What options does Phoenix, Arizona, USA have for averting a California-like water crisis?

September 7th, 2015

Dr. Lauren Withycombe Keeler, Center for Nanotechnology in Society & Decision Center for a Desert City, Arizona State University

In the American West, cycles of drought have been part of the climatic and development history of the region. Droughts are managed by large infrastructure projects and careful planning.1 Historically, water scarcity has not been a hindrance to explosive population growth and development. Now, California is amidst a prolonged and severe drought that has legislators, water managers, and residents scrambling for ways to reduce water consumption. This has residents of metropolitan Phoenix, Arizona, California’s eastern and dryer neighbor, rightfully uneasy about their own water future.

Arizona water managers have long been seen as progressive in their policies toward water provision and storage.2 As a result, experts have referred to Arizona as being resilient to drought in the near term particularly when compared to drought-stricken California.3 However, in comparison to California, Arizona’s options for securing additional water supplies are potentially more challenging and expensive. Given that Arizona’s freshwater supplies are limited (even if augmentation may be possible in some cases) and many of those supplies are already fully allocated, what options does the Phoenix area, Arizona’s largest metropolitan region of 4.5 million residents, have for averting a California-like water crisis?4

Researchers from the Decision Center for a Desert City sought to address this question by developing potential alternative water futures, and exploring the potential impacts of these futures in the Phoenix region. They suggest that severe drought in Phoenix and the greater American west could be seen as a disaster in need of management or it could be seen as an opportunity to destabilize obstinate policies and ways of life that may be in conflict with the long-term sustainability of desert cities. This article provides an overview of the potential water futures in Arizona, for further details see Keeler et al. 20155 & White et al. 2015.6

Option 1: Do nothing

Short term, between now and 2030, doing nothing to address the region’s water challenges may have little consequence. A key measure of water sustainability is groundwater aquifer levels. If the population continues to grow at similar rates and water consumption (among other factors) remains relatively constant, water levels in the aquifers under the Phoenix metro area may not decline – even under the most severe climate impacts depicted by downscaled climate scenarios from the 2001 International Panel on Climate Change Special Report on Emission Scenarios.7

Longer term, between 2030 and 2080 however, doing nothing is not an option if averting a California-like water crisis is the ultimate goal. If there are even moderate climate impacts on the region that reduce rainfall, snowpack, and soil moisture over the longer term, residents of the Phoenix-area will quickly draw down the aquifer.

Option 2: Do what we’ve done before

Being a desert state, Arizona has been aggressive in its policies to acquire, store and keep water resources to ensure the survival and growth of its population.2 Urban and suburban development is a priority, particularly in Phoenix, and legislators and water managers could pursue additional water resources to fuel urban development and growth. These options are expensive and would require extensive inter-state or international negotiations and the construction of extensive and expensive infrastructure (and also additional expenses and legal processes to acquire new water rights).

Ideas that have been proposed include desalination plants and a pipeline from the Sea of Cortez and a canal from the Missouri River. These projects could have price tags well over a billion dollars but they would ensure that Phoenix could increase its population growth rate and keep water consumption relatively constant between now and 2080. However, if Arizona suffers some of the most severe climate impacts under such a high growth scenario, then aquifer draw down will kick in and new residents will be particularly vulnerable in the case of prolonged drought.

Option 3: Take sustainability seriously

Another distinct option for Arizona could be to adopt a comprehensive approach to sustainability that guides water and related policy decisions. This would involve preemptively enacting policies to limit residential, commercial, industrial and agricultural water consumption in and around the Phoenix metro area, focusing on the development of renewable energy, and allocating more water to ‘instream flows, i.e., the natural environment (through discharge in stream beds and maintaining a minimum flow rate to sustain riparian areas).

While Option 2 would require a lot of economic and infrastructure development, this option requires a lot of buy in and ownership of sustainable water management by Phoenix and the broader Arizona community. However, in pursuing this option the Phoenix area could increase its groundwater reserves over the long term under moderate climate conditions and, in the case of drought, aquifer levels would remain relatively constant.

Option 4: Take water security seriously

Cities in the Phoenix area could adopt a water security approach that would be nearly as effective as Option 3 in the long run (relative to aquifer levels) and might seem more feasible – particularly in light of California’s water woes. Water security means adopting policies to minimize the harmful potential and maximize the beneficial potential of water resources. Utilizing the technical expertise of Arizona water managers and the integrative, sustainability-oriented perspectives of scientists at Arizona’s three state universities, policies could be enacted to reduce water consumption across all sectors, reuse more water in residential settings, require updated watering techniques for agriculture, and limit population growth and city expansion throughout Arizona (while pursuing other mechanisms for economic development).

Conclusions

These are but a few of the options Phoenix has to meet its water challenges. The urgency of California’s drought is leading to big conversations between Phoenix, Arizona and other drought-threatened states about long-term water management. But there is also the need for a broader dialogue about what kind of future we want. Water has shaped the development of the West over the last century and it will do the same in this century. Water use should be seen as an investment in the things Phoenicians and Arizonans’ value, and how we deal with water in light of our neighbor’s troubles should be guided by a vision of the Arizona we want – but also informed by the reality of our desert locale.

References:

Reisner, M. (1993). Cadillac desert: The American West and its disappearing water. Penguin. Larson, K. L., Gustafson, A., & Hirt, P. (2009). Insatiable thirst and a finite supply: an assessment of municipal water-conservation policy in greater Phoenix, Arizona, 1980-2007. Journal of Policy History, 21(02), 107-137. White, D. April 3, 2015.California deals with severe water shortage while Arizona stockpiles supply. Accessed June 27, 2015 from http://www.abc15.com/news/state/california-deals-with-severe-water-shortage-while-arizona-stockpiles-supply. These options appear as scenarios of the greater Phoenix area in Withycombe Keeler et al. 2015: Option 1 is Experts Manage Limited Water for Unlimited Growth, Option 2 is Technical Management for Megapolitan Development, Option 3 is Citizen Councils Pursue Comprehensive Water Sustainability and Option 4 is Collaborative Governance Prioritizes Local Water Security. Keeler, L. W., Wiek, A., White, D. D., & Sampson, D. A. (2015). Linking stakeholder survey, scenario analysis, and simulation modeling to explore the long-term impacts of regional water governance regimes. Environmental Science & Policy, 48, 237-249. White, D. D., Withycombe Keeler, L., Wiek, A., & Larson, K. L. (2015). Envisioning the future of water governance: A survey of central Arizona water decision makers. Environmental Practice, 17(01), 25-35. Nakicenovic, N., & Swart, R. (Eds) (2000). Special report on emissions scenarios. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Lauren Withycombe Keeler is a postdoctoral fellow in the Center for Nanotechnology in Society at Arizona State University (ASU). She has a PhD in Sustainability from ASU where she conducted research on water governance futures at the Decision Center for a Desert City. In her research and teaching Lauren uses future studies methods to explore the possible, desirable and undesirable impacts of technological innovation and natural resource management decisions to inform responsible innovation, anticipatory governance, and broader and more informed public participation in building a sustainable future. This article discusses research supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) under Grant SES 0951366, Decision Center for a Desert City II: Urban Climate Adaptation. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF.

The views expressed in this article belong to the individual authors and do not represent the views of the Global Water Forum, the UNESCO Chair in Water Economics and Transboundary Water Governance, UNESCO, the Australian National University, or any of the institutions to which the authors are associated. Please see the Global Water Forum terms and conditions here.