5th Management Plans Concepts 

As ADWR and the 5th Management Plans Work Group proceeds in the development of the 5th Management Plans, concepts and stakeholder comments related to 5MP conservation programs will be made available below. Meeting links are provided, to provide additional context for the concept. Any questions or comments on these concepts can be sent to [email protected].

Agricultural Subgroup

Concept: BMP Program

Agricultural BMP Program Proposal:

ADWR's intent is to include the recommendations for the Agricultural BMP Advisory Committee into the 5MPs. The recommendation includes updates to the list of approved BMPs (Appendix 4B) which contains the proposed minimum points values.

Proposed Agricultural BMP Program Modifications for the Fifth Management Plan - September 1, 2021

Proposed Additional BMP for Category 2: Farm Irrigation Systems

Draft Appendix 4B

Tiers for BMP Program (will not be included in the 5MPs):

Tiers for the BMP Program would be similar to what is seen in the Municipal Non-Per Capita Program. This modification to the BMP program would create different tiers with different points targets. Tiers may be based on total acreage or water use per acre. Other details including point targets for each tier will need to be determined. ADWR will not be pursuing this concept for the 5MPs, but may consider it for future conservation programs.

July 20, 2020 Agricultural Subgroup Meeting

Introduced concept of tiers as one option for increasing conservation in the BMP Program. Introduced dashboard to help establish tiers.

December 8, 2020 Agricultural Subgroup Meeting

Covered the status and timeline of the 4th and 5th Management Plans. Introduced additional BMP analyses and the Agricultural Water Conservation Best Management Practices (BMP) Advisory Committee. Discussed how the proposed and current conservation programs could fit together in a 5MP structure. There was a guest presentation by the agricultural collaborators group.

May 19, 2021 Agricultural Subgroup Meeting

Reviewed consensus proposal from the Agricultural BMP Advisory Committee. Discussed proposal for the Integrated Farm Program.

August 11, 2021 Agricultural Subgroup Meeting

Reviewed the draft 5MP agricultural regulatory language.

Stakeholder Comments

July 20, 2020 Agricultural Subgroup Questionnaire Responses

May 19, 2021 Agricultural Subgroup Questionnaire Responses

Concept: Integrated Farm Program

The Integrated Farm Program is a potential conservation program that IGFR holders could participate in as an alternative to the Base Allotment or BMP Conservation Programs. The Integrated Farm Program would allow, with a geographic limitation,  those with multiple IGFRs to combine allotments and reporting. To ensure this program reduces withdrawals of groundwater, it would also incorporate a cut to the aquifer.

Integrated Farm Program Proposal

July 20, 2020 Agricultural Subgroup Meeting

Introduced concept of tiers as one option for increasing conservation in the BMP Program. Introduced dashboard to help establish tiers. 

December 8, 2020 Agricultural Subgroup Meeting

Covered the status and timeline of the 4th and 5th Management Plans. Introduced additional BMP analyses and the Agricultural Water Conservation Best Management Practices (BMP) Advisory Committee. Discussed how the proposed and current conservation programs could fit together in a 5MP structure. There was a guest presentation by the agricultural collaborators group.

January 27, 2021 Agricultural Subgroup Meeting

Discussed potential options and initial feedback regarding the details (geographic limitation, cut to the aquifer, flex credits, and process of joining/leaving the program,) of the Integrated Farming Program.

May 19, 2021 Agricultural Subgroup Meeting

Reviewed consensus proposal from the Agricultural BMP Advisory Committee. Discussed proposal for the Integrated Farm Program.

August 11, 2021 Agricultural Subgroup Meeting

Reviewed the draft 5MP agricultural regulatory language.

Stakeholder Comments

July 20, 2020 Agricultural Subgroup Questionnaire Responses

December 8, 2020 Agricultural Subgroup Questionnaire Responses

May 10, 2021 Integrated Farm Program Proposal Questionnaire Responses

May 19, 2021 Agricultural Subgroup Questionnaire Responses

If you would like to submit a comment regarding this concept, please email us at [email protected].

Draft 5MP Agricultural Regulatory Language

Draft 5MP Agricultural Regulatory Language - Version 2

Draft 5MP Agricultural Regulatory Language

In the draft regulatory language posted above, the Phoenix AMA is being used to illustrate the structure of the conservation programs in the 5MPs. The proposed 5MP agricultural conservation programs are the same across all AMAs, except for Appendix 4A which differs due to the variations in crop irrigation requirements in each AMA. These crop irrigation requirements are the same as the values used in each AMA's 4MP.

Stakeholder Comments

Arizona Farm Bureau Federation

Daniel B Jones

If you would like to submit a comment regarding the draft regulatory language, please email us at [email protected].

Industrial Subgroup

Stakeholder Proposal: Alternative Mining Conservation Program

 

Draft 5MP Industrial Regulatory Language

Draft 5MP Industrial Regulatory Language - Version 3

Draft 5MP Industrial Regulatory Language - Version 2

Draft 5MP Industrial Regulatory Language

In the draft regulatory language posted above, the Phoenix AMA is being used to illustrate the structure of the conservation programs in the 5MPs. The proposed 5MP industrial conservation programs (excluding turf - see separate Turf dropdown) are the same across all AMAs.

Stakeholder Comments

ASARCO LLC

Salt River Project (SRP)

If you would like to submit a comment regarding the draft regulatory language, please email us at [email protected].

Turf Breakout Group

 

Concept: Golf Course Conservation
The turf conservation program in the management plans applies to turf facilities who use groundwater and have ten or more acres of water-intensive landscape. Golf courses are a subset of turf facilities, and the golf course conservation program in the management plans applies to golf courses who use groundwater, have ten or more acres of water-intensive landscape, and have at least 9 holes.
 
The final 5MP conservation program for golf courses has 3 parts including an allotment method, effluent adjustment, and allotment additions. 
 
Part 1 of the final conservation program package is an allotment method structure and uses the same method for all courses. It has application rates and limits for two turf categories and includes an allotment for low water use acres, and water surface acres. The final allotment method does not include an allotment for acres that are over 5 acres per hole. Part 2 proposes a change to the effluent adjustment and Part 3 proposes slight changes to the allotment additions.

 

Draft 5MP Turf Allotment Proposal Calculator for Golf Courses

XLS spreadsheet about water usage for golf courses

 

June 22, 2020 Turf Breakout Meeting

Included a guest presentation from Dr. Paul Brown of the University of Arizona Cooperative Extension. ADWR described their process of developing an allotment calculation method for golf courses, including several methods that were considered. A final proposed method that simplified the program to 2 course categories was presented using the Phoenix AMA as an example.

August 4, 2020 Turf Breakout Meeting

ADWR presented a draft turf allotment calculator for the proposed 5th Management Plans Turf Conservation Program for Golf Courses.

February 24, 2021 Turf Breakout Meeting

ADWR presented updated proposals for the non-golf and golf turf conservation programs. Both conservation program proposals included three components, updated allotment calculation methodologies, the effluent adjustment, and updated allotment additions.

April 28, 2021 Turf Breakout Meeting

ADWR presented updated proposal packages for the golf conservation program. Both conservation program proposals packages include three components, updated allotment calculation methodologies, the effluent adjustment, and updated allotment additions. Calculators for both allotment methods were developed and are available on the 5MP concepts page. Arizona Alliance for Golf Data, April 2021

August 17, 2021 Turf Breakout Meeting

ADWR presented the final 5MP golf conservation program that includes three components: an allotment calculation method, the effluent adjustment, and allotment additions.

Stakeholder Comments

Arizona Alliance for Golf Data, April 2021

Jim Kauth

Town of Gilbert

August 4, 2020 Turf Breakout Questionnaire Responses

February 24, 2021 Turf Breakout Questionnaire Responses

April 28, 2021 Turf Breakout Questionnaire Responses

August 17, 2021 Turf Breakout Questionnaire Responses

If you would like to submit a comment regarding this concept, please email us at [email protected].

Concept: Non-Golf Turf Facilities Conservation
The turf conservation program in the management plans applies to turf facilities who use groundwater and have 10 or more acres of water-intensive landscape.  
 
An update to the proposed method of calculating the non-golf turf facilities' conservation allotment for the 5MP divides the facilities into categories based on the percent of water-intensive landscaped area. Water-intensive landscaped area is defined by total acres of turf and water surface area. "High facilities" will have more than 30 percent water-intensive landscaped area, while "low facilities" will have less than or equal to 30 percent water-intensive landscaped area. The allotment calculation is structured to incentivize less water intensive landscaped areas by using more generous application rates for those in the Low Facility Category. This update to the proposed allotment method for non-golf turf facilities is Part 1 of a 3 part proposal. There are no updates to Part 2, the effluent adjustment and Part 3, the allotment additions.

Proposed application rates and categories for non-golf turf facilities in the AMAs:

Proposed application rates and categories for non-golf turf facilities in the AMAs
 

December 3, 2020 Turf Breakout Meeting

ADWR presented a potential method for calculating non-golf turf facilities’ conservation allotment for the 5MP.
 
 
ADWR presented updated proposals for the non-golf and golf turf conservation programs. Both conservation program proposals included three components, updated allotment calculation methodologies, the effluent adjustment, and updated allotment additions.
 
Stakeholder Comments
 
 
 
 
If you would like to submit a comment regarding this concept, please email us at [email protected].
Draft 5MP Turf Regulatory Language

Draft 5MP Turf Regulatory Language - Version 3

Draft 5MP Turf Regulatory Language - Version 2

Draft 5MP Turf Regulatory Language

In the draft regulatory language posted above, the Phoenix AMA is being used to illustrate the structure of the conservation programs in the 5MPs. The proposed 5MP turf conservation programs are the same across all AMAs, however the application rates may vary by AMA due to the differences in turf needs and climatic conditions of each AMA. The specific application rates for each AMA can be found in the Golf and Non-Golf Concept dropdowns above.

Stakeholder Comments

Arizona Municipal Water Users Association (AMWUA)

Blackstone Country Club

Cactus and Pine Golf Course Superintendents Association of AZ

DLC Resources

DLC Resources (2)

Dobson Ranch

Dobson Ranch (2)

Golf Course Superintendents Association of America

Grayhawk Golf Club

McCormick Ranch Golf Club

Paradise Valley Country Club

Recreation Centers of Sun City, Inc.

City of Scottsdale

City of Tempe

Troon

Whisper Rock Golf Club

If you would like to submit a comment regarding the draft regulatory language, please email us at [email protected].

Municipal Subgroup

 

Concept: Non-Per Capita Conservation Program Revisions

The Non-Per Capita Conservation Program (NPCCP) revisions include changes to individual BMPs, BMP point values, BMP Categories, and provider tiers. Tier revisions and the addition of a Planning Category are currently in process.

5MP NPCCP Proposal:
 
The NPCCP BMP list has been updated with stakeholder input from our 5MP Municipal Subgroup meetings. Below is the most recent draft Appendix 5C which contains the NPCCP Tiers, BMP points requirements, and the required number of categories points must be earned from. There is also an Overview of Proposed Changes document that highlights the changes between the 4MP, first draft 5MP, and current draft 5MP Appendix 5C.

 

Draft 5MP Appendix 5C

Overview of Proposed BMP Changes

July 28, 2020 Municipal Subgroup Meeting

Included a guest presentation from Arizona Municipal Water Users Association (AMWUA) on a NPCCP Structure proposal. ADWR presented the changes made to the BMPs and Categories, and included dashboard with various tier proposals.

 
ADWR presented proposals for some remaining details of the 5th Management Plans NPCCP. There was a guest presentation by the Babbitt Center on the benefits and BMP potential of integrated water and land use. ADWR also requested comments and proposals for the 5MP GPCD Program.
 

February 10, 2021 Municipal Subgroup Meeting

In this meeting there was a guest presentation for a proposal that would fit within the NPCCP framework and be more applicable to private water providers. ADWR also presented a range of potential GPCD requirement calculation methodologies.
 
 
Reviewed the draft 5MP municipal regulatory language.

Stakeholder Comments

Arizona Municipal Water Users Association (AMWUA)

Arizona Water Company

City of Scottsdale

City of Scottsdale (2)

Global Water Resources, Inc.

July 28, 2020 Municipal Subgroup Questionnaire Responses

September 14, 2020 Municipal Subgroup Questionnaire Responses

February 10, 2021 Municipal Subgroup Questionnaire Responses

April 5, 2021 5MP Municipal Proposals Questionnaire Responses

If you would like to submit a comment regarding this concept, please email us at [email protected].

Concept: Gallons Per Capita Per Day Program Revisions
The Gallons Per Capita Per Day (GPCD) Program revisions will include modifications to the method for setting GPCD requirements and potential changes to the structure of the flexibility account.

5MP GPCD Proposal:

To address feedback ADWR received about the GPCD requirement calculations being confusing and outdated, ADWR looked at more straight-forward calculations that would result in GPCD requirements that are realistic and responsive while still reducing withdrawals of groundwater. The original GPCD requirement calculations were not responsive to changes in the characteristics of a provider’s service area nor to changes in their actual GPCD. In some cases, these calculations resulted in unrealistic GPCD requirements, either being much higher or lower than what the provider was achieving.

ADWR analyzed the average percentage of GPCD decrease across all large designated providers and found that the between the years 2000 – 2019 the average annual GPCD reduction was 2.8% and between the years 2014 – 2019 the average annual GPCD reduction was 1.8%. ADWR also received input from municipal stakeholders that an annual reduction of 1% would be reasonable.

Proposed 5MP GPCD Requirement Calculations:

GPCD Requirement Calculation

The current flexibility provisions account for variations in precipitation and ADWR proposes the flexibility account continues into the 5MPs. Currently the Tucson and Prescott AMAs have a negative limit of -10 and a positive limit of +30, the Pinal AMA has a negative limit of -15 and a positive limit of +45, and the Phoenix and Santa Cruz AMAs have a negative limit of -20 and a positive limit of +60. ADWR is proposing to streamline the flexibility provisions across all AMAs and proposes the middle range of -15 and +45 for all AMAs.

The GPCD compliance calculation in the 4MPs included “water from any source, except direct use reclaimed water and reclaimed water recovered within the area of impact, for non-irrigation use”. For the 5MPs, ADWR proposes including all sources of water, except direct-use non-potable effluent and non-potable effluent recovered within the area of impact, for non-irrigation use. This will require a change in reporting.

To demonstrate the proposal would achieve greater groundwater conservation across each AMA, we converted 4MP and 5MP GPCD requirements to acre-feet and then compared the total volumes over ten years. This proposal would result in greater conservation (see page 2 of the 5MP GPCD Proposal dashboard below).

 
 
ADWR requested comments and proposals for the 5MP GPCD Program. ADWR also presented proposals for some remaining details of the 5th Management Plans NPCCP. There was a guest presentation by the Babbitt Center on the benefits and BMP potential of integrated water and land use.
 
 
Included an overview of the existing GPCD Program structure and a discussion of initial ideas for the 5MP GPCD Program. ADWR presented a dashboard with historical GPCD data for each AMA.
 
 
In this meeting there was a guest presentation for a proposal that would fit within the NPCCP framework and be more applicable to private water providers. ADWR also presented a dashboard with a range of potential GPCD requirement calculation methodologies. (Dashboard Data)
 
 
Reviewed the draft 5MP municipal regulatory language.
 
Stakeholder Comments
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
If you would like to submit a comment regarding this concept, please email us at [email protected].
Concept: Alternative Conservation Program (Will not be included in the 5MPs)

  

Draft 5MP Municipal Regulatory Language

Draft 5MP Municipal Regulatory Language - Version 2

Draft 5MP Municipal Regulatory Language

In the draft regulatory language posted above, the Phoenix AMA is being used to illustrate the structure of the conservation programs in the 5MPs. The proposed 5MP municipal conservation programs are the same across all AMAs.

Stakeholder Comments

Arizona Municipal Water Users Association (AMWUA)

Arizona Municipal Water Users Association (AMWUA) (2)

Arizona Water Company

City of Avondale

Town of Gilbert

City of Glendale

Global Water Resources, Inc.

City of Peoria

City of Scottsdale

City of Tempe

City of Tempe (2)

City of Tucson

If you would like to submit a comment regarding the draft regulatory language, please email us at [email protected].

Safe-Yield Technical Subgroup

Concept: Annual Calculation and Long-Term Analysis of Safe-Yield

Each component of the annual calculation of safe-yield was assessed and discussed. The annual calculation was then used to look at the long-term analysis of safe-yield. The proposed method of looking at safe-yield in the long-term is using a short run average of artificial components and a long-term average of natural components. How to define short and long-term are to be determined.

February 4, 2020 Safe-Yield Technical Subgroup Meeting

Discussed each inflow component of the annual safe-yield calculation.

February 24, 2020 Safe-Yield Technical Subgroup Meeting

Discussed each outflow component of the annual safe-yield calculation.

April 20, 2020 Safe-Yield Technical Subgroup Meeting

Introduced some potential strategies for long-term analysis including different time period lengths, smoothing variability of natural components, by individual sector, and a combination of methods.

July 7, 2020 Safe-Yield Technical Subgroup Meeting

Continued discussion of long-term analysis and updated the Safe-Yield Dashboard to include possible methods for the long-term analysis of safe-yield. Proposed a method that would use different averaging lengths for artificial and natural components. 

September 30, 2020 Safe-Yield Technical Subgroup Meeting

Continued discussion of proposed methods for the annual components and long-term analysis of safe-yield. Proposed method for the communication of safe-yield.

Stakeholder Comments

Arizona Municipal Water Users Association

Salt River Project (SRP)

Salt River Project (SRP)

July 7, 2020 Safe-Yield Technical Subgroup Questionnaire Responses

If you would like to submit a comment regarding this concept, please email us at [email protected].

Concept: Methods of Communicating Safe-Yield

This proposal includes methods of communicating safe-yield to two audiences, the general public and those with some prior water, policy, or technical knowledge. Communication methods for the general public are still in development, but will include an educational component. The proposed method for communicating safe-yield to those with some prior knowledge includes various quantitative and qualitative metrics for assessing the components of the statutory definition of safe-yield. 

September 30, 2020 Safe-Yield Technical Subgroup Meeting

Continued discussion of proposed methods for the annual components and long-term analysis of safe-yield. Proposed method for the communication of safe-yield which uses various metrics to evaluate the status of safe-yield in each AMA.

Stakeholder Comments

July 7, 2020 Safe-Yield Technical Subgroup Questionnaire Responses

If you would like to submit a comment regarding this concept, please email us at [email protected].