Ground Party Papers - Third Sunday of June 2024

In this issue…

<sub>1. Note From the Editor
2. Opt Out News - A Postmortem for HB2097
3. Water Story - A Brief History of Arizona Water Regulation
4. Alternative Building - Are Strawbale Domes an Option?
5. Classifieds
6. Double Click</sub>

Note From The Editor

This edition of the Ground Party Papers has fewer news items than usual, but still packs a punch. Since Wednesday, much of my time and energy has been taken up with HB2097 triage. I’ve included a few links to important news stories in the Double Click section, such as the story about the city of Willcox’s municipal well going dry, and a new documentary about the corporate takeover of water in America.

Thank you to everyone who has written in with words of encouragement regarding HB2097 and the need to keep pushing on this and similar issues.

I also want to give a big Thank You to my first four paid subscribers. Your support means a lot and will not be forgotten.

If you are one of the next four paid subscribers, you’ll be forever memorialized as one of the “Eight Heroes of the Ground Party Papers.”
I’m told this is a very big deal.

It’ll take some time to break the wild and stubborn “left and right” political duopoly that puts partisanship and lobbyists before citizens — but hard work and perseverance will pay off.
Become a paid subscriber - your contributions help!

A Postmortem for HB2097

What a bummer, huh? Even though I was told by just about everyone who has spent time at the capitol, “Bills almost never pass their first time through,” I was still hoping that everyone’s hard work would pay off this past Wednesday. As I’ve detailed in previous letters, the legislative process is like making sausage — it’s not fun to watch, and the final product can be… interesting.

A few days before the vote, I had scheduled a meeting with an independent lobbyist organization who has worked at the capitol for a long time. I wanted to get their perspective on how groups like the Arizona Farm Bureau have so much decision-making power in Arizona’s legislature. I got a crash course in how the Republican party operates internally, how groups like the Farm Bureau band together with other lobbyists to leverage a lot of campaign power, deciding winners and losers in elections. I was told: “But it’s the same with the Democrats.” I’ll have to schedule another chat to get more insight on how political levers are pulled on the other side of the aisle.

There is a smart Democratic Senator who I hoped might secure enough Democratic votes to get HB2097 passed. She’s interested in helping sustainable home builders cut costs and save water. She blamed the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Parker, for not responding to the objections of the County Supervisors Association. Upon review, those objections were hardly reasonable, and they misrepresented the bill repeatedly. Of course, their arguments were written by their legal counsel who’s job isn’t to be as reasonable as possible — they’re paid to argue for the Association’s position with whatever rhetoric they can muster up.

Next week I’ll be driving up to Phoenix to speak with lawyer James Rogers, the citizen who proposed and wrote HB2097, to discuss next steps to get successors to HB2097 and HB2096 (the tiny house opt-out bill) over the finish line in this year’s second legislative season.

It sure is tempting to feel put off from legislative solutions altogether, but things rarely work the way you expect the first time around. Like building your own home, creating new laws is a difficult process that requires grit and passion — there are many obstacles along the way. There are those who give up when things feel hopeless, and those who put on a smile, dust themselves off, and get back on the horse.

One thing I like about the people doing alternative building in the southwest is this very grit and passion I’m referring to. There is something of a Great Desert Filter, and those who make it through are the ones with strength of heart.

In the meantime, if you want to improve our chances of getting these bills passed by the end of the year, write an email to County Supervisor Ann English who represents Cochise County in the County Supervisors Association. Share your conviction, but also be courteous — this is key. Senator Sundareshan, the Democrat who I am working with to make progress on septic laws, forwarded an email to me from an off-grid builder in Cochise County. The email was embarrassingly immature and completely disrespectful. This kind of reaction only makes it harder to have a legitimate voice in policy-making.

You can reach Ann English here: [email protected]

One or two paragraphs is sufficient to make an impact, but if you contain multitudes, go ahead and express them :)

A Brief History of Arizona Water Regulation

For much of civil human history, groundwater regulations were not deeply considered, nor contentious. The demand was not as great as today, and humans had little understanding of what was once called “percolating waters”. But as populations boomed in the arid southwest United States, important questions arose.

What should we do if groundwater is declining?
Who has the right to pump groundwater, and how much?
Who should make the rules?

Let’s go on a brief tour of Arizona’s water policy history…

1888, Clough v. Wing: This was the first major court case in Arizona to determine water rights disputes. The court ruled that Arizona will follow the “prior appropriation doctrine” which many southwest states and territories had adopted. This doctrine is often characterized with the phrase “first in time, first in right,” and it means that whoever started using water first gets priority over subsequent users.

1904, Howard v. Perrin: This court case moved Arizona away from the policies of its neighbor states by declaring that groundwater, unlike surface water, should be governed under the “absolute dominion doctrine” which means that anyone can use as much water from under their property as they’d like, and for any purpose. This doctrine was common among the eastern United States where groundwater scarcity and disputes were typically not a problem.

1904, Yuma Project: In 1904, the USDA funded the “Yuma Project,” an irrigation system to bring water from the Colorado into adjacent areas of Arizona and California, the biggest irrigation system of its a day and a milestone in the growth of Arizona’s agricultural sector.

1919, State Water Code: On June 12 of 1919, Arizona adopted its first comprehensive policy for water management, the “State Water Code.” This legislation required that all water users register their water rights with the state.

1944, Colorado River Compact: Arizona finally agrees to the Colorado River Compact, a federal interstate agreement between Colorado basin states that enshrines River water rights to each state. Arizona was promised 2.8 million acre-feet of Colorado River water. However, the extensive canal system, called the “Central Arizona Project,” would need to be built for that water to reach the major population centers in Arizona. The Bureau of Reclamation, seeing that Arizona wasn’t doing anything to curb the growth of their water demands, said that the project wouldn’t be funded until those growing demands were restricted.

1945, Groundwater Code: In response to the BoR, Arizona created the state’s first Groundwater Code. This legislation included the designation of 10 “Critical Groundwater Areas” in the state, prohibiting the drilling of new irrigation wells.

1952 & 1953, Bristol v. Cheatham: This case was another dispute of groundwater rights. Residential well owners complained about a new industrial water user in their area who was transporting large volumes of water away from their basin and causing local groundwater declines. The case went to the Arizona Supreme Court and their majority opinion was that Arizona, like most of its western neighbors, would adopt the “prior appropriation doctrine” for groundwater rights. That is, “first in time, first in right.”

The same case went before the Supreme Court again the following year with a question of whether Arizona should adopt the “correlative rights doctrine” as many states in the Midwest had done. Correlative rights means that a groundwater basin has a “safe yield” water budget (demand) equal to the amount of natural recharge it receives (supply). That budget is then divided among land owners in proportion the percentage of land they own in a basin. E.g.: If you own 1% of the land, you get rights to 1% of the water budget.

However, the Court’s majority opinion now rejected both the correlative rights doctrine and the prior appropriation doctrine established in their previous ruling. Instead, they declared that Arizona should adopt the “beneficial use doctrine” as most of the eastern states had increasingly done. This doctrine is that anyone can use as much water from their land as they’d like so long as that usage stays on their land is “beneficial and reasonable.”

Most of the eastern states defined “beneficial and reasonable” to mean that one could not use water to the detriment of neighboring water users or residential water needs in general. The Arizona Supreme Court, however, defined “beneficial use” without any consideration of a water user’s impacts on other water users. In essence: If you can pump it, its yours, no matter the consequences. This doctrine is still in effect outside of INAs and AMAs.

1965, Douglas Critical Groundwater Area: In the 1960s, the Douglas Basin of Cochise County was experiencing a mass influx of new agricultural water users, greatly exacerbating the area’s groundwater declines. As the story has been relayed to me, these new water users were coming mainly from Texas. Local farmer Noel Curry, father of farmer Ed Curry, along with other farmers and residents, petitioned the State Land Department to make the Douglas Basin a Critical Groundwater Area. In 1965, the designation was enacted and a moratorium was established on the drilling of new agricultural wells.

1977-1985, Groundwater Management Act: Even though Arizona’s Critical Groundwater Areas froze the drilling of new irrigation wells, it did not address the existing overdrafts. And those overdrafts were still growing because existing wells were still able to service increasing numbers of acres. For these reasons, the federal government continued to refuse financing for the Central Arizona Project canal system.

In 1977, a provisional Groundwater Management Act was created by the legisalture, along with a commission to create a more substantive version of the Act. Legislators and stakeholders from various industries met together for years but could never come to an agreement on policies (sound familiar?). In 1980 the legislature asked Governor Babbitt to oversee the negotiations and, six months later, on June 12 of 1980, the Groundwater Management Act was created.

This act, also referred to as the Groundwater Code in law, created the AMA and INA management structures we know today. INAs were similar to Critical Groundwater Areas but additionally limited new acres from being put into production. The Douglas basin was re-designated as an INA at this point. In 1985, the Phoenix, Prescott, Pinal, and Tucson AMAs were established, referred to as the “Initial AMAs.” Construction on the Central Arizona Project was finished in 1994, costing $4 billion, the most expensive water infrastructure of its day.

1991, Groundwater Transportation Act: This law prohibited the transfer of groundwater to and from AMAs. (A common argument against AMAs during the 2022 Willcox and Douglas campaigns was that an AMA designation would allow water to be transported to the Tucson AMA. On the contrary, statute 45-551 states: “Unless specifically authorized by this chapter, groundwater that is withdrawn in a groundwater basin or sub-basin outside of an initial active management area may not be transported directly or indirectly to an initial active management area.")

2020-2022, RMAs, Subsequent AMAs and INAs: Over the years, many rural groundwater basin communities and government have asked the ADWR to designate INAs and AMAs but have always been refused. For example, the San Simon basin’s water levels began dropping 10 ft per year, but their request for an INA was denied. The ADWR also disuaded local Willcox basin residents from asking for an AMA designation in 2014. As I understand the story, ADWR’s legal counsel misled citizens into thinking that an AMA would not be able to regulate the large Riverview Dairy which had recently moved into the area.

In order to address groundwater declines in her district, Representative Regina Cobb of Kingman created the Rural Groundwater Management concept, an alternative to AMAs for rural parts of the state. Representative Gail Griffin refused to hold hearings for this bill in her committee every year that it was introduced, so it never even got a vote.

In 2021, citizens in the Douglas and Willcox basins realized they could go around ADWR and bring AMA elections directly to their neighbors. These campaigns were energetically opposed by groups like the Arizona Farm Bureau and the Cattleman’s Association. Local corporate agriculture operations like TriNut (California) also opposed the AMA designations. In 2022, voters established the AMA in the Douglas Basin, but not the Willcox Basin.

Today, Rural Groundwater Management Areas, Basin Management Areas: In 2023, Governor Hobbs established the Governor’s Water Policy Council to address “assured water supply” issues for urban and suburban areas, and new water policies for groundwater in rural Arizona. After a year of meetings, they proposed the “Rural Groundwater Management Area” concept, but this bill never received a hearing in the committees chaired by Senator Kerr and Representative Griffin.

Previously, Senator Kerr and Stephanie Smallhouse (President of the Arizona Farm Bureau) left the Governor’s Water Policy Council to create their own management concept, called a “Basin Management Area,” introduced as bill SB1221. As previously reported, this bill was largely unpopular with voters and many farmers. (I was told today that there was an effort to push SB1221 through congress yesterday in a special session, but it failed to get a majority vote.)

The future of groundwater management in Arizona remains uncertain. The Douglas AMA may create a precedent in the state as its Management Goal and Plan are finalized. It remains to be seen if the Democrats and Republicans (and the Farm Bureau) will be able to come to an agreement on a new legislative solution.

Are Strawbale Domes an Option?

Any one will tell you: Strawbale walls need roofing to prevent destructive water saturation. This means uncovered domes aren’t really an option, right?
Perhaps this case is not yet closed!

Case Study #1: Daniel Siepman
In 2008, Daniel Siepman made a 21 ft. diameter strawbale dome. To prevent water damage, he wrapped the dome with “ethylene propylene diene monomer.” EPDM is a “partially breathable” waterproof rubber which allows vapors to escape.

Case Study #2: Kibbutz Lotan
Since at least 2009, this “EcoCampus” kibbutz in Israel has been creating geodesic strawbale domes which, upon viewing their construction videos on YouTube, seem to be only be covered with mud plaster. Their website has all of their strawbale mud domes available for rent over a decade later, so presumably the bales have not deteriorated.

In the late 1990s, a CalEarth student built a strawbale dome on their campus. The dome sits on top of a 6 ft. superadobe wall. Their webpage about this structure doesn’t say anything about the construction details, but all one can see from the exterior photos is some kind of plaster coating. The dome is still used for events and classes today.
I still haven’t heard a response from CalEarth since writing them an email inquiring about this build, but I will post an update once I learn more.

Do you have any thoughts or insights about this concept? Write in!

Classifieds

Double Click 

The Herald/Review reports that the city of Willcox just had a municipal well go dry, possibly due to nearby commercial water pumping. Residents were reporting cloudy tap water due to air from the well pump.

The Grab is a new documentary about corporations taking control of water around the world. Starting today, you can stream the film online. You can also listen to a podcast which focuses on the Arizona aspect of this film.

Imagine a pillar of water the size of a football field and standing 8 miles high. That’s 40,000 acre-feet of water, and that’s how much water just went “missing” from Lake Powell due to a facility accident. Whoops.

The feds have presented their construction proposals for the new Douglas Port of Entry.

The Intercept reports that, in Nebraska, the United Auto Workers are supporting Independent US Senate candidate Dan Osborn. Osborn is taking a lead over his Republican challenger and is campaigning on helping family farmers compete with corporate agriculture, congressional term limits, and lower taxes on overtime wages. He has refused endorsements from both Republican and Democrat groups. Does anyone else smell an American Independent Revolution brewing?

If you have any leads or links, do send them in.

The Ground Party Papers are issued every first and third Sunday of the month.

To make sure the Ground Party Papers stays in your Primary inbox instead of the “Promotions” tab, add [email protected] to your contacts list.

Thanks for reading!