Funds are starting to flow for water conservation projects in Arizona. Where it goes is the subject of ongoing negotiations.
$200 Million in Grants Approved by Water Infrastructure Finance Authority 8 water saving projects, totaling about $15 million in late June. In addition, from the first round of applications, he has 53 proposals, and from the second round, about 40 are awaiting review.
of Water Conservation Grant Fund It was negotiated last year as part of former Gov. Doug Ducey’s $1 billion water policy. The goal was to create tangible long-term water savings by reducing water use, increasing efficiency, or preventing water shortages due to infrastructure failure.
Lawmakers have approved a massive water fund to help Arizona cope with a prolonged drought and water shortages on the Colorado River. Much of the funding was for water ‘augmentation’, focusing on Ducey’s signature idea of ​​building a desalination plant. Democrats put the process on hold until $200 million is allocated for conservation.
A diverse list of organizations will compete for funding, and a similarly diverse number of proposals will be made. But financial resources, like water, are finite.
Cities and counties, public water systems, irrigation districts, natural resource districts, and school districts can all apply for the fund. Tribal groups and private water systems were also eligible on June 21 after Governor Katie Hobbs signed SB 1390. The second round of applications closed on June 30th.
Chelsea McGuire, WIFA’s Deputy Director of Relations, said she expected some second-round applications to be reviewed before the Water Conservation Grants Fund Committee reviewed all first-round proposals. said that
This will ensure that newly eligible applicants “are not pushed to the back of the line” like the tribe, she said.
WIFA’s mandate is to provide grants to water conservation projects throughout Arizona, so the grant award process will not follow traditional practices, she added. All ideas are reviewed by her within 6 months of receipt.
The review process is also uncharted territory. Questions remain about how the proposals should be evaluated and which ones should be prioritized. Many of these projects cannot be done without outside support, and some entities may find it difficult to find the 25% match they need.
Grants can, for example, fund urban lawn clearing, improve systems in small towns, fund groundwater recharge projects, or help curb excessive water use in agriculture. can.
WIFA staff and Volunteer Committee members are reviewing applications and continuing to discuss how best to conduct a balanced assessment. The staff said the review should consider not only the cost-effectiveness of the money spent per acre-foot of water saved, but also the broader impact of the project.
There are no corporate caps or regulations that dictate how much money WIFA can give to a particular project. In addition to being able to spread the funding geographically, the hope is that at least one-third of the funding will go to conservation projects to address water scarcity on the Colorado River, and one-third to groundwater replenishment.
Spending priorities are debatable
Requests for funding poured in. The 65 applications total $103.5 million, half of what WIFA can award by June 2024. There were 40 applications in the second round, totaling $49 million.
The amount of water saved is a critical application criterion, but focusing solely on it carries risks.
Staff and committee members discussed highlighting other factors such as the applicant’s water source and supply status, budget and population served, and a list of co-benefits to help reviewers discern the nuances of the project. Increased need and dependence on WIFA funding may also be considered.
The most numerous types of applications were lawn removal programs and research and educational projects.
Of the 65 first round applications, 30 were from Maricopa County, half of which were for lawn removal. Most of them demanded maximum subsidies.
Blake Anderson, a committee member and president of Mogollon Water Management, questioned whether such a project would be the right use of taxpayers’ money. A turf removal project saves 40 to 100 acre feet of water annually at a cost of $3 million.
“I think we should challenge applicants to find innovative ways to save water while at the same time serving taxpayers well and getting the best possible return,” he said at the June 8 meeting. Stated.
Phoenix asked for $3 million to provide homes and businesses with a $2 per square foot incentive to remove their lawns. The city estimates that this will save 115 acre-feet of water per year. This corresponds to the annual water consumption of approximately 345 households.
Lawn Removal, Rebate:How Cities Along the Colorado River Prepare for Scarcity with Conservation and Alternative Resources
Prolonged drought brings new rebate offers
Different projects can have similar conservation outcomes.
Alpine Home Water Improvement District, which received a $250,000 grant, expects an equivalent return on investment from each dollar per acre-foot of water saved. The funds will help install advanced water meters to detect leaks and manage water resources in towns of 200 people. The district failed to detect multiple outages last winter because meters were buried under snow cover, according to the application.
Other projects project a 17x return on investment.
Context can reveal new layers, such as where water is being saved, how many people it benefits, and the need and urgency of a project. Panel members agreed that it is best to review each application individually to allow room for nuance.
Another committee member said, “communities come to the grant application with the best ideas on how to save water.” “But I feel that when we try to get to the heart of what they do or don’t do as custodians of their resources, locking them together, we’re going to get stuck. .”
WIFA Board members expect robust discussion and comment, including dissent within the Commission, on the application before reaching a decision.
Arizona State University, Mesa University, Surprise University, Tucson University, and Wilcox University also submitted applications for the turf removal program in the second round.
Many cities in California have begun aggressive plans to remove nonfunctioning lawns, and last year Nevada passed a law mandating such lawns to be removed by 2026. Arizona has almost no such regulation. Last year, Ducey passed a law banning the Homeowners Association’s ban on synthetic turf, but this year Tucson banned the use of non-feather turf for new developments.
Phoenix has claimed in the past that it does not offer rebates to customers for meeting water-saving goals.without financial incentivesThe city’s per capita water use is below conservation targets set by the Arizona Department of Water Resources.
“However, the situation on the Colorado River suggests that all Southwestern water users will need to go beyond long-established standards and legal requirements to adapt to a world of depleted Colorado River water. Something has become clear,” Deputy Commissioner Max Wilson said. Director of the City of Phoenix Water Planning Department.
Although the city didn’t win any subsidies, officials “are committed to getting this program started in some way,” Wilson said. The city will also begin offering rebates for efficient toilets and smart irrigation controllers this summer.
First grant awarded
On June 8, the seven-member Water Conservation Grants Fund Committee considered the following 12 items. 65 proposals from round 1. WIFA staff selected the application dossiers to be reviewed first, taking into account the “various geographic representations and different project types”.
The committee recommended eight for approval and submitted the remaining four.
Among the eight grants is a grant to install an advanced water metering system that can provide real-time leak detection and accurate information for water conservation. Upgrade your farming system. Others include renovating Yuma’s 190-acre park with grass removal and an advanced irrigation system.
The four failures included three grants seeking $3 million in lawn removal rebates in Phoenix, Gilbert, and Glendale, and an audit and major water system replacement in Pima County. Met.
The committee’s decision to submit them is not necessarily a rejection, but a “not yet” vote.
Approved grants include:
- Alpine Domestic Water Improvement District: $250,000 to replace direct reading water meters with wireless meters and reduce water loss due to leaks. Expected savings: 4 acre feet per year.
- City of Tucson: $3 million to replace 20,000 customers’ old water meters with automated meter infrastructure meters. Potential savings: 2,216 to 4,257 acre feet per year.
- City of Prescott: $3 million for a five-year program to replace older meters with advanced metering infrastructure. Projected savings: 405 acre feet per year.
- San Carlos Irrigation and Drainage District: $555,658 to replace aging structures and manual outdated gates (part of ongoing system-wide renovation and modernization of canals, irrigation structures and technology). Projected savings: 5,792 acre feet per year.
- Verde Natural Resources Reserve: $2,998,732 to add pipes to the Verde Valley irrigation canals to improve water efficiency and supply reliability. Projected savings: 1,955 acre feet per year.
- City of Yuma: $3 million to install irrigation systems in parks and throughout the city, remove some grass and install new irrigation technology. Projected savings: 480 acre feet per year.
- City of Goodyear: $74,000 in lawn removal rebates for commercial, institutional, industrial and HOA. 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 Williams playgrounds. Projected savings: 39 acre feet per year.
All applications are Water Conservation Grant Fund Committee books.
Clara Migoya covers environmental issues for the Republic of Arizona and As Central.Send your tips and questions to clara.migoya@arizonarepublic.com.
Environmental reporting at azcentral.com and in the Republic of Arizona 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 To Subscribe to azcentral today.
