This is a wonky, insider sort of post that illustrates the lack of consensus inside the environmental community on important topics like groundwater. Following my recent posts on this topic I had an email exchange with a well known member of a high profile NGO that highlights how well meaning people can come to different conclusions on environmental policy. Do we want to preserve existing groundwater levels or should local cities be allowed to increasing pumping? I post this not to say I am correct and others are wrong, but to illustrate the tension within the community of people who are advocating for the environment within water world. It’s interesting and thought provoking for me.

We had a back and forth on this topic via email where the other person argued that cities should be allowed to pump more groundwater than they currently do in order to support their plans for growth. I disagree with this position and argue that we should be advocating for a more balanced and holistic approach. Below is the last email I received in this thread (the the sectors referred to are municipal, agricultural, and environmental):

Is 3% diminishment in the aquifer too much? What would we suggest for a balanced, holistic approach to surface and groundwater water management? How do we plan to meet the needs of all three sectors in a reasonable cost-effective way?

Here’s my response:

I don’t know where the 3% figure came from but I do know that river levels are dropping and springs are drying up.  That is a problem for fish, wildlife, and native vegetation.  It is also clear that the aquifer recharge rate is diminishing, and evapotranspiration rates are increasing, so even at current withdrawal rates the problem is going to get worse.  We do have a real water crisis but it is an environmental one, not municipal or agricultural. (See footnote below.)

As you know, I have been at the forefront for advocating exempt well reform for some time.  I am glad that this issue is now being talked about more broadly.  It is certainly a component of a balanced, holistic solution, but there should be many more components.

It is unclear to me what you mean by “reasonable” or “cost effective”.  I think it is reasonable to demand that environmental concerns be addressed and even given priority over consumptive uses.  Humans can change behaviors but fish, wildlife, and plants do not have that luxury.

Cost effective is another loaded term.  It is my position that we can no longer afford to ignore the tragedy of the commons.  For years, many have been calling for a true environmental cost accounting of many forms of production and extraction.  It should be applied locally to water as well.  Economic incentives are an effective tool to change behaviors.  I am a proponent of water pricing to drive environmentally sustainable behaviors.  This applies to irrigation, industry, and domestic water use.

It is clear that there is really no municipal water shortage, only a manufactured one, but if municipalities want to claim there is a shortage and this artificial crisis is going to be a talking point for local cities, then it should be used to drive real, sustainable change.  No crisis should be wasted.

I have mentioned what real change would look like many times in the past.  I think we agree on monitoring and metering exempt wells as well as establishing a sliding scale cost structure for irrigators where “real” farmers pay little to nothing while hobby farmers pay for their hobby.  Other states have gone beyond this in a variety of ways.  For decades, Arizona has required a guaranteed long term water supply to approve new development.  Current developments are even being cancelled due to a lack of sustainable water supply.

Many cities have purchased water rights from irrigators.  We should be allowing this as well.  If the water is already coming out of the river for use by hobby farms, cities should be able to buy that water and redirect it to municipal use.  It is clear that there is ample supply for this without impacting economically productive agriculture.  Another proven technique is to inject treated wastewater into aquifers up slope from the extraction wells thereby recycling municipal water.

All of these are reasonable in the sense that they have been proven to work elsewhere.  Cost effective?  Well, it depends on what value you place on water.  I value it highly.

Footnote: After claiming that Redmond’s ability to build new housing will be negatively impacted if they are not allowed to pump more groundwater than currently allotted, Redmond’s mayor recently backtracked and stated that they have plenty of water and will not have an issue for decades. Clearly, this provides time for more innovative solutions.

We also have an artificial agricultural water shortage. There is plenty of water for agriculture, the issue is who gets it and with what priority.