The following is the opinion and analysis of the writer:
W. Mark Day
A recent op-ed by a community leader expressed consternation that Project Blue was not accepted, and that Tucson’s economy will suffer because of that. He thinks the decision was reactionary. But was it?
Tucson sits in a desert basin with substantial groundwater and banked water, but very little flowing surface water. For Tucson to prosper in the long term, it must be increasingly efficient in using its limited water supplies. Colorado River supplies are waning and groundwater is in danger of waning also. My idea of long-term is beyond 2100. Conservation success in the past 50 years does not mean we can take our foot off the brake now.
Tucson is looking at its water supply portfolio in a wise way. The OneWater 2100 plan says that any water supply that’s available is useful, and potentially potable, depending on how much treatment it gets. Our current excess of reclaimed water is also a limited resource, although it appears to be a flow resource. It will only flow as long as we have flows to replace it. Otherwise, it is a leak.
Comparing Tucson to Phoenix (aka The Valley) in many ways is ridiculous. Many areas of The Valley have rights to the Salt River Project’s regular supply of 800,000 acre-feet per year. That’s eight times as much water as Tucson Water serves. And that is why I call it “the land of lawns and lakes.” Until we have access to some of that water (and stable CAP deliveries), we would be wise to promote water-efficient industries that bring plenty of permanent, well-paid jobs. Raytheon fits that category. Data centers could work, if they brought more than cash and unrealistic demands on water, power and other resources, plus more jobs. Newer chip technologies could greatly reduce power and cooling needs, so there may be hope.
Tucson is attractive to data centers because it has cheap land, power, labor, and water. I was hoping Project Blue would be planning to use more water-efficient cooling tech, like closed-loop and direct-to-chip cooling. But with cheap reclaimed water, they had little incentive to save. Now, City Council is trying to go proactive on future regulation of water-guzzling industries. What’s missing from water conservation plans is serious price incentives, which would cause such industries to either back off or improve their water-use technologies. I hope Council adopts some form of severance tax on a limited amount of reclaimed water they might allow. I don’t know if state law allows such taxes or surcharges, but it should.
(Note: Utilities usually only charge for treatment and delivery; the water itself is free. So, charge something for the water.)
What would make sense is for water-guzzling industries to pay to replace the water they use, by paying reasonable costs to bring in new supplies, like desalinated water. Desal price guesstimates start at $3000/AF, which would be about $7 per metered unit (Ccf). That may seem like a lot but would only move prices up to near our current higher residential prices. PB wanted 2000AF, which at $7/Ccf would only add about $6 million to their water bill per year.
Most businesses would blink at such a charge, but AI may be different. Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, recently said he expects to see a trillion dollars of investment in data centers. If that is true, then big tech will be coming to Tucson with truckloads of cash. Tucson needs to add cash to the general fund, but closely limit water allowances. Perhaps a $50/Ccf surcharge would be reasonable and would bring in about $43.5 million per year. That much could fix lots of roads or fund those PB-promised benefits of improved conservation across the water system. Research to improve water ‘augmentation’ technologies, such as those for condensing water from the air with solar power, or desalinating Arizona’s large store of brackish groundwater, is needed.
Tucson has space, solar power, and low-cost labor, but not much water. We can’t grow our economy with flagrant water use, even if that works in The Valley.
Follow these steps to easily submit a letter to the editor or guest opinion to the Arizona Daily Star.
