Bill Overview
Title: Arizona Tribes Water Marketing Act of 2022
Description: This bill authorizes Arizona Tribes to enter into an agreement or option to lease, exchange, or store a certain portion of their water to be used or located off a tribe's reservation if it is used or located in the Lower Basin in the state of Arizona and not in Navajo, Apache, or Cochise counties.
Sponsors: Rep. O'Halleran, Tom [D-AZ-1]
Target Audience
Population: Arizona Tribal Populations and Related Water Right Holders
Estimated Size: 60000
- The legislation specifically affects Arizona Tribes, granting them the ability to lease, exchange, or store water off their reservations under certain conditions.
- The legislation stipulates conditions that affect where water from the reservations can be located or used, namely within the Lower Basin of Arizona.
- Excluding Navajo, Apache, or Cochise counties from these activities localizes impacts to specific regions in Arizona, affecting tribes whose lands lie in the permissible areas.
- Water management agreements typically impact the economic and environmental conditions in the regions involved, affecting both the tribal lands and any non-tribal lands participating in the water marketing or usage agreements.
- The bill is specific to the regions within Arizona and does not apply at a national or international level, as it depends on state-specific water rights and demarcations.
Reasoning
- The Arizona Tribes Water Marketing Act primarily impacts tribes with reservation lands in Arizona, specifically in areas allowing off-reservation water use but excludes areas such as Navajo, Apache, and Cochise counties, which narrows the immediate affected population.
- The overall policy impact involves the direct beneficiaries who are the tribes capable of marketing their water resources, potentially improving economic returns and increasing resource flexibility.
- Indirectly, the policy may also affect nearby non-tribal communities and individuals through potential changes in water availability or economic activities due to the water agreements.
- Given the budget constraints, significant impacts likely focus on initial establishment of agreements and legal structuring, with broader economic and environmental impacts possibly unfolding over time as agreements mature and expand.
- The commonness scores indicate how representative each interview might be within the entire affected population, ensuring a range of tribal and non-tribal perspectives across different socioeconomic backgrounds.
Simulated Interviews
Tribal Water Resource Manager (Gila River Indian Community, AZ)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy offers a great opportunity for tribes to gain more control over our vital water resources.
- With careful management, this could lead to economic benefits through strategically leasing water rights.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Urban Planner (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While the policy primarily affects tribes, it will indirectly impact urban planning by influencing water availability.
- This could change resource management strategies in urban areas.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Community Leader (Hualapai Indian Reservation, AZ)
Age: 53 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy provides tribes with more tools to manage our water resources sustainably.
- There are concerns about potential over-commercialization of water rights however.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Retired Teacher (Tuscon, AZ)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned that the policy might disrupt our long-term water sustainability by encouraging too much trading and storage.
- It's important to balance economic interests with environmental protection.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Business Development Coordinator (Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, AZ)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could open new economic avenues for tribes by allowing more strategic water use agreements.
- I'm optimistic about the potential for business growth.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Environmental Scientist (Scottsdale, AZ)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While the policy mainly benefits tribes, it stresses a need for sustainable practices in water leasing and exchange.
- Collaboration between tribes and environmental bodies will be crucial.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Student (Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, AZ)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm really hopeful that this policy empowers future generations by ensuring we have more say over our resources.
- It also offers educational opportunities to understand water governance.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Farmer (Lower Colorado River Valley, AZ)
Age: 48 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm cautious that these shifts might affect the current water allocation for farms.
- It's positive that the tribes have more authority, but it might mean reduced allocations elsewhere.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 6 |
Water Policy Analyst (Mesa, AZ)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This law shifts more control and opportunity to tribes, reshaping Arizona's water dynamics.
- Policies like this are key to modern water rights strategies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Environmental Advocate (Yuma, AZ)
Age: 27 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's important to support tribal autonomy in managing resources.
- However, we must monitor the environmental impacts of any increased water marketing.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $3000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $5000000)
Year 2: $3000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $5000000)
Year 3: $3000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $5000000)
Year 5: $3000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $5000000)
Year 10: $3000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $5000000)
Year 100: $3000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $5000000)
Key Considerations
- The exact fiscal impact heavily depends on the extent of participation by Arizona tribes and the market demand for excess water in the Lower Basin areas.
- Environmental impact assessments are crucial to ensuring sustainable water usage and avoiding adverse ecological consequences.
- Potential conflicts or cooperative opportunities between tribes and non-tribal water users could influence cost and savings estimates.
- Legal entanglements in settling disputes over water rights might alter the eventual financial outcomes of this legislation.