Should Scottsdale ratepayers pay twice?
OPINION — Scottsdale’s council majority has gone to great lengths to work around the city’s adopted Water Strategic Plan — a plan designed to keep our water safe, secure and affordable.
The latest proposal could further delay Scottsdale’s Advanced Water Purification facility, one of our most secure sources of new water, while increasing costs our residents pay.
The idea: discharge Scottsdale’s highly treated wastewater into the Central Arizona Project (CAP) system in exchange for raw CAP water — including water that contains treated wastewater from Nevada.
My concerns:
Why pay twice? Scottsdale would pay to treat wastewater to advanced standards before putting it into the CAP canal — and then pay again to treat the raw CAP water it receives. Costs ultimately passed on to Scottsdale ratepayers.
Does this solve our Colorado River dependence? No. Scottsdale’s overreliance on Colorado River water is precisely the problem we need to solve. This proposal increases our dependence rather than developing new supplies.
How does it strengthen the regional supply? If Scottsdale puts a cup of water into the canal and takes a cup out, the regional supply has not changed. With cuts to Scottsdale’s drinking-water supplies, we cannot afford to send highly treated water downstream.
And this is not Scottsdale’s decision alone. CAP’s current water-quality guidance does not permit this discharge into the CAP system. The proposal would require CAP and federal approval, with consultation involving affected water users. That process could take years.
Scottsdale’s water needs cannot wait. So why pursue it?
Let’s just stick to the adopted water plan.
We already have a plan specifically designed to prepare Scottsdale for steep reductions in Colorado River water while keeping our water secure, safe and affordable.
Water is too important for politics. Scottsdale has an adopted plan. We need to follow it.
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.
