Tag: Water

  • Phoenix approved 40,000 homes. Its water plan covers 12,000.

    Phoenix approved 40,000 homes. Its water plan covers 12,000.

    Under Arizona law, a developer building in an active management area must obtain a certificate of assured water supply — a state finding that the development has access to enough water to last one hundred years. It is one of the strictest such requirements in the country, and Phoenix has issued certificates covering roughly 40,000 new homes since 2022.

    The city’s own water resources plan, published last year, models sufficient supply for approximately 12,000 of them under the drought scenario the state hydrologist now considers most likely.

    The discrepancy is not a secret and it is not a scandal. It is an artefact of two documents written for different purposes on different assumptions. The certificates rest on a groundwater model last comprehensively revised in 2019, before the Colorado River shortage declarations. The water resources plan uses post-declaration hydrology.

    What makes it consequential is that the certificates are not revocable. Once issued, they attach to the land. A developer who obtained one in 2022 and has not yet broken ground retains the right to build, and the city retains the obligation to serve.

    State legislators have introduced three bills in as many sessions that would allow retrospective review of certificates issued under superseded models. All three died in committee. The homebuilders’ association opposed each of them on the grounds that retroactive revocation would make Arizona land unfinanceable, which is true, and which is also the point.

    The practical resolution, according to two people in the city water department who were not authorised to speak publicly, is that the shortfall gets managed rather than solved: allocation cuts to agriculture, accelerated reclamation, and the purchase of tribal water rights at prices that have tripled since 2021.

  • Water rights are the new zoning fight

    Watch a county hearing on a proposed groundwater withdrawal and then watch one on a proposed apartment building. Close your eyes for either and you will not be able to tell which is which.

    The structure is identical. An applicant with capital arrives with a technical study. Residents arrive with concerns about a shared resource and a suspicion that the study was commissioned to reach its conclusion. An elected body with limited technical staff must decide, and it decides on the politics, because the politics is the part it understands.

    The arguments rhyme down to the phrasing. Character of the community. Cumulative impact. Who was here first. Why should we bear the cost of growth that benefits somebody else. These are not bad arguments. They are the arguments people make when a decision affects them and they have no other lever.

    What is different is the physics. A zoning fight lost is a building that gets built and a neighbourhood that adjusts. An aquifer overdrawn does not adjust. Land subsides, wells deepen, and the water that was there is not there in any timeframe a county board can plan around.

    That asymmetry argues for deciding these questions at a level above the county, on hydrological boundaries rather than political ones, with technical staff that the applicant does not pay for. It is also the argument that has failed in every western state that has tried it, for the same reason regional zoning fails: nobody wants to be governed by a body they cannot vote out.