Opinion: If the governor and lawmakers aren’t careful, they could turn a short-term budget fix into a long-term mistake for Arizona’s water future.

It’s disappointing — but not at all surprising — that lawmakers and the governor want to completely sweep money that had previously been earmarked for the Water Infrastructure Financing Authority.

State leaders radically expanded the authority in 2022 and promised to seed it with $1 billion, mostly to bring Arizona water from elsewhere.

But they insisted on breaking the investment over three fiscal years. I said then that the likelihood of seeing the full billion was slim.

Sure enough, lawmakers failed to fully fund a second $333 million installment in 2023, even though they had the cash, preferring to fund pet water projects instead.

And this year, staring down a $1.4 billion shortfall, the idea is to give WIFA no cash at all.

WIFA has been fighting an uphill battle

I get it.

If the choice is between paying someone or building something right now, versus putting money in a fund for a later benefit — even a big one that could radically change the state’s water future — lawmakers are going to choose the here and now.

And — try as WIFA might to dispel the distrust — some lawmakers just don’t want to give the agency any more cash after former Gov. Doug Ducey brazenly, but unsuccessfully, tried to fund his favored Mexico desalination project just before leaving office.

Granted, the board has completely backed away from that effort and is working instead to create a fair evaluation process for all projects that could bring Arizona more water.

But all of this points to the uphill battle WIFA has been fighting for two years to meet lawmakers’ expectations.

It made tough choices to award $200 million

This isn’t necessarily the agency’s fault, considering how lofty and somewhat conflicting those expectations are.

WIFA exists to speed water projects while maximizing the state’s return on investment — something that also requires transparency and due diligence, both of which take time.

The board has set strategic plans and surveyed potential water users on their needs. It is finalizing a process to assess potential water importation projects, in hopes of compressing the lengthy federal environmental review process that will likely be necessary to get them built.

How much water will TSMC use? Less than you think

At the same time, it pored through more water-saving proposals than it had money to fund, and in roughly a year awarded $200 million in federal pandemic cash toward turf removal, more efficient irrigation for farmers and other conservation projects.

Those projects are estimated to save as much as 5.5 million acre-feet of water over their lifespans — a decent chunk of water with savings in every county (the agency is now working on a system to track actual water saved each year).

Ambitious water goals deserve more cash

But even if WIFA has a lot to show for its efforts, it still lacks completed projects to prove how those 2022 investments stopped persistent leaks, for example, or took stress off limited supplies.

The agency needs those stories — of the projects it accelerated by years and those that without the funding, would have never been possible — to make its case for more cash.

WIFA, to its credit, has set ambitious goals for how much water it will save (5 million acre-feet in five years) and the new supplies it will find (between 100,000 and 500,000 acre-feet in five to 15 years).

But those goals are predicated on WIFA finding another $200 million for conservation projects and getting the full $1 billion for additional water supplies.

Receive less than that, and it will severely hamstring efforts to save and find more water — both of which are critical for Arizona’s long-term water security.

Don’t make this a long-term mistake

It’s frustrating, particularly given all the lip service about water this session, that everyone seems resigned to short WIFA this year.

But we don’t need to make this a long-term mistake.

Whether it’s lawmakers or the governor, someone needs to make a commitment that when there is more cash, more of it will flow to the agency.

Ideally, that commitment would come without the stipulation that most of it fund only the projects that can import water from elsewhere.

If we want water, there also are opportunities to find it in state, and those ideas should have an equal shake at the cash.

If the goal is to provide the most water for a price that providers are willing to pay, it shouldn’t matter where it comes from. Just that it’s wet and that it flows to taps when we need it.

Reach Allhands at joanna.allhands@arizonarepublic.com. On X, formerly Twitter: @joannaallhands.

If you love this content (or love to hate it – hey, I won’t judge), why not subscribe to get more?