More often than I agree with Arizona Republic columnist Bob Robb’s take on things. As a former lobbyist and long-time op/ed writer for Arizona’s largest circulation newspaper, he has a good understanding of what goes on at Arizona’s capitol. He provides a center/right viewpoint that today’s newspapers often lack.
That said . . . I disagree with his December 19th column entitled It’s time to set a market price for Colorado River water. Interestingly, the on-line version of the article is entitled Leasing Colorado River water to Queen Creek would be a step in the right direction. Colorado River water leases to central Arizona would be a helpful step (azcentral.com) The differences between the headings are subtle. The first heading insinuates an actual sale of water between a willing buyer and a willing seller that holds an entitlement anywhere along the Colorado River. The second heading emphasizes the leasing of Colorado River to a specific lessor (the Town of Queen Creek).
Robb advocates for a pure market-based system for the price of water. On its face this sounds reasonable. Price is the most effective way to ration scarcity. Robb’s approach makes the old saying, “Water runs uphill to money,” ring true. The problem, however, is that water, especially in the desert, is life. Without access to a reasonable supply of water, property in our arid state has little value.
Central Arizona Project canal
Central Arizona Water Conservation District photo
In this case the Town of Queen Creek seeks to lease 1078 acre-feet, or approximately enough water for 6,000 residents, from GSC Farms which borders the Colorado River in the Cibola area of La Paz County. The Phoenix based investment company Greenstone owns the 500 acre GSC Farms and has bought farmland in other parts of Arizona. Greenstone wants to replicate what it seeks to do with the Town of Queen Creek.
While the transfer of a little over 1000 acre-feet of Fourth Priority Colorado River water from Cibola may not seem like a big deal, the precedent could prove huge. Some would argue that metro Phoenix could see allowing the long-term lease of this water as a good faith effort to help the area during a time of long-term drought. This could allow river communities to accrue some political chits in future negotiations with the “State of Maricopa.” Others, including areas with higher priority Colorado River entitlements such as Yuma County and several irrigation districts in Yuma County, oppose this transfer. These entities see it as a precedent to transfer higher priority water if drought and/or growth in Central Arizona continues. In addition, the Boards of Supervisor in Mohave and La Paz County which border the Colorado River also oppose this transfer.
Further down in his article Robb writes:
Another local objection is that transporting water . . . reduces development opportunities
in La Paz County, where the farm is located. This should be stated bluntly. If people prefer to live in Queen Creek than La Paz County, government water policy should facilitate that preference, not thwart It.
Would Robb see things differently if in theory Central Arizona leased its Colorado River entitlements to the highest bidder? In other words, if people would rather live on the coast of California with a mild Mediterranean climate and forgo three scorching months of 100+ weather then shouldn’t government policy facilitate that? Heck, the pipelines are already there to ship the water westward!
LA Basin on a bright if not somewhat smoggy day
Photo by: Anthony Kernich
The Arizona Department of Water Resources has already signed off on this transfer. Ultimately, the US Bureau of Reclamation must approve it before the lease becomes final. This small lease of Colorado River water is not the central issue. What could happen next is . . .