Statewide Water Advisory Group

1
Statewide Water Advisory Group

• SWAG

By Herb Dishlip P.E.
2
SWAG Overview

• Why was SWAG created?
• Who served on the SWAG?
• How did the SWAG operate?
• Which policy issues were discussed?
• Was it worth the effort?

3
Purpose of SWAG

• To create a stakeholder process that will
  identify a mechanism and necessary legislation to
  encourage and support local initiatives for
  planning, financing, developing and managing
  water supplies in critical basins.

4
Background to Formation

• Successful, although ad hoc, ADWR Rural Watershed
  Group Program
• Inaction on several legislative proposals dealing
  with rural are water issues
• Positive history of focused water advisory groups
• Governors CAP Advisory Committee
• Governors Groundwater Management Commission
• Arizona Water Banking Authority Study Commission
• Drought Task Force

5
SWAG Formation

• ADWR sponsorship
• Support from Governor Napolitanos office
• Membership
• Currently 55 on list
• Geographic diversity
• Economic sector representation
• Government/Private Sector mixture
• Environmental representation
• Tribal representation

6
SWAG Process

• Initial meeting May 5, 2006
• Generally met twice monthly in Phoenix through
  September
• Usually met as full committee
• Two focused workgroups
• Two special subcommittees

7
Process Getting to Know You Stage

• Initial issue identification
• Initial staking-out of positions
• Information sharing
• Presentations by local representatives

8
Process Learning from Experience Stage

• Presentations on water districts
• Pinal Co. Water Augmentation Authority
• Santa Cruz Valley Water District
• Mohave County Water Authority
• Presentations on programs in neighboring states
• Colorado
• California
• Utah

9
Process Getting Down to Business Stage

• Issues and problem areas
• Water supply and growth
• Water supply development and management
• Role of government
• Focus of discussions
• Ineffective subdivision Water Adequacy Program
• Need for districts with power to implement
• Need for infrastructure and water right
  acquisition funding
• Need for better technical and scientific
  information

10
Process Proposed Solution Stage

• ADWR explained the extent of their current
  authorities
• White papers were prepared with strawman
  proposals to focus on what people liked and
  disliked
• Several iterations were discussed and comments
  incorporated
• Subcommittees formed to deal with
• Small domestic wells
• Lot spit land development

11
Process Public Outreach Stage

• ADWR Director Herb Guenther sponsored 15 public
  meetings throughout rural Arizona to get the
  sense of the local areas throughout October
• Local press coverage on issues and general
  suspicion of new regulations led to good turnouts

12
Process Draft Legislation Stage

• ADWR prepared rough drafts of legislation for
  SWAG review
• The Sierra Vista pilot district was drafted
  locally, but SWAG was kept appraised of proposals
• Advice was given freely, but no votes were taken
• SWAG members were free to continue arguing for
  their positions in the legislative process

13
Results

• Compromise legislation was developed some
  members would have preferred more action, but
  didnt want to jeopardize the entire bill
• Strengthened Rural Subdivision Water Adequacy
  Program
• Framework of a funding program
• Improved program for water quality remediation
• San Pedro pilot district framework

14
The Future of SWAG

• ADWR was pleased with the process and wants the
  SWAG to continue
• Subcommittees will be formed to work on special
  problems
• Funding sources will need to be identified and
  discussed
• Track legislative implementation effort