How much water can $200M help save? State agency sifts through dozens of project ideas
Funding for water conservation projects in Arizona is starting to flow. Where it goes is the subject of ongoing talks.
With a total of $200 million to award, the Water Infrastructure Finance Authority approved eight water conservation projects, totaling about $15 million, in late June. Another 53 proposals from the first round of applications and about 40 from the second round await review.
The Water Conservation Grant Fund was negotiated last year as part of former Gov. Doug Ducey's $1 billion water package. The goal was to produce tangible, long-term water conservation results, either by reducing water use, improving efficiency or preventing shortages from infrastructure failures.
Lawmakers approved the massive water fund to help Arizona respond to the extended drought and Colorado River water cutbacks. The bulk of the fund was meant for water "augmentation," with a focus on Ducey's signature idea to build a desalination plant. Democrats held back the process until the $200 million for conservation was earmarked.
A diverse list of entities will compete for funding, with an equally diverse raft of proposals. But the financial resource, like the water, is finite.
Cities and counties, public water systems, irrigation districts, natural resource conservation districts and school districts can all apply for the funds. Tribal entities and private water systems also became eligible on June 21, after Gov. Katie Hobbs signed SB 1390 into law. The second round of applications closed on June 30.
Chelsea McGuire, assistant director of external affairs for WIFA, said she anticipates some applications from round two are heard before the Water Conservation Grant Fund committee reviews all proposals from round one.
This will ensure that the newest eligible applicants, like tribes, "are not relegated to the back of the line," she said.
WIFA's charge is to award grants to water conservation projects throughout Arizona, so the grant award process won't follow a traditional path, she added. All ideas will be reviewed within six months of being received.
The review process is also uncharted territory. Questions linger about how proposals should be evaluated and which should have higher priority. Many of these projects could not be executed without outside support, and some entities might have a harder time finding the required 25% match.
Grants could, for example, fund turf removal in urban areas, make system improvements in small towns, fund groundwater recharge projects or help curb big water use in agriculture.
WIFA staff and volunteer committee members are reviewing applications, and still discussing the best ways to make a balanced assessment. Reviews, staff said, should look not only at the cost-effectiveness of money spent per acre-foot of water saved, but the broader impacts of the projects.
There are no firms caps or anything in statute that directs how much WIFA can award to certain projects. The aspiration is that the funds can be spread out geographically, but also that at least a third of the funds go to conservation projects that address Colorado River water shortages, and a third deal with groundwater replenishment.
Spending priorities up for debate
Fund requests came in high. The 65 applications totaled $103.5 million, half of the total amount WIFA can award by June 2024. The second round came with 40 applications and totaled $49 million.
The amount of water saved is an important criteria in the applications, but focusing on it exclusively has risks.
Staff and committee members have discussed highlighting other elements, such as the applicants' water source and state of the supply, their budget and population served, and a list of co-benefits that help reviewers look at the nuances of the projects. A greater need or reliance on WIFA funds could also come into consideration.
The largest types of applications were turf removal programs, and research and education projects.
Of the 65 applications of the first round, 30 came from Maricopa County and half of them were for turf removal. Most of them requested the maximum grant amount.
Committee member Blake Anderson, president of Mogollon Water Management, questioned whether these kind of projects were the right way to spend taxpayer dollars. The turf removal projects would save between 40 and 100 acre-feet of water a year at a cost of $3 million.
“I think we should be challenging our applicants to find innovative ways to conserve water and also be serving the taxpayers well and get the best bang for our buck,” he said at the June 8 meeting.
Phoenix requested $3 million to offer a $2 per square foot incentive for turf removal to households and businesses. The city estimated that could produce 115 acre-feet of water savings per year; the equivalent of about 345 households' yearly water use.
Turf removal, rebates: How Colorado River cities are preparing for shortages with conservation, alternate sources
Long drought brings new rebate proposals
Different projects can bring similar conservation results.
The Alpine Domestic Water Improvement District, which received a $250,000 grant, expects an equal return on investments from dollars per acre-feet of water saved. The funds will help install advanced water meters to detect leaks and manage water resources in a town of 200 people. Last winter, the district was unable to detect several water line breaks because the meters were buried under the snowpack, the application said.
Other projects predict a return on investment 17 times higher.
Context can reveal new layers: where is water being saved, how many people will it benefit, what is the need and urgency for a project. Committee members agreed it is best to review applications on an individual basis to allow room for nuance.
"Communities are coming to the grant application with their best ideas of how they can save water," said another committee member. "But if we’re going to get into nitty-gritty of pinning them against each other, let’s say for what they are or not doing already to be stewards of the resource, I feel we are going to get stuck."
WIFA board members expect robust discussions and comments on the applications before reaching decisions, including dissent within the committee.
Arizona State University, Mesa, Surprise, Tucson and Willcox also submitted applications for turf-removal programs on the second round.
Many cities in California have begun aggressive programs to remove nonfunctional turf, and last year Nevada passed a law that requires removal of such lawns by 2026. In Arizona, such regulations are nearly non-existent. Last year, Ducey approved a law that prohibits banning artificial turf by homeowner associations, though this year Tucson banned nonfunctional turf for new developments.
Phoenix claimed in the past that it did not offer rebates to customers because it had reached water conservation goals “without financial incentives.” The city's per-person water use is below the conservation goal set by the Arizona Department of Water Resources.
"However, conditions on the Colorado River have made it clear that all water users in the Southwest will need to go above and beyond long-established norms and legal requirements to adjust to a world with less Colorado River water," said Max Wilson, deputy director of the City of Phoenix Water Planning Division.
Although the city did not get a grant, officials are "committed to launching this program in some form," said Wilson. The city will also start offering rebates for high-efficiency toilets and smart irrigation controllers this summer.
First grants awarded
On June 8, the seven-member Water Conservation Grant Fund committee reviewed 12 of 65 proposals from round one. WIFA staff selected the first batch of applications to review, to have "a diverse geographic representation and a variety of project types."
The committee recommended eight for approval, and tabled the remaining four.
Among the eight are grants for installing advanced water meter systems, which can provide real-time detection of leaks and accurate information for water saving; agriculture system upgrades; and others like a renovation of 190 acres of parks in Yuma with turf removal and advanced irrigation systems.
The four that did not pass were three grants requesting $3 million for turf removal rebates in Phoenix, Gilbert and Glendale, and an audit and large-scale water appliance replacement in Pima County.
The decision of the committee to table them is not necessarily a rejection, but a "not yet" vote.
The approved grants were:
Alpine Domestic Water Improvement District: $250,000 to replace direct-read water meters with radio-read meters and reduce water losses to leaks. Expected savings: 4 acre-feet per year.
City of Tucson: $3 million to replace outdated water meters with Advanced Metering Infrastructure meters for 20,000 customers. Expected savings: 2,216 to 4,257 acre-feet per year.
City of Prescott: $3 million for a 5-year program to replace old meters with Advanced Metering Infrastructure. Expected savings: 405 acre-feet per year.
San Carlos Irrigation and Drainage District: $555,658 to replace deteriorating structures and manual outdated gates (part of ongoing system-wide rehabilitation and modernization of canals, irrigation structure and technology). Expected savings: 5,792 acre-feet per year.
Verde Natural Resource Conservation District: $2,998,732 to add pipes to irrigation ditches in the Verde Valley to improve water use efficiency and supply reliability. Expected savings: 1,955 acre-feet per year.
City of Yuma: $3 million to install irrigation systems, remove some turf and install new irrigation technology in parks and citywide. Expected savings: 480 acre-feet per year.
City of Goodyear: $74,000 for commercial, institutional, industrial, and HOA turf removal rebates. Expected savings: 40 acre-feet per year.
Williams Unified School District No. 2: $2,158,500 to remove natural turf and replace with synthetic turf on five athletic fields in Williams. Expected savings: 39 acre-feet per year.
All applications can be viewed on the Water Conservation Grant Fund Committee Books.
Clara Migoya covers environmental issues for The Arizona Republic and azcentral. Send tips or questions to clara.migoya@arizonarepublic.com.
Environmental coverage on azcentral.com and in The Arizona Republic is supported by a grant from the Nina Mason Pulliam Charitable Trust. Follow The Republic environmental reporting team at environment.azcentral.com and @azcenvironment on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.
You can support environmental journalism in Arizona by subscribing to azcentral today.
This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Taxpayer dollars will fund 8 new water conservation projects
