Arizona is now entering a new era of water challenges prompted by the need to consider, confront, and find solutions to predicted water supply, and demand imbalances in the future. This paper by water attorney M. Byron Lewis discusses studies predicting water supply limitations, possible sources of augmentation of Arizona’s water supply discussed in those studies, and significant legal and political challenges to overcome in finding solutions to supply and demand imbalances.

Both the effect of climate change on our future water supply and the size of the population that will need to share in that supply are uncertainties that water planners must consider when making decisions regarding our future. We have options, but we have to be sure that we use water efficiently to meet our urban, agricultural, and environmental needs. This Policy Points offers a clear, succinct overview of the status of Arizona’s water supply and what the current drought really means for water availability.

The purpose of this paper is to consider alternative assured water supply approaches for Superstition Vistas and to describe potential methods of providing water service to the property. Because this paper represents a cursory analysis of the study area and available supplies, the results should only be used for scoping more detailed planning efforts. The first issue examined is whether sufficient water supplies exist regionally to support projected growth including Superstition Vistas. Additionally, estimated demands for the property are presented. Finally, there a number of issues that complicate the process of acquiring supplies for an area like Superstition Vistas. This paper summarizes some of those issues.

“What about the water?” was one of the questions Morrison Institute for Public Policy asked in its 2008 study, "Megapolitan: Arizona’s Sun Corridor". That report looked at the potential growth of the Sun Corridor as Tucson and Phoenix merge into one continuous area for economic and demographic purposes.

With its brief review of the water situation in urban Arizona, "Megapolitan" left a number of questions unanswered. This report will consider questions like these in more detail in order to examine the Sun Corridor’s water future. This topic has received less sophisticated public discussion than might be expected in a desert state. Arizona’s professional water managers feel they are relatively well prepared for the future and would like to be left alone to do their job. Elected officials and economic-development professionals have sometimes avoided discussing water for fear of reinforcing a negative view of Arizona. This report seeks to contribute to this understanding, and to a more open and informed conversation about the relationship of water and future growth.

Arizonans have gained a reputation for their low opinion of government, despite -- or perhaps because of -- the major role played by all governmental levels in residents’ daily lives. This view was reflected in the responses to this segment of the survey, as panelists generally gave low ratings to the government services they were asked to judge. This was especially true of lower-income panelists. But the respondents’ low ratings might not always have been based upon personal experience: Few panelists said they had sought information from government or community agencies. This may be due to the increasing popularity of the Internet as a self-help source, but it could also mean that relatively few residents need the services or know they are available. In any case, more than half of those who did seek information said they were satisfied with the result. Panelists were not dismissive of all collective efforts at social betterment. They expressed high levels of agreement that good community-based programs can prevent many social problems, from drug and alcohol addiction to child abuse and juvenile delinquency. Asked how they themselves would distribute public funds for social problems, most respondents choose programs for children, affordable housing, and health insurance.

States have always administered federal programs. But, states usually have had very little say in how they carried out programs. All states could generally do was follow the rules laid out by federal agencies. But now, devolution is giving states more power over programs. And, in general, Americans have said that they approve of the idea. A 1998 nationwide poll, funded by The W. K. Kellogg Foundation, showed that a majority of Americans perceive devolution to be a positive development for the country.