Cave Creek reveals 10-15% water over-commitment, shortages by 2031
CAVE CREEK, ARIZONA — August 29, 2023

Cave Creek reveals 10-15% water over-commitment, shortages by 2031

Cave Creek's integrated water/wastewater master plan reveals critical over-commitment of CAP water supplies (10-15% deficit before growth) with projected shortages by late 2040s under moderate growth or immediate under federal drought proposals, requiring urgent policy decisions on water restrictions, infrastructure improvements, and reclaimed water utilization.

Cave Creek Faces Imminent Water Shortage Crisis: Integrated Master Plan Exposes 10–15% Over-Commitment Before Growth, Immediate Deficits Under Federal Drought Scenarios

A special Town of Cave Creek council meeting on August 28, 2023, revealed a water crisis more severe than publicly acknowledged: the town is already over-committed by 10–15% on its current CAP Municipal and Industrial allocation (2,228 acre-feet annually) before accounting for any growth. Under moderate committed growth scenarios (3% annually), shortages are projected for the late 2040s. Under three federal drought contingency models presented—including a 44% reduction under a pro-rata "law of the river" framework—the town could face immediate shortages within five to six years, or sooner.

The presentation of the town's Integrated Water/Wastewater Master Plan, conducted by the utilities director Sean and consulting firms Black & Veach, GHT, and Clear Creek Associates, laid bare a systemic mismatch between water commitments, Desert Hills obligations, infrastructure capacity, and growth ambitions. While no formal votes were recorded, council members acknowledged the gravity and asked staff to revisit water policy, Desert Hills certificates, and reclaimed water strategies before the final master plan is adopted.

Key Speeches

No formal public testimony or council speeches were transcribed verbatim in the traditional sense; the meeting consisted primarily of staff presentations and council question-and-answer discussion. Two public commenters spoke at the meeting's close, offering perspectives on conservation policy and well development, but their remarks were not dense policy statements.

Council member Tom Augherton offered a significant concern:

"First thing coming out of today there's some kind of immediate things meaning you we should probably be looking at that water policy again uh if we're out of water and we've we're over allocated seems like that'll be second one is whether all those rights are still good or whether some of that can be whittled into or those things that never seem to happen." — Tom Augherton, Councilmember

Attorney Michelle vanquethen, responding to questions about certificate of assured water supply (CAWS) obligations:

"For the areas that have a certificate of assured water supply they are um good for the plat that they were secured for forever um they don't expire they become unassignable after 10 years and then they have to be updated so there could be an opportunity for another review if they're assigned to a new owner." — Michelle vanquethen, Town Attorney

Timeline

Opposition

Number of speakers against: None formally opposed the master plan findings or recommendations. Two public commenters raised policy concerns but not opposition to the overall plan.

Main concerns (from council and public comment):

  1. Desert Hills certificates: Over-allocation of CAP water to certificated subdivisions (Silo Grande, Desert Hills Ranch) that have not developed in 15+ years; council questioned whether certificates remain valid or enforceable, and whether town policy should permit renewal/assignment without renegotiation.

  2. Private well owners: One-third of town residents on exempt wells; concerns raised that water conservation ordinance and growth restrictions should apply uniformly to all customers, not differentiate based on well vs. CAP supply.

  3. Fire flow standard change: David Smith warned that adopting a 500 GPM standard lower than 2013's 2,000 GPM could expose town to litigation if a structure burns and plaintiff argues town failed to deliver promised fire flow. However, Chief Tobin and Jim Ford confirmed Scottsdale's 40-year success with sprinkler-based standards at 500 GPM (1985–present), mitigating this concern.

  4. Reclaimed water recharge infeasibility: Initial staff proposal to recharge treated wastewater at Water Ranch was rejected by Clear Creek Associates' modeling; groundwater migrates south across Carefree Highway before recovery well can withdraw it. Council noted money already wasted on Cahaba Springs and questioned viability of speculative loops to undeveloped properties.

  5. THM and water quality: Tom Augherton raised concerns that expanded distribution lines (8-inch vs. 6-inch), longer residence times, and more storage capacity increase trihalomethane formation risk. Suggested town consider alternative sanitization methods (UV, non-chlorine chemistry) to minimize THM rather than engineering infrastructure that worsens water age.

  6. Personnel and CIP capacity: Council noted utilities department stretched thin; assistant director position reclassified but stalled on salary competitiveness. Noted town has been deferring water system upgrades since 2006 water company purchase; decade-plus pattern of underfunding and understaffing.

  7. Speculative growth planning: David Smith cautioned that many "potential" growth areas are unlikely to develop soon; questioned why town builds infrastructure for growth that may never materialize.

Most compelling arguments:

Organized groups: None present.

Support

Number of speakers in favor: Two public commenters offered supportive remarks, though neither formally moved to adopt the plan.

Main themes:

  1. Robert Anderson: Praised utilities director Sean and team for "wonderful presentation" that is "critical to ensure the safety and security of our water." Welcomed backup well program as emergency safeguard. Advocated for uniform conservation standards across all customers (wells and CAP) and broad watering restrictions rather than targeted bans on pools or horses.

  2. David Smith: Commended Sean's presentation quality and knowledge. Suggested town study precedent of Queen Creek purchasing additional water supplies (Colorado River allocation via inter-agency transfer) as potential model for Cave Creek. Acknowledged council's prior efforts (2013 master plan, Desert Gold water works engagement) and encouraged continuation of effort to revisit old commitments and certificates.

Outcome: No formal vote or motion to adopt recorded. Council acknowledged findings, flagged policy review areas (water allocation, Desert Hills certificates, reclaimed water strategy, code amendments for wastewater collection), and indicated staff should incorporate council input before final master plan submission.

Project Details

Vote Breakdown

No formal votes recorded. The meeting was a presentation and discussion; council reached consensus (implicit) to:

Individual councilmember positions not formally recorded by name vote.

Outcome & Next Steps

Immediate / Near-term (next 6–12 months):

Medium-term (1–3 years):

Long-term (3–10+ years, contingent on drought scenarios):

Policy decisions pending council action:

Controversies & Context

Water Over-Commitment (10–15% deficit before growth):

The master plan's most startling finding is that the town has committed water allocations (via ADWR-certified subdivisions and contractual obligations to Desert Hills) that exceed available CAP supply before accounting for any new growth. This is a reversal of previous presentations (per council memory, prior master plans did not show over-commitment). The discrepancy appears to stem from:

  1. Desert Hills service obligations: When the town purchased the water company in 2007, it inherited two certificated subdivision allocations (Silo Grande, Desert Hills Ranch). These are co-mingled (surface + groundwater) allocations that cannot, under ADWR rules, be unilaterally converted to groundwater-only or revoked. Desert Hills pumping has declined (from ~207 acre-feet annually, now stabilizing), but the town must supply blending water (CAP water mixed with arsenic-contaminated Desert Hills groundwater) to maintain water quality. This requires sending ~130–200+ GPM of treated CAP water into Desert Hills continuously.

  2. ADWR allocation reductions: Staff has been negotiating with ADWR to reduce committed allocations for unused or under-producing certificated areas, but ADWR has resisted (particularly for "future" categories). Michelle vanquethen noted that unused certificates may be subject to re-examination if 10+ years have elapsed since assignment, but no formal abandonment process has been pursued.

  3. Committed subdivisions: Plats filed before 1986 and currently partially developed (Galloway Ridge, Rancho Mañana Villas) are grandfathered and carry water allocations tied to original platting. All vacant parcels within these subdivisions are counted as "committed."

Federal Drought Contingency Scenarios:

Four models were presented, each with starkly different timelines:

Staff emphasized that all four scenarios model NIA (non-Indian agricultural) water supply collapsing to zero within 5 years. Municipal and Industrial (M&I) supply is the residual; agricultural users, despite comprising ~70% of CAP demand, are expected to absorb cuts or migrate to groundwater. Tribal water rights are senior and remain largely protected.

Desert Hills Arsenic Contamination and Blending:

The town's largest single production well (Third Avenue / Joy Ranch) contains arsenic above Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL). Rather than invest in dedicated wellhead treatment (~$1.5M), the town opted to blend CAP water into the system (1:1 ratio with groundwater production) to dilute arsenic to safe levels. This requires continuous diversion of treated CAP water to Desert Hills—a hidden cost that exacerbates the town's CAP allocation pressure. No near-term solution is planned; staff noted Anthem's recharge activities have partially stabilized the Desert Hills aquifer, but this is not a reliable long-term supply.

Fire Flow Standard Reduction (2,000 GPM → 500 GPM):

The 2013 master plan recommended a 2,000 GPM fire flow standard for residential areas, implying $43–80M in distribution system upgrades (pressure zones, booster pumps, pipeline upsizing). Council acknowledged this was never feasible and was effectively abandoned. Jim Ford (Scottsdale Fire Department) presented Scottsdale's experience with a 500 GPM residential / 1,500 GPM multi-family standard, in place since 1985–1986, concurrent with mandatory home sprinkler ordinance. Fire flow data supports this standard; modern firefighting emphasizes hand lines (two 2.5-inch lines at 250 GPM each = 500 GPM total) for structural fires and helicopter-carried tankers for wildfire brush protection (much lower volumes, different tactics). Chief Tobin confirmed willingness to work with the town on hydrant siting and wildfire tank placement.

However, David Smith warned of potential litigation if a residential fire occurs and plaintiff argues the town promised 2,000 GPM but delivered only 500 GPM. Town counsel Michelle vanquethen did not address this liability directly in the transcript; the council proceeded on the assumption that Scottsdale's 40-year track record and Jim Ford's expertise mitigate this risk.

Water Treatment Plant Permit Decision (November 2024):

The town's hybrid treatment system (West-Tech Trident filters + Paul membrane units) operates under a temporary operational permit expiring November 2024. West-Tech filters are less efficient (more backwash, worse water quality) but provide capacity. Paul membranes are superior but were installed as a "temporary" improvement. Maricopa County may require Paul-only operation, reducing treatment capacity from 3 MGD to 2 MGD. This creates a potential capacity crisis if summer demand (driven by hot weather and pool irrigation) exceeds 2 MGD, absent the Phoenix interconnect online. The town is negotiating with Phoenix to accelerate the interconnect contract (MGC is managing pre-construction design); a second Phoenix connection would require CAP pipeline upgrades (~$5–10M+) and is contingent on future analysis.

Cloud Road Pipeline Single Point of Failure:

The town's primary water line serving Desert Hills is a single 8-inch pipeline under the washes, operating above design capacity (daily pressure swings >30 PSI). A break would isolate ~200–300 customers and stress the entire distribution system. Three options exist, none satisfactory:

  1. Parallel alignment via Carefree Highway / 24th Street: Avoids existing pipeline but crosses developed areas; costs not finalized; impacts property easements.

  2. Replace with 12-inch line: $80–100M (2023 dollars); federally recommended in 2013 but never funded. Creates water age and THM issues; requires booster pump upgrades.

  3. Loop via Spur Cross / Cahaba Springs: Speculative; contingent on Cahaba Springs development (property has been in litigation for 10+ years, current ownership unclear). Would require two in-line booster stations to pump water uphill (~2 miles, significant elevation gain); operational costs likely prohibitive. One council member bluntly stated: "I don't think you need to make a decision right now."

Reclaimed Water Inefficiency (100+ acre-feet wasted annually):

The town delivers 450–500 acre-feet of treated effluent to Rancho Mañana Golf Course annually, but the course consumes only ~300 acre-feet. The 150–200 acre-foot gap stems from evaporation, pond overflow, and liner leakage (~100 acre-feet in 2023). Clear Creek Associates evaluated Water Ranch recharge but concluded groundwater hydrology does not support recovery; water migrates south toward Carefree Highway and cannot be withdrawn. Proposed alternatives:

THM (Trihalomethane) Formation Risk:

Council members Tom Augherton and others raised concern that expanded distribution infrastructure (longer lines, more storage, slower water movement) increases residence time for chlorine to react with natural organic matter, forming harmful THMs. This is a real water quality trade-off: looping distribution lines improves pressure stability and fire flow but degrades water quality. Staff acknowledged the concern and noted the dynamic model can simulate water age; however, no quantitative THM cost-benefit analysis was presented. Tom Augherton suggested exploring non-chlorine sanitization (UV, ozonation, alternative oxidants) as part of long-term strategy, rather than building more infrastructure that worsens THM formation.

Wastewater Treatment Plant Underutilization:

The town's wastewater treatment plant (660,000 GPD capacity) operates at ~200,000 GPD average (~30% capacity). Without new sewer connections, the plant will remain severely underutilized for decades. The town must "feed the bugs" (add nutrient supplements) during low-flow summer months to keep the biological treatment process active. Connecting Black Mountain (268 lots, ~85 acre-feet reclaimed water) and dry sewer areas (State of Troy, Canyon Ridge, ~53 acre-feet) could improve plant efficiency and generate ~138 acre-feet of additional reclaimed water—a significant source of supply diversification. However, current town code permits residential connections to fail or remain on septic systems indefinitely, even when gravity sewer is available; mandatory connection requirements would require code amendment and may trigger "takings" claims from property owners.

Desert Hills Groundwater Sustainability Question:

Brad Hill (Clear Creek Associates) noted current Desert Hills pumping (~207 acre-feet annually) may not be sustainable at buildout under stressed aquifer conditions. Third Avenue / Joy Ranch well is arsenic-contaminated; two lower wells (10th Street, Galvin) show declining production over time. However, Anthem (adjacent community) has been recharging groundwater upstream, and Desert Hills is benefiting from that recharge. Once Anthem's recharge stops or declines, Desert Hills aquifer stability is uncertain. Staff indicated Clear Creek would provide updated sustainability analysis, but no timeline was given.

Duration

Other notable items

None. The meeting was devoted entirely to the integrated utilities master plan presentation, council questions, and public comment.