Shouldn't Arizona cut off growth to save water? Why that's the wrong question to ask

If Arizona’s water supplies are dwindling, why don’t we just cut off growth?

This is a common question, and I get why: If you’re in a hole, the logical first step to get out of it would be to stop digging.

But the debate is becoming too polarized and oversimplified:

• In it, you can either be “pro-growth,” which apparently now means that we should build whatever, wherever, without regard to how it uses water, providing that development gives us a short-term economic boost.

• Or you can be “anti-growth,” which means we should yank the welcome mat from any new resident or business, simply because they’ll use water.

Neither is good for the state.

How do we grow and be choosy about it?

Arizona should continue to attract new investment − but only if it has the water to sustain itself, without negatively impacting nearby water users.

Admittedly, we’ve spent years trying to ensure this happens, with varying levels of success.

We created the assured water supply program in the 1980s, which requires participating water providers and subdivision developers to prove they have secured enough water to serve demands.

We formed a district in the 1990s that replenishes groundwater pumping with renewable supplies, allowing subdivisions to sprout in areas that would not otherwise have been developed.

We required many cities and counties in the 2000s to address future water needs in their master plans, the documents voters approve each decade to guide how the community should grow.

These efforts have generally allowed development to continue as it has for decades: In sprawling residential and commercial subdivisions on the outskirts, where it’s cheaper to build. This has helped keep growth – and life here for the rest of us – affordable.

It also has gobbled up a good deal of water-intensive farmland, which is largely why Arizona now uses less water than it did in the 1950s, despite having grown in population several times over since then.

Water issues could change the status quo

But trouble is brewing.

The state water department has already found that there is not enough groundwater to meet long-term demands in the Pinal Active Management Area (AMA). That has mostly shut down construction of for-sale single-family housing, though so-called “build-to-rent” homes are exempt from requirements to prove a long-term supply before building and are now popping up in their place.

The same may happen in the far west and far southeastern portions of the Phoenix AMA, once the water department completes a groundwater model like the one that touched off restrictions in Pinal. In fact, it has already halted further development in a couple of subdivisions near Buckeye because of an expected lack of sufficient groundwater to sustain them.

The days of growing as we always have − on the outskirts, on large swaths of open land − are probably numbered.

Major investment:How a giant semiconductor plant will shape Arizona's economy

That means we’ll have to figure out how to do affordable infill in cities that aren’t solely reliant on groundwater. Our policies aren’t set up for that.

And even then, it may not be smooth sailing, particularly if the worst case happens and Central Arizona Project water is slashed in an effort to save a rapidly dwindling Lake Mead.

Some cities will have enough supplies to prove to the state that they can support additional homes or manufacturers, even if that water goes away. But others may not, particularly those that were heavily relying on Central Arizona Project supplies to fuel growth.

We’ll know more about cities’ capacity to add additional water users as they renew their assured water supply designations over the new few years.

Why the debate can't be all-or-nothing

Which brings me back to the problem with an all-or-nothing view of growth.

There is critical mass in the middle ground. And we need that if we want to respond wisely to this rapidly changing development future. To shore up weak parts in state and local water regulations. Or to simply hold the line on the consumer protections we’ve got.

Without both sides on board, those efforts will go nowhere.

Because make no mistake: There will be tremendous pressure to relax some requirements so developments can continue to move forward as they always have – perhaps by allowing folks to pump deeper than currently allowed to find water, or by requiring developers to prove a 50- rather than 100-year water supply.

If we retreat to polarized corners, we’ll miss key opportunities to rethink how and where and why we grow. To have honest conversations about how we get all users – new or existing – to use less of this precious resource.

And to look holistically at what may be the thorniest question facing Arizona: How to prioritize the water we’ve got.

Reach Allhands at joanna.allhands@arizonarepublic.com. On Twitter: @joannaallhands.

If you love this content (or love to hate it – hey, I won't judge), why not subscribe to get more?

This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Arizona should stop growth to save water? That's the wrong debate