<body><div><figure><img src="https://img.particlenews.com/image.php?type=thumbnail_580x000&amp;url=03Jlht_1GtrxNLU00" alt="https://img.particlenews.com/image.php?url=03Jlht_1GtrxNLU00" width="1763" height="1175" ><figcaption>ASU professor and water expert Sarah Porter was puzzled by an Oct. 20 Scottsdale water presentation. (ASU) Deanna Dent</figcaption></figure>With a to-be-determined cut in the Colorado River supply looming, rather than clarifying Scottsdale’s situation, a presentation may have muddied the water.Some are baffled by potentially conflicting information in the update – as well as what was omitted.During an Oct. 20 Scottsdale City Council report – later dubbed "misleading" by Scottsdale Mayor Lisa Borowsky – titled “Scottsdale Water Resources Present and Future,” the city's interim water director paused on the seventh slide.“Water Deliveries 2021-25” showed five rectangular columns, each representing a year and volume of water. Each column seemed to be around the same height.Thyra Ryden-Diaz stated “our population from 2021 to 2025 increased slightly, but our water deliveries decreased slightly.”This seems to be in contrast to a document the Progress obtained. Signed by City Manager Greg Caton, the city's July 28 Designation of Assured Water Supply application with the Arizona Department of Water Resources shows “estimated demand” increasing by 9% from 2024 to 2025.The document projects a demand of 109,999 acre feet of water by 2036.This 22% increase was not part of a presentation to Scottsdale City Council three months later.“I am concerned with the significant discrepancy between the water supply delivery projections and the city’s application at the Arizona Office of Assured and Adequate Water Supply,” Borowsky said, after the report was shared with her.“I believe this should be corrected by our city manager because our own Arizona Department of Water Resources application shows increases in water supply delivery projections during the same period, which is confusing and warrants correction one way or the other so we have an accurate reading on future water delivery needs,” Borowsky said.“Water is a critical issue for Scottsdale and residents should be able to easily understand our water needs today and into the future.”A question to Caton on this matter was answered by Bryan Bouchard, a Scottsdale Water spokesman.He said the presentation was based on Maricopa Association of Government figures, showing Scottsdale population increased from 243,538 in 2021 to approximately 251,000 in 2025, “an increase of about 3.1%.“Over that same period, potable water billed usage decreased from 71,088 acre-feet to 69,386 acre-feet, a reduction of approximately 2.4%. So the comparison presented at the meeting was accurate: our population increased slightly while billed potable water usage decreased slightly.”Regarding the DAWS application, he said, “those projections are based on Scottsdale's 2022 Integrated Water Resources Master Plan. That document is a long-range planning tool that uses assumptions about future growth and water demand …“The historical figures and the projected demand serve different purposes,” the water department spokesman said.He insisted there was no contradiction:“One reflects actual historical billed usage, while the other is an estimate used for long-range water resource planning.”While the sharply rising demand increase shown in the state application was not in the report to City Council, conversely, a key projection in the water presentation was not in the state application.During the Oct. 20 water presentation, Ryden-Diaz said the city anticipates a 17% cut in the Colorado water Scottsdale relies on via the Central Arizona Project (CAP).In the “Application for a Modification of Designation of Assured Water Supply” application, the city anticipates CAP “water direct delivery” of 77,965 acre feet per year for the next 100 years. The total is more than half of the projected 13.8 million total city 100-year volume.Those numbers were “based on Scottsdale's water supply portfolio without factoring in potential Colorado River supply reductions,” Bryan Bouchard, a Scottsdale Water spokesman, told the Progress.“At the time the DAWS application was due, the post-2026 Colorado River operating framework and associated reductions had not been finalized,” he added. “The application was prepared and submitted based on the applicable information and assumptions available at that time.”Porter puzzledDuring her presentation, Ryden-Diaz repeatedly stressed the city has an “assured water supply” of 141,341 acre-feet through the Arizona Department of Water Resources. She noted the designation expires this year and noted an application was submitted – though she did not provide the details from the application.Rather, Ryden-Diaz emphasized the current assured water supply compared to actual use.Since the city typically uses around 82,000 acre feet of water per year, “We have about 58,000 acre feet of water kind of that's in reserve that we don't have to use every year,” Ryden-Diaz said.Councilwoman Jan Dubauskas later echoed that in a question: “We have 50,000 or 60,000 acre-feet of water per year over the course of 10 years that we aren't utilizing – is that correct?"“That's correct," Ryden-Diaz answered.Dubauskas later doubled down on that, calling it “a surplus.”That was puzzling to Sarah Porter, director of ASU’s Kyl Center for Water Policy.Using “surplus” to describe Scottsdale’s assured water supply vs. actual use “isn't correct,” Porter said.“The designation of assured water supply isn't a guarantee of that water being available. It is a determination by the Department of Water Resources that Scottsdale can meet 100-year demand of that amount – but that would be subject to the limitations for each water supply.”Like many, Porter is most concerned about the drought-stricken Colorado River supply, the source of more than two-thirds of Scottsdale’s water.“Cities are awaiting their redesignation,” she said, “but the (Arizona Water) Department isn't guaranteeing there will be no additional shortages of Colorado River water.”The ASU water guru said the uncertainty is maddening, with a crucial snow season approaching.“If things go as everybody hopes for, it will mean only a 17% cut to Scottsdale and other cities,” she said. “But if we have a terrible snowpack in the Upper Rockies, the bureau has said we could do deeper cuts mid-year. If we have a mediocre year of snowpack, we will have deeper cuts in 2028 … we're we're at such a bad place, even with all these rains, we're still in such a dismal place with those reservoirs that we could, with one bad winter – a winter like last winter – we could get to the point where we're at what they call ‘run of river,’ where there there is no more access to stored water. “You know, we could get to that in a year or two.”For cities like Scottsdale, she stressed, a piece of paper “is not a promise that all this water – that the CAP water in their assured water supply designation – is going to be available.”But what about what Ryden-Diaz described as an assured water supply “reserve”?“It isn't the case,” Porter said with a sigh, “that Scottsdale has an extra 40,000 or 50,000 acre feet of water that it's putting in the ground every year.”Councilwoman Solange Whitehead previously told the Progress she has one word for the characterization by Ryden-Diaz and Dubauskas:“False.”She stressed the 50,000-plus figure wildly inflates the “10,000-20,000 acre feet of surplus CAP and recycled water” the city has been banking.“Building today’s reserve took decades,” she said. “With no future CAP surpluses expected, this is an emergency reserve, not a renewable supply.”'Poop water'After playing locally for a year, the drama over Scottsdale water made it to Broadway.The New York Times headline suggests more of a comedy than tragedy:“‘Poop Water’ Churns a Local Election in Parched Arizona.”According to the article, Barry Graham and Michelle Ugenti-Rita, “both running on a right-wing platform, deride wastewater recycling as an unproven experiment. They call it ‘toilet to tap’ or ‘poop water’.”The article quotes Raoul Zubia as saying his two opponents are “using buzzwords and scare tactics.”The article references an Ugenti-Rita campaign video featuring comedian Rob Schneider, who derides Councilwoman Solange Whitehead as “Sewage Solange.”The NYT reporter states Whitehead told him she was flattered by the attention, “as she sipped a pale ale made with Scottsdale’s recycled wastewater, part of a campaign to help the public overcome the ‘ick factor’.”Ugenti-Rita found the story icky.“The New York Times parachuting into our local Scottsdale City Council race to bully residents into accepting gross, unproven ‘toilet-to-tap’ shows exactly how deep this manufactured water crisis runs,” she posted, after the article was published.The article quoted Thyra Ryden-Diaz, the utility’s interim director, defending the wastewater recycling program.“All water is recycled,” Ms. Ryden-Diaz said. “I don’t think that people remember their third-grade water cycle graph.”</div></body>

Block Source: scottsdale.org

Misinformation

Clickbait

Old or repetitive news

Explicit content

Location not relevant

With a to-be-determined cut in the Colorado River supply looming, rather than clarifying Scottsdale’s situation, a presentation may have muddied the water. Some are baffled by potentially conflicting information in the update – as well as what was omitted. During an Oct. 20 Scottsdale City Council report –...

Scottsdale Water report puzzles, angers some

NewsBreak

With a to-be-determined cut in the Colorado River supply looming, rather than clarifying Scottsdale’s situation, a presentation may have muddied the water.

Scottsdale Water report puzzles, angers some

Comments