Opinion

Scottsdale must change course on water, vote for Zubia

Solange Whitehead

Photo submitted by Solange Whitehead

Posted Monday, October 26, 2026 6:52 pm

As Election Day Approaches

To allow candidates the right to respond to criticisms about their candidacy before Election Day, the last day Independent Newsmedia will publish new election-related letters in our weekly print editions is Oct. 21, and the last day they will publish online is Oct. 27. Candidates may submit a 150-word reply addressing criticisms only and should email them to AzOpinions@iniusa.org along with their name, address, contact number and the headline of the letter they’re addressing.

By Solange Whitehead | Member, Scottsdale City Council

OPINION — Councilmembers Barry Graham and Jan Dubauskas’ water comments make clear: they either don’t understand — or don’t want you to understand — Scottsdale’s challenges.

After blocking public meetings for two years, the council finally held a water work-study session. What should have been an honest discussion about preparing for reduced Colorado River supplies became a platform for spreading misleading information.

The Colorado River, which supplies 71% of Scottsdale’s water, is overallocated. Deeper cuts are coming. Our job is to prepare for the worst while working toward the best.

Instead, under this Council majority:

Water use is up.
Water fund balances are sharply down.
Unprecedented numbers of water staff have left.
Ratepayers are funding one-time groundwater purchases while Advanced Water Purification (AWP), a renewable water source, remains unfunded.

Let’s examine their false claims:

1) Scottsdale will continue to have 141,000 acre-feet (AF) annually.

False. Our previous 100-year designation of assured water supply, which expired in December 2025, relied on expected availability under normal conditions. These are not normal times. River hydrology, not legal entitlements, determine water availability.

2) Scottsdale’s annual surplus exceeds 50,000 AF.

False. Scottsdale historically recharged about 10,000–20,000 AF of surplus CAP and recycled water annually. Building today’s reserve took more than a decade. With no future CAP surpluses expected, this is an emergency reserve, not a renewable supply.

3) AWP will cost $6,900–$8,400 per AF.

False. Scottsdale has treated wastewater to drinking-water quality for years. State requirements call for facility upgrades, not a new plant, so our costs should be well below the $1,000–$2,500 per AF estimated for new facilities.

Decades of good leadership, sound water policy, and investments have put Scottsdale in a position to protect both the river and our water future.

Changing course at City Hall by electing Raoul Zubia will get us back on track.

Please submit comments at yourvalley.net/letters or email them to azopinions@iniusa.org. We are committed to publishing a wide variety of reader opinions, as long as they meet our Civility Guidelines.