Resource Shortage Water Resource Shortage

Resource Shortage

Water Resource Shortage in the state of Arizona

One of the greatest challenges for any community located in a desert region is how to conserve enough water during times of drought and still satisfy the commercial and home demands of the populace. The natural beauty of the American Southwest, the expansion of its regional economy, as well as its relatively cheaper cost of living compared to the American coasts, has caused a recent influx of migration to the area. This population growth has largely been blamed for exacerbating the effects of the catastrophic droughts that have affected the region, in combination with unfortunate weather conditions. Between 1990 and 2000, Arizona experienced a 40% population growth rate, three times the national average. By 2025, the state is expected to have 6.4 million people, an increase of more than 2 million individuals from its 1995 figure of 4.2 million. (Norton, 2003)

The crux of any water shortage problem is that of competing demands for finite supplies. In Arizona, the rapid population growth and economic expansion has increased concerns about future water supplies in an already drought-plagued area. (Norton, 2003) During periods of drought, such as during the spring and early summer of 2006, the reservoirs of cities such as Las Vegas can plummet as low as 64% of capacity. ("Las Vegas to restrict residents' water use," 2006, U.S. Water News Online) To improve water conservation policies during periods of prolonged drought, cities such as Las Vegas have Stage 1,2, and 3 level conservation measures. These measures restrict outdoor watering of plants and cars, filling hot tubs and swimming pools, and restrict professional car-washing businesses to four days a week. Stage 3 measures restrict water use at motels, restaurants, laundries, construction companies and car washes. The city limits its own construction companies to using city water only two days a week. It stops all construction activity that uses city water during periods of extreme drought. ("Las Vegas bans outdoors watering," 2006, U.S. Water News Online). Restaurants are banned from serving water to customers unless the customer requests water. First-time violators get a warning, along with a copy of the conservation ordinance. Second-time violators can be fined $125 to $150. Afterward, the water service to the offending organization is terminated by the city. ("Las Vegas to restrict residents' water use," 2006, U.S. Water News Online) review of these restrictions demonstrates how droughts are not merely an irritant to persons wishing to have beautiful gardens and pools, but can cause real economic damage to construction companies, tourist destinations, and other businesses that are economically vital to the area. Also, droughts have caused resentment between cities, such as Las Vegas and Tuscan, which have active water conservation programs, and rural communities that do not place similar burdens on residents and farmers. Councilman Louie Trujillo of Las Vegas said it was unfair that city residents had to conserve their water rural areas place no such restrictions during droughts. "We would like more cooperation from our neighbors.'" ("Las Vegas bans outdoors watering," 2006, U.S. Water News Online).

The Arizona state Supreme Court last year ruled the city of Las Vegas was limited to drawing 2,600 acre feet a year from the Gallinas River. The city reached that limit in December 2005, which meant that it had to begin drawing upon its stored water, reducing its reserves for 2006. Now, the city wishes acquire more water rights and storage for the future, but this may cut into the supplies of other cities and rural areas. Although rural areas do not have as stringent methods for conservation, quite often the residents are less affluent, particularly on Arizona's Indian reservations, and may be unwilling or unable to accept the added economic costs of conservation. (Norton, 2003)

According to the Arizona Department of Water Resources, rural agriculture actually accounts for about 70% of Arizona's water use. Immediate conservation efforts, however, in terms of simply limiting use, is not feasible for farmers, and also will do little to permanently change the demand for water, given that their will always be drought in the arid region. One potential solution for farmers would be to switch to a subsurface drip irrigation system that could permanently cut farmers' water use by 25 to 50%. This would alleviate some of the need for conservation and free up more state water reserves for urban locations during times of regional drought. ("University of Arizona studies underground irrigation,"2005, U.S. Water News Online)

Arizona farmers are resistant to drip irrigation, however, and prefer so-called flood or rainwater-propelled irrigation, which is used on about 95% of Arizona crops. "Farmers have a hard time justifying drip irrigation because water is relatively cheap and drip systems can cost from $500 to $2,000 per acre to install." ("University of Arizona studies underground irrigation,"2005, U.S. Water News Online) But not only farmers place cost above conservation. Cost is another prohibition for private residents. Many persons have migrated to Arizona because of the region's cheapness, especially retirees. Converting a home to a more environmentally sound energy model can be prohibitively expensive.

Consider the Phoenix 'gray water' proposal, which suggested installing two sets of pipes in new homes in northeast Phoenix so residents could reuse some of their wastewater as so-called gray water, or water that was below minimum drinking safety requirements that would normally be passed into the sewage system. "In addition to the standard pipes that send wastewater (or black water) to the sewer, a second set would direct cleaner water (gray water) from the washing machine or the shower onto the landscaping. It would save water by reusing it and cut back on water bills for outside irrigation." ("Phoenix snubs idea of wastewater reuse," 2005, U.S. Water News Online) Most residents felt that the $200 tax credits to homebuilders who added the piping for gray-water use, was simply not enough to defray the added cost of installing the new system in comparison to a more traditional system.