Energy and Water Scarcity: Impacts on Infrastructure, Growth and

Economic Development in Arizona and Sonora

Dr. Christopher Scott Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy, & School of Geography & Development

University of Arizona cascott@email.arizona.edu

This work is supported by the Arizona Water Institute

Dr. Martin J. (Mike) Pasqualetti School of Geographical Sciences Barrett Honors College

Arizona State University pasqualetti@asu.edu

Research Team ! Dr. Christopher Scott - Department of Geography and Regional

Development, Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy, University of Arizona cascott@email.arizona.edu

! Dr. Martin (Mike) Pasqualetti -School of Geographical Sciences and

Urban Planning, Arizona State University ! Joseph Hoover (M.A.) - Graduate Student Department of Geography

and Regional Development, Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy, University of Arizona

! Dr. Robert Varady - Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy,

University of Arizona

! Dr. Subhro Guhathakurta - School of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning, Arizona State University

! Dr. Gregg Garfin - Climate Assessment for the Southwest (CLIMAS), University of Arizona

Pop. Change %Pop. Change WATER SCENARIOS 2006-2030 2006-2030 GPCD=218* GPCD=177** GPCD=150

Maricopa 2,443,534 59.5% 532,690,412 432,505,518 366,530,100 Pinal 582,571 14.2% 127,000,478 103,115,067 87,385,650 Pima 461,443 11.2% 100,594,574 81,675,411 69,216,450 Yavapai 142,740 3.5% 31,117,320 25,264,980 21,411,000 Mohave 135,661 3.3% 29,574,098 24,011,997 20,349,150 Yuma 120,659 2.9% 26,303,662 21,356,643 18,098,850 Navajo 52,975 1.3% 11,548,550 9,376,575 7,946,250 Cochise 52,936 1.3% 11,540,048 9,369,672 7,940,400 Coconino 41,003 1.0% 8,938,654 7,257,531 6,150,450 Santa Cruz 25,730 0.6% 5,609,140 4,554,210 3,859,500 Apache 18,756 0.5% 4,088,808 3,319,812 2,813,400 Gila 14,777 0.4% 3,221,386 2,615,529 2,216,550 Graham 8,683 0.2% 1,892,894 1,536,891 1,302,450 La Paz 6,585 0.2% 1,435,530 1,165,545 987,750 Greenlee 8 0.0% 1,744 1,416 1,200 Arizona 4,108,061 100.0% 895,557,298 727,126,797 616,209,150

Additional Water Demand AZ 2030

* Phoenix 2005; **Tucson 2005; 150=smart growth

+66% +53% +45%

From 2006 base

Water Demand Sonora, MX 2030

PopChange %PopChange WATER SCENARIOS 2006-2030 2006-2030 GPCD=60* GPCD=100

Hermosillo 338 676 79.1% 20,320,560 33,867,600 Cajeme - 13 791 -3.2% (827,460) (1,379,100) Nogales 99 501 23.2% 5,970,060 9,950,100 San Luis Río Colorado 21 130 4.9% 1,267,800 2,113,000 Navojoa 645 0.2% 38,700 64,500 Guaymas - 7 093 -1.7% (425,580) (709,300) Huatabampo - 15 094 -3.5% (905,640) (1,509,400) Agua Prieta 9 906 2.3% 594,360 990,600 Caborca - 17 848 -4.2% (1,070,880) (1,784,800) Etchojoa - 12 015 -2.8% (720,900) (1,201,500) Empalme - 11 849 -2.8% (710,940) (1,184,900) Puerto Peñasco 70 902 16.6% 4,254,120 7,090,200 Sonora total 428 237 100.0% 25,694,220 42,823,700

* Estimate from Nogales (Walker and Pavlakovich-Kochi, 2002)

+17.7% +29.6%

From 2006 base

Population vs Energy Demand (1990-2005)

0

1000000

2000000

3000000

4000000

5000000

6000000

7000000

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Year

Pop

ulat

ion

0

10000000

20000000

30000000

40000000

50000000

60000000

70000000

80000000

Ann

ual M

Whr

con

sum

ed

MWhr consumedPopulation

Giseppe Fiorenza, V.K. Sharma, Giacobbe Braccio Techno-economic Evaluation Of A Solar Powered Water Desalination Plant. In L. Rizzuti et al. (eds.), Solar Desalination For The 21st Century, 33–41. 2007 Springer.

Water Production Cost as a Function of Plant Capacity

A 5,000 m³/d PV/RO system needs an initial investment of more than 22 million US$ compared to about 5 million US$ for an ordinary RO system

Average water consumption for electrical power generating facilities supplying Arizona

785

510

415 350 350 311

195

<1

1,000+

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

Nuclear Coal Natural Gas Landfill Biofuel Solar Thermal

Natural Gas - CC

Solar - PV

Gal

/MW

hr

20.00

8.10

4.864.05

2.431.62

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

kWh/m3

Reduction in Energy Consumption

Source: Shahid Chaudhry, State of Desalination & Potential Impacts on Energy Use in California. U.S. – Mexico BORDER ENRGY FORUM XIV San Diego, California October 18 – 19, 2007

Subterránea

30.3%

Superficial

69.7 %

Current Water Use (CONAGUA Northwest Region)

Público urbano ( 5.07% ) 377 Mm3

Agrícola ( 93.50% ) 6,949 Mm3

Pecuario ( 0.70%) 51.7 Mm3

Industrial ( 0.73% ) 54.5 Mm3

Recreación y Turismo (N/SIG.) 1 Mm3

Usos consuntivos de

7,433.2 Mm3

Indice Energético

Produccion % Consumo Energetico % Indice

Energetico

m3/anual % kWh/anual kWh/m3Alisos 10,699,780 47% 16,371,702 47% 1.53Mascareñas 6,735,440 30% 12,682,179 36% 1.88Centro 5,345,818 23% 5,541,639 16% 1.04Global 22,781,038 100% 34,826,673 99% 1.53

Indice Energetico Actual

Subsistema

Indice Energetico

kWh/m3Guaymas 0.90Monclova 0.60Veracruz 0.40Tijuana 4.50Durango 0.57

Otras ciudades• Con las Medidas de Ahorro propuestas el IE de Nogales bajaría a 1.1 kWh/m3

Growing Exports of Ag. Produce = Growing (Virtual) Water Trade

Sonora Ag. Power Consumption

0200,000400,000600,000800,000

1,000,0001,200,0001,400,0001,600,000

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

MW

h

NightReg./ day

Chihuahua Ag. Power Consumption

0200,000400,000600,000800,000

1,000,0001,200,0001,400,0001,600,000

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

MW

h

NightReg./ day

Coahuila Ag. Power Consumption

0200,000400,000600,000800,000

1,000,0001,200,0001,400,0001,600,000

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

MW

h

NightReg./ day

Guanajuato Ag. Power Consumption

0200,000400,000600,000800,000

1,000,0001,200,0001,400,0001,600,000

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

MW

h

NightReg./ day

Night-time ag. pumping

!

5. Tucson and Phoenix Energy-for-Water

Tucson metropolitan area: 4 water agencies, 1 wastewater agency. Total population served ~830,000

City of Phoenix: City owned and operated water and wastewater facilities. To population served ~ 1.5 million

Results

Primary extraction and delivery

Water treatment and distribution

Projected Electricity Demand

Scenario GeneralPlan (AF)

General Plan(GWh)

High Density(AF)

High Density(GWh)

CAP Normal &SRP Normal 475,687 722.7 581,020 774.7CAP Moderate &SRP Moderate 417,687 612.4 447,000 635.6CAP Severe &SRP Moderate 370,687 503.5 400,000 526.7CAP Severe &SRP Severe 206,100 452.2 306,000 452.2

City of Phoenix Projected

Electricity Growth

Summary, Energy-for-Water ! The CAP is the largest electricity user for water services in both the

city of Phoenix and Tucson metropolitan area

! Electricity use for water and wastewater service in the Tucson metropolitan area and city of Phoenix accounts for 1.2% of statewide electricity consumption for 2005

! Projected electricity demand for Tucson and the city of Phoenix will equal approximately 1.1% of statewide electricity demand by 2030

! Electricity use for water and wastewater service in the Tucson metropolitan area accounts for approximately 5% of total residential, commercial and industrial electricity use in the metropolitan area

Findings (1)

! Urban water demand with conservation: – Arizona + 45% by 2030 – Sonora + 18% by 2030

! Energy demand exceeds water availability for cooling under present conditions – Under expected power generation mix, energy

demand will exert increasing water demand of its own

Findings (2)

! IPCC Scenario A1b, 21st century: – 3.0-3.5° C warmer – 5-15% less precipitation

! Heightened probability of prolonged droughts, heat waves, and Colorado River deficits

! “Next bucket” from desalination? – Energy and environmental implications

Findings (3)

! With exception of solar thermal, renewables are more water efficient, giving an extra boost to the good sense of developing these alternative sources

! Major potential for renewables in Arizona and Sonora

Findings (4)

! Agricultural water conservation – Arizona – water rights transfer to cities – Sonora – continued groundwater depletion

! Groundwater is a strategic resource – Need to examine cross-border “virtual water”

! Energy-for-water – CAP – critical infrastructure, energy intensive – Sonora - efficiency, conservation opportunities

Thank you/ Gracias

Dr. Christopher Scott Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy, &

School of Geography & Development University of Arizona cascott@email.arizona.edu