Moderating Power: Municipal Interbasin Groundwater Transfers in Arizona
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Moderating Power: Municipal interbasin groundwater transfers in Arizona by Paul Bergelin A Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts Approved October 2013 by the Graduate Supervisory Committee: Paul Hirt, Chair Philip Vandermeer Karen Smith ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY December 2013 ABSTRACT The act of moving water across basins is a recent phenomenon in Arizona water policy. This thesis creates a narrative arc for understanding the long-term issues that set precedents for interbasin water transportation and the immediate causes—namely the passage of the seminal Groundwater Management Act (GMA) in 1980—that motivated Scottsdale, Mesa, and Phoenix to acquire rural farmlands in the mid-1980s with the intent of transporting the underlying groundwater back to their respective service areas in the immediate future. Residents of rural areas were active participants in not only the sales of these farmlands, but also in how municipalities would economically develop these properties in the years to come. Their role made these municipal “water farm” purchases function as exchanges. Fears about the impact of these properties and the water transportation they anticipated on communities-of-origin; the limited nature of economic, fiscal, and hydrologic data at the time; and the rise of private water speculators turned water farms into a major political controversy. The six years it took the legislature to wrestle with the problem at the heart this issue—the value of water to rural communities—were among its most tumultuous. The loss of key lawmakers involved in GMA negotiations, the impeachment of Governor Evan Mecham, and a bribery scandal called AZScam collectively sidetracked negotiations. Even more critical was the absence of a mutual recognition that these water farms posed a problem and the external pressure that had forced all parties involved in earlier groundwater-related negotiations to craft compromise. After cities and speculators failed to force a bill favorable to their interests in 1989, a re-alignment among blocs occurred: cities joined with rural interests to craft legislation that grandfathered in existing urban water farms and limited future water i farms to several basins. In exchange, rural interests supported a bill to create a Phoenix- area groundwater replenishment district that enabled cooperative management of water supplies. These two bills, which were jointly signed into law in June 1991, tentatively resolved the water farm issue. The creation of a groundwater replenishment district that has subsidized growth in Maricopa, Pinal, and Pima Counties, the creation water bank to store unused Central Arizona Project water for times of drought, and a host of water conservation measures and water leases enabled by the passage of several tribal water rights settlements have set favorable conditions such that Scottsdale, Mesa, and Phoenix never had any reason to transport any water from their water farms. The legacy of these properties then is that they were the product of the intense urgency and uncertainty in urban planning premised on assumptions of growing populations and complementary, inelastic demand. But even as per capita water consumption has declined throughout the Phoenix-area, continued growth has increased demand, beyond the capacity of available supplies so that there will likely be a new push for rural water farms in the foreseeable future. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Writing a thesis is a challenging task; doing so on a topic that I had only become familiar with during my second semester of graduate school is exponentially more difficult. But were it not for the assistance of and feedback from others, this thesis would remain a confused mess with only a weak narrative to provide some semblance of structure. I came to this topic through Dr. Melanie Sturgeon, Director of the Arizona State Archives, and I will forever remain indebted to her for offering me the opportunity to interview lawmakers who have shaped Arizona’s political history. The three years that I worked on this project were profoundly educational, and I continue to reflect on the lessons these lawmakers imparted to me. I am equally thankful to my former colleagues for their good humor and endless insights which helped me navigate the confusing maze of water-related records. Given the uncertain status of municipal water farms when I began my research, I am deeply grateful to Doug Kupel of the City of Phoenix Law Department, Yvonne McCall of the City of Mesa Real Estate Services Department, Scottsdale Public Records Administrator Tess Daley, and Annie DeChance of the City of Scottsdale Water Resources Department for their willingness and patience in responding to my sizeable public records requests. I likewise owe a debt to Monique Hafler of the Central Arizona Project, Julia Huddleston of the J. Willard Marriot Library at the University of Utah, Lindsey O’Neill of the Tucson City Clerk’s Office, and the Pinal County Recorder’s Office staff for locating older documents that added many colorful details to my story. iii Arizona State Senate Archivist Denise Cortez and the Clerk of the House of Representatives staff were very helpful in pulling bills, committee minutes, and other materials that illuminated the legislative process. Kathi Knox, who worked for thirty years as a legislative staffer, was invaluable in helping me contextualize the personalities and issues that comprise legislative politics. The most difficult component of my research was conducting oral interviews. While I cited a fraction of these interviews, I appreciate everyone who shared their recollections of an issue which is at least as old as I am. Your anecdotes helped me tease out the emotional weight and relevance from the extensive details of this complex issue. My committee deserves tremendous praise for helping me realize this thesis. Dr. Smith, you advised me from the beginning to focus on the basic elements—the who, what, where, when, and why—of my thesis. That initially struck me as a self-evident proposition, but as I waded deeper into this issue, it became a useful guide for determining the scope of my research and writing. Dr. Vandermeer, you always emphasized the importance of crafting a well-structured narrative. While it gave me many headaches, the ability to understand an argument’s underlying mechanics and their intersection with a larger narrative has proven invaluable. I look forward to further honing this ability in future endeavors. Dr. Hirt, you have always reminded me that writing history is, above all else, the art of storytelling. Your patience in reviewing my early drafts and encouragement to find the compelling narrative amidst piles of dry legal doctrines, overlapping historical events, and tangential legislative spats made this thesis possible. iv Though not a member of my committee, I would be deeply remiss to not acknowledge the extensive mentoring I that have received over the years from Dr. David William Foster. Beyond encouraging me to attend graduate school, Foster’s indefatigable energy and penetrating insight into how we construct gender continually inspires me to re-evaluate many assumptions that have underpinned my worldview. I can only hope that more students have the opportunity to cross paths with him. My ultimate gratitude rests with my parents, Jana, and especially Alicia. Thank you all for your patience and understanding as I pulled all-nighters, sequestered myself in libraries, randomly drove off to places afar, and mumbled incoherently while typing at my laptop for hours at a time. Most people would have sent me to a mental institution; instead, you all have been nothing short of loving and supportive as I have worked through this project. v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................................ix LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................. x CHAPTER 1 REFLECTIONS .................................................................................................... 1 Water and Power ............................................................................................. 4 Effects of Moving Water................................................................................. 9 Regional Patterns ........................................................................................... 12 My Narrative ..................................................................................................14 2 FOUNDATIONS ............................................................................................... 19 First Peoples ................................................................................................... 19 Territorial Capitalism .................................................................................... 23 Statehood ........................................................................................................ 28 Politics of Postwar Growth ........................................................................... 33 Surface Tension ................................................................................. 35 Grounded Anxieties .......................................................................... 37 Foundations for Moving Water .................................................................... 53 3 ACQUISITIONS ..............................................................................................