Why a Drought Plan?

Drought impacts municipal water systems much more quickly and seriously than it does agriculture because of the more immediate and continuous demand for water in cities and towns. Population clustering means drought in the urban setting has a greater immediate impact on a larger number of persons. The threat of drought to the people, and to the urban economy, results in extensive media attention and scrutiny of drought plans and responses. The failure to plan for such shortages of water is irresponsible.

A drought contingency plan must clearly establish the criteria for action at each stage of shortage. The plan must have the least negative impact possible on the citizenry and the economy, share hardships equitably among classes of water users and population groups, and seek to maximize all available benefits from the limited supply. To prevent the otherwise inevitable slide from early stages to more restrictive ones, the plan also must have the flexibility to allow water managers to react quickly and to implement appropriate restrictions early, while making allowances for different types of use and the needs of different user classes.

Not all uses of water are the same. Some uses, such as reserves for fire suppression, critical cooling applications, and medical necessity will have to take priority over less universally beneficial applications of the available resource, such as lawn and park irrigation, maintenance of decorative fountains, and cooling of outdoor recreation areas.

Likewise, it makes little sense to curtail the use of treated wastewater for turf irrigation just because of a scarcity of fresh drinking water. Not using effluent for irrigation does not increase the drinking water supply, and poses challenges, health concerns, and potential damage if this water is discharged because it is not being beneficially used. If large turf areas such as parks and golf courses are to continue to be watered during a drought, it will be incumbent on the City to aggressively and effectively communicate the reasons for this activity to avoid public outcry over 'preferential treatment' for golf courses and City parks.

Responding to Citizens
The Drought Management Plan is founded on Phoenix Water Services Department standards, and seeks to be sensitive to the needs and desires of the community. It reflects the stated preferences of the citizens of Phoenix on how the department should manage drought. The department standards, stated as goals and principles, are:

Goals

• To protect the public health and safety;
• To provide sufficient water to meet the needs of Phoenix Water Services Department customers;
• To share the impacts and hardships caused by drought equitably and in proportion to the magnitude of the drought; and,
• To minimize disruption of the economy so that jobs are protected and regional economic stability is preserved.

Principles

• To establish reliable two-way communication to provide timely information and feedback relative to restrictions during drought or other supply insufficiency conditions;
• To provide competent implementation of demand reduction measures; and,
• To provide options for updating or changing the Drought Management Plan, as deemed necessary by the Water Services Director.

To better ascertain public understanding of potential drought and public preferences on drought response, a survey was conducted in late October and early November of 1999. A random sample of 401 heads of household was interviewed, screening for adults who paid a water bill directly to the City of Phoenix.

Drought ranked far lower on the public's list of concerns about water issues, with only 36 percent indicting they were "very concerned" about drought. No definition of drought was supplied in advance.

More than half the respondents indicated it was likely that Phoenix will face drought in the next five years. This jumps to 62 percent for drought within the next 10 years, though one in four would not venture a guess of the likelihood of drought within the next 10 years.

Respondents tended to support regulatory approaches during drought, with more than half wanting to impose fines for water running off property, 37 percent saying new development should be stopped during drought, and 35 percent favoring a ban on decorative fountains.

Asked about the use of non-drinkable recycled water to irrigate large grass areas during a drought, more than one third said such water users should be required to cut back on irrigation. This attitude was correlated with income, with higher income respondents more likely not to favor such a cutback of use.

The issue of irrigation reuse of treated wastewater and other non-drinkable water sources during a drought obviously will be an important one. A major information effort will have to be made if the citizens of Phoenix are to fully understand this issue and support the use of this resource during a time of shortage in the drinking water supply. A commitment of significant resources to such an education effort will be crucial; preferably long before onset of drought and drought response measures.

Imposition of drought surcharges on water use to cover increased supply costs and enforcement of restrictions brought an almost evenly divided mixed response. Forty six percent of those polled favored such a surcharge, while 45 percent opposed it. Nine percent were undecided. Support decreased with respondent's age.

A closed-ended question asked about potential drought response motivators, with respondents asked to rank them as "very good," "good," and "poor."

Interviewees were asked whether the city should pump its backup well fields to avoid a shortfall in delivery, even if doing so would reduce groundwater supplies and could subject the city to state fines that would be passed on to water customers. The alternative offered was enforcement of more stringent water use restrictions.

More than four out of five respondents favored more stringent restrictions over pumping, while one out of nine felt wells should be pumped to maintain normal delivery. Men were more likely to favor pumping than were women, and support for tapping the wells decreased with age.