Arizona is renowned for its geographic diversity and natural environment. Yet, the water needs of the environment have often been overlooked as the demands for water of the state’s population and economy have grown. Over time, many riverine and riparian areas in Arizona have suffered significant degradation. According to one study, a majority of Arizona’s stream lengths have a “most-disturbed” water quality condition. Invasive nonnative species and surface water and groundwater withdrawals have negatively impacted riparian vegetation, streambed, and habitats. Many studies have shown that the increased invasion of non-native species is driven by altered hydrological patterns. Water withdrawal in certain areas appears to be the primary culprit for the poor ecological state of Arizona’s streams and rivers. This Paper examines the extent to which environmental water needs are--or are not--recognized in Arizona water law. Like many states, Arizona manages surface water and groundwater under two different legal regimes. Arizona’s surface water law is grounded in the prior appropriation doctrine of “first in time, first in right.” Under this doctrine, the only means of protecting environmental water needs is through the use of instream flow rights. In 1980 Arizona adopted the landmark Groundwater Management Act (GMA), which introduced groundwater regulation to regions of the state designated as Active Management Areas, thereby adding a body of groundwater law to existing state surface water law. The GMA established rights to use groundwater, water conservation programs, and an assured water supply program related to growing communities. In addition to creating new programs, the GMA recognized the municipal, industrial and agricultural sectors as water-using sectors. At present, Arizona’s surface water law and groundwater law do not consider the water needs of the environment. While environmental considerations have sometimes been taken into account during the development of Arizona’s water supplies, this has been done on an ad hoc basis through voluntary efforts. This Paper focuses on the status of Arizona water law in terms of the environment and establishes that the environment is indeed the “forgotten” water-using sector. This Paper examines federal law, state law, and state policy that affect how environmental water needs are recognized and addressed in Arizona. In addition to highlighting the lack of consideration for environmental needs, the Paper identifies many problems caused by the absence of such consideration. Also, the Paper discusses ways in which existing and new laws could be used to protect the environmental sector in Arizona. It may be that in addition to instituting change in Arizona’s law, improving public awareness about environmental water needs and laying the groundwork for comprehensive state water planning will move Arizona forward to recognizing the environment as a water-using sector. Part II of this Paper presents the reasons that the environment can no longer be treated as the forgotten sector in Arizona law and policy. Part III describes the known supplies and uses of water in Arizona. Part IV discusses federal protections that affect Arizona’s waters. Part V discusses elements of Arizona water law that are relevant to environmental water needs. Part VI describes opportunities within the given legal context to help the environment gain a place at the table as a water-using sector. Finally, Part VII offers some concluding remarks.

As the horror of Japan’s nuclear accident continues to unfold, some American scientists and analysts are already identifying flaws in the Japanese system. We are told that the Japanese failed to properly assess the risks inherent in the placement and design of their nuclear power plants.1 We are also told that the nuclear regulatory agencies in Japan merely “rubber stamped” the nuclear facility’s reports.2 Yet Japanese scientists and officials have no monopoly on overly optimistic projections and a lack of independent judgment. In 2010, the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit upheld a permit issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (“NRC”) for an in-situ leach uranium mine in northwestern New Mexico.3 The NRC approved the project even though the method that will be used to restore the aquifer had never been shown to work.4 Further, the NRC established cleanup procedures based on economic considerations and reports from the regulated industry.5 If nuclear power is ever to become a safe alternative to fossil fuels, America’s officials and scientists must do a better job of avoiding the “radioactive optimism” that is prevalent among promoters of nuclear energy.

In 1963, Glen Canyon Dam began impounding the Colorado River’s water. The rising water would eventually form Lake Powell, named after Civil War hero Major John Wesley Powell who first mapped the region in 1869. Today, Lake Powell is the second largest man-made reservoir in the United States. The lake’s finger-like nature gives it nearly two thousand miles of shoreline, more than the entire west coast of the United States. The ample shoreline, combined with stunning red rock formations, fishing, hiking, and plenty of water sports, attracts roughly two million people to Lake Powell every year. While many consider Lake Powell to be a premier vacation destination, some consider it to be the most humiliating failure of the environmental lobby. Former Sierra Club Executive Director David Brower claimed that his inability to block Glen Canyon Dam’s construction was his life’s greatest failure and tragedy. In 1975, eco-novelist Edward Abbey published his inflammatory work, The Monkey Wrench Gang. The novel’s protagonists consider blowing up Glen Canyon Dam to be the ultimate victory for the environmental community. Inspired by the story, the eco-activist group Earth First! invited Abbey to witness the unfurling of a giant, fake crack down the dam’s face in 1981. In 2007, Gary Hansen wrote Wet Desert, a fictional work in which Glen Canyon Dam is successfully sabotaged and destroyed by a rogue environmentalist.

When considering solar energy, it’s helpful to understand two common uses of solar, generation of electrical power, and use for heating water. Generation of power is commonly done by use of Photovoltaic (PV) panels, which generates direct current (DC), which is then often converted to alternating current (AC) which is more commonly used for power distribution in the modern world. Solar water heating is done by a number of means that collect heat, and transfer the heat directly to water held in a holding tank, sometimes a separate container, and sometimes directly into a more conventional system similar to or the same as a hot water heater tank. Use of solar energy in both of these ways reduces the need to use power generated from natural gas, coal, oil, hydroelectric, or nuclear power sources. However, both methods of capturing power to be used in a commercial or residential setting are limited by the availability of sunlight. Therefore, use of solar power has limitations of both geographical and temporal restrictions. Areas with more sunlight can make better use of solar energy, and solar energy can only be captured during daylight hours. While this limitation seems significant, consider that use of power is also cyclic. Peak power use is often midday, when there is also peak ability to generate solar power. Since there is a match in this way, solar energy is in a position to help offset this peak usage situation. We can break down into general scales of the applications of solar power generation: the residential (homes and apartments) generation of solar power, the commercial (small and large businesses) generation of solar power, and the industrial (power plant scale) generation of solar power. Each of these areas currently has significantly different issues, creating opportunity and limitations that distinguish the effectiveness of implementing solar solutions.