 1980 Arizona Groundwater Management Act, which has triggered conservation efforts in five, urban-based, state-run Active Management Areas including one covering the Tucson area.
He also cited significant increases in the use of treated effluent on parks and golf courses since 1980, and in agricultural water use efficiency in the Yuma area since 1990. The latter happened through the use of concrete-lined irrigation ditches, sprinkler-based instead of flood irrigation, and other methods.
He concluded by saying: "We recognize that our efforts to date are only the beginning of what needs to be done. The effects of the megadrought, combined with the projections of a significantly drier future, means that everyone who depends on the Colorado River must be prepared to make difficult decisions in order to protect the infrastructure and the river itself.
"No single user, no single sector and no single state can do it alone. We look forward to working with you to meet the challenge we face," he wrote.
Squabbling Arizona, California hold key to Colorado River's futureFor Star subscribers: Arizona and California, which have battled over the Colorado River for nearly a century, are at it again. This time, Arizona leaders are blaming California, and other states, for putting the burden of stemming the river's impending crisis on their backs alone.
For Star subscribers: But U.S. officials held off Tuesday on any larger, longer-term cuts in Colorado River water deliveries in the West — which they've said are necessary. Some water officials and environmentalists criticized that lack of immediate action as "punting" and "extraordinarily discouraging."
For Star subscribers: "The water resource for agriculture, cities, industry, tribes and the ecosystem is no longer stable due to climate change," said Assistant Interior Secretary Tanya Trujillo. "We're going to have to have guts," she said, to do what's needed.
