Matt Clark
AZ Central: Recent UA study confirms ...

“Groundwater pumping has caused stream flow in U.S. rivers to decline by as much as half over the last century, according to new research by a University of Arizona hydrologist that strengthens the connection between groundwater and surface water. 

The research confirms that groundwater losses, primarily due to pumping water from below the surface for agricultural and municipal uses, decrease the overall surface water supply and have caused some smaller streams to dry up. This has a downstream effect that influences water levels far beyond the groundwater pumping location.” 

Matt Clark
AZ Central: It's one of Arizona's most precious ...

“That’s one of the reasons why we’re losing the San Pedro. That’s one of the reasons why we’re going to lose the Verde. Because they keep permitting all these wells, knowing they’re connected to the surface water, but they don’t consider it,” Silver said. “This is the quandary that we’re having in Arizona right now, is we have no protection for our surface waters. Unless there is a direct diversion, our surface waters are screwed. And we have almost none left.”

Scientists share these concerns and say the state’s remaining riparian areas are at risk. Katharine Jacobs, director of the University of Arizona’s Center for Climate Adaptation Science and Solutions, said aquifers should be managed to protect riparian areas that depend on groundwater.

“There actually is very little protection for water-dependent natural environments in Arizona,” Jacobs said. “Arizona is really behind other states in that regard.”

Conservation groups have repeatedly advocated for legislation that would add protection for “ecological water” in streams, but for the past two years, these bills have died without being heard.

One court case that could have far-reaching effects focuses on the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area, which was established by Congress in 1988 and includes about 40 miles of the river from the U.S.-Mexico border to St. David.

Lawyers for the federal Bureau of Land Management are seeking a set quantity of groundwater and surface water that they say is needed for the conservation area. A Maricopa County Superior Court judge could issue a decision on these federal water rights sometime next year.

AZ Central: It's one of Arizona's most precious rivers. Hundreds of new wells may leave it running dry

AZ Daily Star: Second lawsuit filed over massive Vigneto project in Benson

“The plaintiffs in the lawsuit — the Lower San Pedro Watershed Alliance, Sierra Club, Center for Biological Diversity, Tucson Audubon Society, Maricopa Audubon Society and Cascabel Conservation Association — say the development’s water use will drain surface water flows along the San Pedro River and St. David Cienega, and harm millions of migratory birds, including listed species. . . .

Bird- and wildlife-watching is a $1.4 billion industry in Arizona, said Nicole Gillett, conservation advocate for the Tucson Audubon Society, one of the plaintiffs.

“The San Pedro, being the unique habitat that it is for the whole of the Southwest of the United States, is a big draw for birders,” she said. “Any kind of water drawdown will not only damage the habitat and the species reliant on it, but we might also see fewer eco-tourists as a result of that degraded habitat.

“We all benefit from whole and healthy ecosystems,” she said. “It’s not just birds and wildlife. These are resources that, in the end, are going to be our legacy for our kids and anyone that moves to Arizona.”

DSC01539.JPG

AZ Daily Star - Arizona drought plan pushes unsustainable growth, farming practices

Colorado_River_Credit_Matt_Clark.jpg

“But for longtime Sierra Club lobbyist Sandy Bahr, the plan, far from being groundbreaking, represents another run at “business as usual” for the state. As the Arizona version of the drought plan is now written, she says it’s propping up what she sees as unsustainable growth and unsustainable farming practices.

As the plan is now conceived, Pinal County farms and Phoenix-area cities along with the Tohono O’Odham and Gila River tribes, would give up some or a good deal of their CAP supplies.

But farms would get at least $18 million in state subsidies to build new wells and other infrastructure to pump groundwater in its place. The cities would not lose any of their highest-priority CAP water until Lake Mead drops more than 50 feet lower than it is today.

Here are some questions and answers from Bahr about the drought plan, which is being pushed to meet a Jan. 31 federal deadline to enact it.”

AZ Capitol Times - Democrats: Water plan missing conservation requirement

“House Democrats are balking at ratifying a proposed drought contingency plan over what they see as a key missing element.

Minority Leader Charlene Fernandez said Thursday many of her members question why there’s nothing in the proposal to require more water conservation.

Instead, it is more focused on finding ways to move water around, particularly to meet the needs of Pinal County farmers. But the Yuma Democrat said that does not deal with the underlying problem that Arizona is using more water than is naturally available.”

AZ Foothillls Magazine: Arizona Capitol Museum to Exhibit the Paintings of Tony Winters: Renegades-Arizona's Undammed Rivers

Tom_Winters_Javelina_on_the San Pedro.JPG

The Arizona Capitol Museum (AZCM) is proud to present nationally recognized landscape artist Tony Winters' new collection of oil paintings "Renegades: Arizona's Undammed Rivers." The title refers to the last two rivers in Arizona that have never been dammed. This series portrays the Upper Verde and the San Pedro, Arizona's last remaining wild rivers. Winters documents the remote desert rivers as they appear today, from the Mexican border crossing to the rugged canyons of Yavapai County . . . The exhibition will open with a private event on Thursday, October 25th (opening to the public on October 26) and run through the end of December 2018.

Pinal Central Opinion: Danger in Water Ruling

Arizona has done a pretty good job of dealing with scant water supplies up to now, realizing that more and more people want to live in this desert climate. Two of the biggest parts of that planning were the passage of groundwater reform nearly 40 years ago and the receipt of Colorado River water from the Central Arizona Project soon after. On Wednesday, however, an Arizona Supreme Court decision cast a shadow over the status quo . . . 

Environmentalists long have rallied behind the San Pedro, the last free-flowing, year-round river in the Southwest. This is important, but so is proper planning that will affect the future of state residents.

Areas outside Arizona’s “active management areas” have less oversight under the 1980 groundwater law. But they need more as the state grows, developments are proposed and groundwater is further taxed. Plaintiffs in the case plan to pursue a remedy in federal court, which may help. Arizona, however, needs to do more to protect its water supplies. The state should have more legislation that enhances its ability to plan for the future. That will take some bipartisanship and foresight, the kind that helped get Arizona to the place it’s in today.

Arizona Republic Opinion: This Arizona Supreme Court ruling could hurt a lot more than Sierra Vista's water supply

Opinion, Linda Valdez, Arizona Republic: "Arizona water laws do not allow the state to plan long term. If you value your faucet and your home's value, that must change . . . A court decision that some say could dry up the San Pedro River may sound far removed from your CAP-supplied kitchen faucet. It’s not. In fact, Thursday's unfortunate ruling shows how Arizona's current water law threatens the value of your entire home, not just your faucet . . . The ruling ignores consumer and environmental needs. Now it's up to lawmakers to clarify the law so the courts and developers understand the need to look at the whole picture when making decisions about water. The court identified other things that need fixing. Arizona law does not have a statewide requirement for developments to demonstrate adequate water supply. It should. Arizona law does not require developers to warn consumers when higher priority water rights may impact the water supply in the homes they buy. It should. Rural Arizona has a right to grow and pursue economic development, but that should happen under water rules that protect the entire state."

AZ Daily Star: 5 takeaways from the water-rights ruling over a planned Sierra Vista development

While most hydrologists — those who study the science of water — agree that groundwater pumping can dry up surface flows, courts and legislatures haven’t turned that principle into law . . . Efforts to protect rivers from water pumping in the Legislature, all unsuccessful, date back to the time when Rose Mofford was governor back in the late 1980s, said Sandy Bahr, director of the Sierra Club’s Grand Canyon chapter. “There was a riparian task force. There have been bills that included limits on groundwater pumping within one-quarter mile of riparian areas. Those were defeated by cattle growers and others,” Bahr said. Just this year, a bill dealing with the ecological value of water failed to get a hearing. “We have consistently asked the state to recognize the connections between ground and surface water. Our laws violate the laws of physics,” Bahr said.

Gerrodette and Kiser: New partnerships, ways of thinking for Arizona's water future

"The cornerstone element that seems to be missing, at least publicly during this critical first stage of water discussions in a time of emergency, is the legal framework protecting ecological water — water allocated for rivers to sustain themselves, plants, animals, people and society. Without it — protecting ecological water is like creating a household budget — what is to keep us from spending beyond our means: dewatering our rivers, in the face of development, thereby endangering future generations — life itself?

High Country News: Tribal nations hold some of the best water rights in the West

But to use them, tribes often must negotiate settlements that need federal approval.

Many tribal nations are currently asserting those rights as a way to ensure economic vitality, affirm sovereignty and provide basic services that some communities lack. In many places, however, Native water rights have yet to be quantified, making them difficult to enforce. Settlement is usually the preferred remedy; it’s cheaper, faster and less adversarial than a lawsuit, and can include funding for things like pipelines or treatment plants.