Governor?s Water Augmentation, Innovation and Conservation Council September 12, 2019 4, 1r ., :5 EST. 1930 94.. a: 4 I. Welcome and Introductions II. Committee Updates Desalination Committee Non-AMA Groundwater Committee Post 2025 AMA Committee Long Term Water Augmentation Committee Desalination Committee update Chairman Philip Richards Groundwater Committee update Co?Chairwomen Rep. Gail Griffin Jamie Kelley Non-AMA Groundwater Committee First Meeting: July 23, 2019 Highlights: ❖ More than 60 attendees ❖ Discussion of goals and future topics for consideration by committee Non-AMA Groundwater Committee Goals: A. To achieve a baseline understanding of Arizona groundwater in non-Active Management Areas. B. To identify and develop voluntary alternatives to address groundwater issues by planning area while protecting individual property rights. C. To make recommendations to the full Council for Best Management Practices at the local level. D. Further discussion and recommendations of issues that may be brought forward. Non-AMA Groundwater Committee Next Meeting: Monday, September 23, 2019 10:00 AM to 12:00 PM Agenda Highlights: ➢ Status of Groundwater in Arizona ➢ Best Management Practices Post 2025 AMA Committee update Co?Chairmen Warren Tenney Tim Thomure Objective: Identify water management challenges and opportunities facing the AMAs and generate objectives and strategic solutions for 2025 and beyond Foundation: Evaluate and build on the success of the first 45 years of the Code for sound water management after 2025 Approach: 1. Identify successes and challenges 2. Propose solutions to address challenges Key Principles: 1. Sound water management is critical 2. Open, honest discussion - Deliberate rather than posture 3. Utilize data to define issues 4. Respect differences among AMAs Structure: Co-Chairs – Warren Tenney & Tim Thomure Seeking individuals to serve on Committee who are willing to commit to an intensive process to delve into tough issues and find solutions First Meeting: October 10th 2:00 p.m. @ ADWR Long Term Water Augmentation Committee update Chairman Wade Noble III. Long Term Water Augmentation Options for Arizona August 2019 Presenting: Richard Humphreys, consultant to the Committee, Carollo Engineers 0 Long" ?iin Water . 1 Augmentation Options for Arizona - . . . ?51.3: (carolloa Wonders With Water? I . . MONTGOMERY WestLand Resources, Inc. 8. Engineering and Environmental Consultants 7:1, I. 5? 43? 700.? ?7 I Presentation Topics • Water augmentation planning process • Water augmentation options • Best practices that improve water use efficiency • Projects and practices between willing parties • Water augmentation concepts requiring further development • Impediments to water augmentation Arizona Water Planning Areas Recommended Water Augmentation Options Water Augmentation Options • Ocean Desalination- Minute 323: Extension of Cooperative Measures and Adoption of a Binational Water Scarcity Contingency Plan in the Colorado River Basin • Brackish Groundwater Desalination • Groundwater Transfers from the Harquahala INA Groundwater Basin Best Practices that Improve Water Use Efficiency • Expand Agricultural Water Conservation • Enhance Aquifer Storage • Municipal Water Conservation • Reclaimed Water Utilization Projects and practices between willing Parties that Improve Water Management • Water Supply Transfers for CAP and Colorado River Water Users • Modify Operation of the Roosevelt Dam to Use the Flood Control Space • SRP-CAP Interconnect Facility Water Augmentation Concepts Requiring Further Development • Weather Modification • Phreatophyte Management • Forest Management Impediments to Water Augmentation • Little Colorado and Gila River Stream Adjudications • Unresolved Indian Water Rights Claims • Lack of Statewide Groundwater Management Planning Water Augmentation Study Outcomes • Water augmentation implementation is up to water users in each planning area. • A “new” bucket of water was not discovered in this project. However: • The value of water is relative, so water augmentation options considered impractical today may be feasible in the future. • New water supply options have to be developed and paid for by those who want them. • Impediments to water augmentation are difficult and time consuming to resolve, but resolution would provide increased certainty for water supply planning and infrastructure investment. Acknowledgements The Long Term Water Augmentation Committee of the Governor's Water Augmentation, Innovation and Conservation Council − Wade Noble, Chair; Maureen George, Chair (retired); Bruce Hallin; Reed Blochberger; Warren Tenney; Chuck Cullom; Bill Plummer; Bill Garfield; Jamie Kelley; Sarah Porter; Scott Deeny; Stefanie Smallhouse; Virginia O'Connell; Chris Udall Arizona Department of Water Resources − Gerry Walker; Cyndi Ruehl; Viviane Baji; Martin Stiles; Zach Richards; Karen Modesto; Jeri McAnerny Discussion IV. Adjudications Reform Update Kyl Center for Water Policy, Sarah Porter Moving Toward Greater Water Certainty Arizona’s Stream Adjudications Table of contents 1 What are the Adjudications? 2 Why have they taken so long? 3 A short dive into subflow 4 Why the Adjudications matter 5 What the Kyl Center is doing on the Adjudication Surface water rights are special • Priority date • Quantity • Point of diversion est. 1978 6,000 claimants 14,000 claims Sub headline here est. 1974 40,000 claimants 85,000 claims Why have the adjudications taken so long? Foundational Legal Questions, 1983-1999 Arizona v. San Carlos Apache Tribe (U.S. Supreme Court 1983): upheld state court jurisdiction to adjudicate Indian water rights where U.S. is properly joined as a party and the state has adequate expertise and technical resources to adjudicate the claims. U.S. v. Superior Court (Ariz. Supreme Court 1985): rejected state constitution-based challenges to state court jurisdiction and ADWR’s role as technical advisor. San Carlos Apache Tribe v. Superior Court (Ariz. Supreme Court 1999): invalidated 1995 amendments to adjudication statutes on grounds they violate the separation of powers doctrine or impair vested property rights. The Gila Decisions, 1992 - 2012 Gila I: Upheld constitutionality of service of summons and other adjudication procedures to assure due process Gila II & IV: Established criteria to determine whether certain wells withdraw subflow subject to the jurisdiction of the adjudication Gila III: Upheld Federal reserved water rights to groundwater under certain circumstances Gila V: Clarified criteria to quantify water rights for Indian reservations Gila VI: Held that 1935 Globe Equity Consent Decree has preclusive effect on Indian claims to Gila River mainstream but not tributaries in the Upper Gila subwatershed Gila VII & VIII: Approved Indian water rights settlements (Tohono O’odham and Gila River Indian Community) Gila IX: Held that State Trust Lands are not entitled to federal reserved water rights The subflow issue “Under Arizona's bifurcated system of managing surface and groundwater, the concept of subflow serves to protect appropriable surface water rights against interference caused by the pumping of groundwater. Because water is a very precious and limited commodity in Arizona, much turns on how ‘subflow’ is determined.” Gila IV (2000) “This Court’s perception is that law surrounding ‘subflow’ has proven to be the root cause of the delay.” Judge Brain, Minute Entry, June 2013 2002 - ADWR files San Pedro Subflow Technical Report 2005 - Superior Court approves ADWR’s subflow methodology 2008 - ADWR files plan to update San Pedro HSR Progress on Subflow 2009 - ADWR files Initial San Pedro Subflow Delineation Report 2010 - ADWR submits SPRNCA Land Ownership Report 2014 - ADWR files Revised San Pedro Delineation Report 2015 - ADWR files Supplemental Delineation Report 2017 - Court approves San Pedro Subflow Zone Delineation Upper San Pedro Basin – 1987 Well Development (3,592 wells) Upper San Pedro Basin – 1995 Well Development (5,104 wells) Upper San Pedro Basin – 2000 Well Development (6,113 wells) Upper San Pedro Basin – 2005 Well Development (7,585 wells) Upper San Pedro Basin – 2012 Well Development (8,510 wells) Upper San Pedro Basin – 2017 Well Development (8,765 wells) Why it’s important to resolve the Adjudications “During the evaluation, barriers to water augmentation were also identified. These barriers in most cases prevent utilization of existing water supplies, and therefore require attention to resolve. These barriers include the ongoing Gila River and Little Colorado River adjudications, Indian water right claim settlements, and lack of rural area groundwater management and planning.” “Until that process is complete, uncertainty regarding the nature, extent and priority of water rights will make it difficult to identify all the strategies necessary for meeting projected water demands.” Arizona’s Next Century: A Strategic Vision for Water Supply Sustainability (2014) Verde Basin Well Development – 1974 (2,311 wells) Verde Basin Well Development – 1988 (7,457 wells) Verde Basin Well Development – 2000 (13,119 wells) Verde Basin Well Development – 2017 (17,754 wells) What are the implications? water uncertainty Delay makes the problem worse. The Kyl Center’s Adjudication Reform Efforts Adjudication Reform Committee • Development of Proposed Special Procedural Order for Settling State Law Claims • Extensive discussions of concepts for settling subflow disputes at the basin scale • Water Managers’ Concept for Addressing Subflow Key Concepts Discussed Settling Claims in the Adjudication Grandfathering current well owners Limiting developmet of new wells Transferability of well rights Options for mitigation Water rights “escrow” program Other Adjudication Related Work • The Price of Uncertainty • Investing in Certainty* • Ongoing outreach *publication pending, fall 2019 Closing thoughts . . . Lack of understanding of the adjudication is a major impediment to resolving claims. Delay in resolving the adjudication serves neither existing nor future water users. With most of the major foundational issues out the way, greater investment in court and ADWR adjudication staffing and resources is merited and will hasten the adjudication process. Sarah Porter s.porter@asu.edu 602-496-0586 Wells 55 interactive map http://water.dtn.asu.edu/ V. Safe Yield in the AMAs PLEASE NOTE: DUE TO TIME RESTRICTIONS, THE CHAIRMAN POSTPONED THIS PRESENTATION UNTIL A FUTURE MEETING Natalie Mast, Manager, AMA Management Plans, ADWR VI. AMA Management Plans Update Natalie Mast, Manager, AMA Management Plans, ADWR Management Plans Update GWAICC Meeting September 12, 2019 Natalie Mast Program Manager – Management Plans Estimated Timeline 4MP Phoenix AMA Adoption Pinal AMA Adoption 2019 Santa Cruz AMA Adoption 2021 MPWG 202_? Drafting Plans Adopting Plans 5MP 63 202_? Estimated Timeline 4MP Phoenix AMA Adoption Pinal AMA Adoption 2019 Santa Cruz AMA Adoption 2021 MPWG 202_? Drafting Plans Adopting Plans 5MP 64 202_? Estimated 4MP Adoption Timeline 1. Initial Draft Published 2. GUAC and Public Comments 3. Updated Draft Published 4. Public Hearing 5. Final Adoption Phoenix AMA Pinal AMA Santa Cruz AMA •Final Adoption: Adoption (est •Final Summer2020 2020) Summer •Programs Effective: Effective •Programs 1/1/2023 2023 January •Final Adoption: Adoption (est •Final Winter 2020 2020) Winter •Programs Effective: Effective •Programs 1/1/2023 2023 January •Final Adoption •Final Adoption:(est Summer2021 2021) Summer •Programs Effective •Programs Effective: 1/1/2024 2024 January Conservation Program Requirements go into effect at least 2 years after a plan is adopted. ADWR shifts the actual effective date past the 2 year mark to line up with Reporting Years. 65 Estimated Timeline 4MP Phoenix AMA Adoption Pinal AMA Adoption 2019 Santa Cruz AMA Adoption 2021 MPWG 202_? Drafting Plans Adopting Plans 5MP 66 202_? Management Plans A.R.S. § 45-563 (A) Management Plans Work Group ADWR-led stakeholder forum for the development of the 5th Management Plans “The director shall develop a management plan for each initial active management area for each of five management periods... and shall adopt the plans only after public hearings… The plans shall include a continuing mandatory conservation program… designed to achieve reductions in withdrawals of groundwater.”  Goals:  Assess existing conservation programs  Update existing management strategies  Develop new management strategies 67 Management Plans Work Group MPWG Upcoming Meetings  Status:  Safe-Yield Technical Subgroup: September 23, 2019 at 1pm  MPWG: December 4, 2019 at 2pm  Analysis of existing conservation programs and data in progress  Additional Subgroup meeting times TBD  All meeting information is available at new.azwater.gov/5MP or under “Hot Topics” on homepage  Subgroups:     Agricultural Municipal Industrial Safe-Yield Technical 68 Estimated Timeline 4MP Phoenix AMA Adoption Pinal AMA Adoption 2019 Santa Cruz AMA Adoption 2021 MPWG 202_? Drafting Plans Adopting Plans 5MP 69 202_? Next Steps Moving forward on the 4th Management Plans Option A Option B ADWR Recommendation  Opportunity to incorporate additional input on ADWR’s recommendations for the remaining 4MPs  Adopt Conservation Programs substantially similar to those in the 3rd Management Plans  Including some technical updates  PhxAMA 4MP Stakeholder Meeting  Tentative date: October 3, 2019  Additional feedback period through November 8, 2019 Timeline is the same for either option: Start PhxAMA promulgation/adoption process in January 2020 No change to effective date of PhxAMA Conservation Programs (1/1/2023) 70 Questions? managementplans@azwater.gov Management Plans Work Group: new.azwater.gov/5MP Full Text of Management Plans: new.azwater.gov/ama/management-plans VI. Closing Remarks and next meetings December 3, 2019 March 11, 2020 10-11:30 a.m. ADWR Room 3175 Contact Information Carol Ward cward@azwater.gov Cyndi Ruehl cruehl@azwater.gov ADWR /GWAICC web page: www.azwater.gov/gwaicc