Related articles:

Four projects denied city water service

Other articles by Tony Davis:

AZ Senate fails to act on gas-storage cavernVote pending on exemptions for underground gas storage Killing lions to save sheep faulted Natural gas threatens water, critics sayAZ wanted a jaguar collared despite 2 deaths in Sonora Ex-Gov. Castro, 93, reflects on AZ issues Audubon: Climate change is shifting bird migration Lawmakers decry US stance that it can't block Rosemont mine Bear, lion track count ends after 20-year run$900M financing sought for mine

Administrative & Professional
Tucson Urban League
CEO/President Sales and Marketing
Everready Glass
Sales Reps Health Care
Sierra Tucson
Eating Disorders Program Coordinator Administrative & Professional
Jorgensen Brooks Group
Counselor Trades/Construction
RANCHO RESORT
MAINTANANCE POSITION Health Care
CENTRAL ARIZONA COLLEGE
DIRECTOR OF HEALTH INFORMATION MANAGEMENT Health Care
Dependable Health Services
Physical Therapists

State law requires that Tucson-area developers prove an assured 100-year water supply. But many water-policy professionals have looked askance at the idea of using water to manage growth. To them, water policy is supposed to treat growth as a given.

Tucson City Manager Mike Hein has flipped that attitude on its side, with his recent practice of refusing to serve developments outside the city's water-service area.

Imposed last December, his policy will last at least until a city-county committee finishes a long-term water and wastewater study next year.

The city's utility, Tucson Water, had traditionally served water to anyone who requested it in unincorporated areas of Pima County, and in suburbs on the city's fringes.

For many years, Tucson taxpayers paid much of the cost of extending new services, but that has changed since the City Council approved new-home fees in 2003 to help pay for new water service.

Hein said he decided to stop serving areas outside the city service area in part because of Tucson's continuing dispute with Marana over effluent, or reclaimed sewer water. Marana is suing to get the rights to effluent, which Tucson has had, or claimed, legal rights to since a 1979 agreement.

Hein is concerned that Marana won't turn over any effluent to the federal government for use by Indian tribes, which are supposed to get local effluent under a federal Indian water-rights settlement.

"It seemed people were enjoying the benefit of our asset being used regionally without sharing in the responsibilities," Hein said in an interview last week.

Marana says it's not obligated to give effluent to the tribes because it wasn't part of the water-rights settlement.

Here, Hein fields questions about the city's water-delivery stance — including whether he's trying to limit sprawl, and whether he has the clout to buck influential developers:

Q: Why the change?

A: It started with Marana. As we continue to expand our service area and services in another jurisdiction, Marana, and then that jurisdiction refuses to cooperate with us on the obligations under the Southern Arizona Water Rights Settlement Act, it seemed people were enjoying the benefit of our asset being used regionally without sharing in the responsibilities.

Q: You dropped this policy unannounced on a newly seated City Council. Why no public hearings first?

A: If you look into the history of how the city had done this in the past, there wasn't any thoughtful deliberation to set up that policy. All I did was suspend any activities until some policy could be forthcoming.

Q: Are you saying that if the old policy was done without public notice, it's OK to do it that way now?

A: No, I'm saying I didn't set policy, I undid policy that was set previously without public discussion.

Q: If this isn't a policy, what is it?

A: The policy is to follow law, the service area and what we're required to serve under law. We have a flow chart. It goes through a series of questions the staff asks about, 'Are we required to serve it?'

Q: Did you do it that way to forestall a rush by developers to get water service before a new policy kicked in?

A: No. An examination of requests for water service will show that there was no immediate backlash or rush to get service, either.

Q: A lot of experts think you shouldn't use water to manage growth.

A: If I ran a water utility and I was charged with bringing in revenue, the easiest way to do that is to add customers. When looking at the long-term prosperity of the city, that isn't necessarily (consistent) with adding customers and bringing in revenue.

Q: Does your stance mean that the city lacks enough water for future growth?

A: It would be ridiculous to assert that we have consensus on that issue. That is part of the ongoing water-wastewater study, so we can agree on exactly how much is here. I think there is an opportunity where we as a community can come to a consensus. Until that time, I feel no sense of obligation or rush, unless legally compelled to, to serve some of these areas.

Q: Are you doing this to try to limit sprawl?

A: No, but it does certainly raise the question of how far out the city should serve growth and how far out growth should go. I hope to get to that question with the dialogue with the community on this water and wastewater stuff. It's an appropriate time to re-examine and articulate values and policies, and that's what I would expect the community and mayor and council to do in the next year.

Q: Are you trying to prod developers into being annexed by Tucson? When the city tried that under your predecessor, James Keene, developers protested and the city had to back off.

A: I do from time to time study local history and in no way want to repeat that. While we have an active annexation office, we're not targeting mass residential areas outside the city limits. But if property that otherwise (Tucson Water) would not be legally obligated (to serve) annexes in, and there is a community benefit to it … I would anticipate the mayor and council raising the questions of public good, whether it is a good thing to annex, and along with that is the factor of their using our water resources.

Q: Can the city of Tucson really stand up to a developer as influential as Diamond Ventures?

A: It doesn't matter who the applicant is; we treat them all the same.

Q: Do you have the will to deny water to developments in unincorporated areas for the long haul? What would spur you to do this for several years or longer? What would make you buckle?

A: It is as durable as we need it to be in regards to letting the public process run. Until there is a demonstrated mal effect on the environment or the community, I don't see any reason that we should set a long-term policy before finishing the public process.

Q: Some critics say your policy may cause developers outside the city to sink a well and join the Groundwater Replenishment District. That's a three-county agency that buys and recharges renewable Colorado River supplies into the ground to make up for the pumped water — usually far from where it had been pumped, to the detriment of the pumped aquifer.

A: Yes, (my policy) potentially could be playing into that problem, but I think the developers could also join the Metro Water District or they could do a variety of things. You have to look at it on a case-by-case basis. That is an element of the value discussion that the community is going to have to have.

Q: Will the city ever go back to the old way of doing business or is this a permanent change?

A: I don't want to speculate about the outcome of public dialogue. I think in the end, whatever happens, there will be a clear basis and understanding as to why the policy exists. It will be founded in community values.