You insist on flexibility in everyday life, but you also want certainty. And life’s day-to-day disruptions regularly prove these two priorities are at odds with one another. Rural communities seeking flexibility and certainty in water policy experience the same disconnect. It’s what makes building solid water policy so difficult.
Flexibility in water policy will require meaningful local input and harnessing the ingenuity of individual water users. As a result, a one-size-fits-all approach does not work since every rural community has differing water sources as well as hydrologic and legal conditions. More importantly, every water user within each of these rural communities will have different factors to consider when making decisions on what conservation methods can be feasibly and economically applied in their individual situation.
To prove the point on differing water sources, University of Arizona’s Water Resources Research Center (WRRC), is currently conducting county-to-county research assessments in our state and breaking out the specific water sources by percentages in each one. One by one, they’ve been rolling out
Arizona Water Factsheets for each county/ The latest was for Yuma and Santa Cruz. So, for example, 88.6% of Yuma’s water is surface water, with the remaining 11.3% being groundwater. Contrast this with Cochise County where 99.7% of its water is groundwater.
On the flip side of our two priorities, economic growth and vitality for our rural communities requires certainty. Why would anyone make long-term plans and investment decisions if the rules can be changed at any moment, especially for something as critical as water availability.
That is why we must strike a delicate balance between a flexible, locally driven conservation plan and the certainty that drives capital investment and unlocks the ingenuity of individual water users in seeking methods to conserve water.
Additionally, voluntary incentive-based conservation programs should not be overlooked in this process and have proven to be wildly successful. For example, the UofA’s Extension has recently reported that their irrigation efficiency program has led to enough water being conserved to fill Tempe Town Lake 12 times every year at 1/5 the current cost of desalinization. These savings were made possible through an appropriation from the Arizona Legislature and matching funds from the producers themselves.
Given appropriate and relatively predictable conservation requirements, coupled with programs that promote and reward voluntary conservation, and flexibility in water rights to allow for rural economies to adapt to the future, our rural communities will continue to be vibrant and successful for a long time to come.
Says the Brookings Institute, “Policy debates often focus only on major decisions made in Washington, D.C. But for many Americans, the decisions made much closer to home have just as large, if not larger, effects on day-to-day life. In important respects, the United States remains true to its original system of federalism: states and localities play a prominent role in setting policies that affect the economy more broadly.” Perhaps a commentary advocating that flexibility and certainty, balanced appropriately can be achieved.
Given appropriate and relatively predictable conservation requirements, coupled with programs that promote and reward voluntary conservation, and flexibility in water rights to allow for rural economies to adapt to the future, our rural communities will continue to be vibrant and successful for a long time to come. SB1221 creates a groundwater management framework that captures this balance and is the reason why Arizona Farm Bureau, on behalf of thousands of farm and ranch families across Arizona, supports it.
Julie Murphree is Arizona Farm Bureau communications director and former Arizona cotton farmer with her family.
Copyright © 2024 BridgeTower Media. All Rights Reserved.
Most Popular
Comments / 0