Report on Arizona’s Inter-Basin Water Transfer Approval

Executive Summary

On Friday, the Arizona Department of Water Resources (DWR) authorized the first legal transfer of groundwater from a rural basin into a designated Active Management Area (AMA). The decision permits the cities of Buckeye and Queen Creek to access water from the Harquahala basin to support new housing development. This action directly addresses challenges related to SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) by enabling urban growth and housing construction. However, it raises significant questions regarding SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation), specifically the long-term sustainability of water resource management for both the receiving and source regions.

Background: Water Management and Urban Growth

The 1980 Groundwater Act and Development Mandates

Arizona’s water policy is largely governed by the 1980 Groundwater Act, which established Active Management Areas to control groundwater depletion. A key provision of this act requires developers to demonstrate an “assured 100-year water supply” before new subdivisions can be approved. In 2023, the DWR determined that Buckeye and Queen Creek could not meet this requirement based on their existing groundwater models, effectively halting new construction permits in parts of these communities.

Details of the Approved Transfer

The DWR’s recent order provides a new source of water to meet the 100-year supply mandate. The specifics of the transfer are as follows:

• City of Buckeye: Authorized to withdraw up to 5,926 acre-feet of water annually for 110 years, sufficient to support over 17,000 new homes.
• Town of Queen Creek: Authorized to withdraw up to 5,000 acre-feet of water annually, sufficient for approximately 15,000 new homes.

This transfer is legally permissible because the Harquahala basin is one of three non-AMA basins specifically designated by state law for such purposes.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) Implications

SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation

This decision represents a critical juncture in Arizona’s pursuit of sustainable water management. While it provides a supply to water-stressed urban areas, it relies on the depletion of a finite resource in another. Key considerations include:

• Resource Depletion: The Harquahala basin has a very low natural recharge rate, with estimates suggesting less than 2% of rainfall replenishes the aquifer. The transfer of over one million acre-feet over the next century constitutes a significant, non-renewable withdrawal.
• Inter-basin Equity: The policy of designating rural basins as water reserves for urban expansion is contentious, raising ethical questions about equitable water distribution and the long-term viability of the source communities and ecosystems, impacting SDG 15 (Life on Land).

SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

The water transfer is a direct response to pressures for urban expansion and housing affordability. It aims to support the development of sustainable communities by:

• Enabling Housing Growth: The decision unlocks land for development in the far suburbs of Phoenix, which developers argue is crucial for providing affordable housing options.
• Supporting Economic Activity: By allowing construction to resume, the decision supports SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) through the home-building industry and related sectors.

However, the reliance on transporting water over long distances challenges the principle of creating self-sufficient and resilient cities.

Stakeholder Perspectives and Future Outlook

Government and Municipal Endorsement

State and local officials have framed the approval as a necessary step to ensure continued prosperity. Governor Katie Hobbs stated the decision “unlocks another water supply that Arizona can use to support our communities, economy, and way of life.” The mayors of Buckeye and Queen Creek praised the move for diversifying their water portfolios and ensuring quality of life for residents.

Concerns and Criticisms

Legislative and academic experts express skepticism about the transfer as a long-term solution.

1. A Temporary Fix: Senator Priya Sundareshan and Sarah Porter of ASU’s Kyl Center for Water Policy both described the transfer as an “incremental” step that does not solve Arizona’s systemic water challenges, particularly amid Colorado River shortages.
2. Philosophical Opposition: Senator Sundareshan characterized the concept of raiding one region’s water to fuel growth in another as “philosophically wrong.”
3. Implementation Hurdles: The physical infrastructure required to transport the water from the Harquahala basin does not yet exist. Its design and construction will require years of work and millions of dollars in investment before building permits relying on this water can be issued.

Alternative Strategies for Water Sustainability

Moving Beyond Inter-Basin Transfers

Experts note that a portfolio of solutions is required to achieve long-term water security in alignment with the SDGs. Other strategies being advanced in Arizona include:

• Ag-to-Urban Transfers: Recently approved legislation allows for water rights from retired farmland to be used for nearby urban development, a method seen as less disruptive than long-distance transfers.
• Advanced Water Purification: The process of treating wastewater to potable standards for reuse is gaining traction as a viable, local source of new water, directly contributing to the circular economy principles within SDG 6 and SDG 11.

These alternatives, combined with conservation efforts, are viewed as essential components of a more resilient and sustainable water future for the state.

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation

  The article’s central theme is water resource management, scarcity, and the legal transfer of water to ensure supply for growing communities. It directly discusses the challenges of maintaining a sustainable water supply, which is the core of SDG 6.

• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

  The water transfer is explicitly intended to enable urban growth and the construction of new housing in the cities of Buckeye and Queen Creek. The article links water availability to the development of affordable housing and sustainable urban expansion, which are key components of SDG 11.

• SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

  The article highlights the economic implications of water policy, particularly for the construction industry. The decision to allow water transfer is framed as a move to unlock development and economic activity, supporting the goals of the Home Builders Association and developers.

• SDG 15: Life on Land

  The article raises concerns about the environmental impact of transferring large amounts of groundwater from a rural, arid basin. The discussion about the Harquahala basin’s extremely low recharge rate points to the potential for unsustainable depletion of a freshwater ecosystem, which is relevant to SDG 15.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation

   • Target 6.4: By 2030, substantially increase water-use efficiency across all sectors and ensure sustainable withdrawals and supply of freshwater to address water scarcity.

     The article directly addresses this target by describing efforts to secure a “100-year supply of water” for urban areas facing scarcity. The transfer of water from the Harquahala basin to Buckeye and Queen Creek is a direct attempt to ensure a sustainable supply of freshwater. The mention of alternative solutions like “ag-to-urban” transfers (moving water from agriculture to urban use) and advanced water purification also relates to increasing water-use efficiency and diversifying supply.

   • Target 6.5: By 2030, implement integrated water resources management at all levels, including through transboundary cooperation as appropriate.

     The entire situation described in the article is an example of integrated water resources management at the state and local levels. The Arizona Department of Water Resources (DWR) is implementing the state’s 1980 Groundwater Act, making decisions that balance the needs of different regions (rural Harquahala vs. urban Phoenix suburbs) and stakeholders (developers, city governments, landowners).

2. SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

   • Target 11.1: By 2030, ensure access for all to adequate, safe and affordable housing and basic services.

     The article explicitly states that the inability to build in the far suburbs due to water shortages “has driven up the price of housing in Arizona.” The approved water transfer is intended to allow the construction of over 32,000 new homes (17,000+ in Buckeye and 15,000 in Queen Creek), directly addressing the need for more housing supply, which is linked to affordability.

   • Target 11.3: By 2030, enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanization and capacity for participatory, integrated and sustainable human settlement planning and management.

     The article details the planning process for urban growth in Arizona. The legal requirement for developers to demonstrate a “100-year supply of water” is a specific policy tool for sustainable settlement planning. The actions of the DWR, the legal challenges, and the involvement of city mayors and policy experts demonstrate the complex process of managing sustainable urbanization.

3. SDG 15: Life on Land

   • Target 15.1: Ensure the conservation, restoration and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems and their services, in particular… drylands.

     The article raises serious questions about the sustainability of the water transfer. Sarah Porter of the Kyl Center for Water Policy points out that the Harquahala basin is “an area where less than 2% of the rain that falls results in recharge.” Withdrawing over a million acre-feet of water over the next century from such an ecosystem represents a potentially unsustainable use of an inland freshwater resource in a dryland area, which could lead to its depletion.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation

   • Indicator 6.4.2: Level of water stress: freshwater withdrawal as a proportion of available freshwater resources.

     This indicator is strongly implied. The article describes a high level of water stress in the Phoenix area, evidenced by the DWR’s conclusion that communities “lacked the legally required 100-year supply of water.” Furthermore, the data point that the Harquahala basin has a recharge rate of “less than 2%” while being approved for large-scale withdrawals (up to 10,926 acre-feet per year) provides a qualitative measure of the increasing stress on that specific water resource.

   • Indicator 6.5.1: Degree of integrated water resources management.

     The article provides a narrative description of the management framework. The existence and enforcement of the “1980 Groundwater Act,” the role of the “Department of Water Resources” (DWR) in approving transfers, and the legal framework allowing for inter-basin transfers are all evidence of an established, albeit contentious, system for integrated water management.

2. SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

   • Implied Indicator for Target 11.1: Availability of affordable housing.

     While not a formal UN indicator, the article directly links water policy to housing. The number of new homes the water transfer will enable—”more than 17,000 homes” in Buckeye and “about 15,000 homes” in Queen Creek—serves as a direct, quantifiable measure of progress towards increasing housing supply, which is presented as a solution to rising prices.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: kawc.org