East Valley town preps new user fee to import Harquahala Valley water

Emphasizing that the action signaled only the start of the process, the Queen Creek Town Council approved a notice of intent to create a new water resource fee to pay for the town’s purchases of Harquahala groundwater and the infrastructure needed to bring it to town.

The council voted unanimously on Wednesday to approve the notice of intent.

On Nov. 18, there will be a public hearing on the proposed changes, and the council will take action. If council approves the fees, they will become effective on Jan. 27, with the first bill reflecting the fee on March 9.

“It’s a 60-day period. It’s intended to evaluate the structure of the proposed fee and the phasing. I’ve heard from you. We need to look at the fee. We need to look at the phasing,” Mayor Julia Wheatley said before the vote. “This is just starting the process, but in the next 60 days is when we’re really fine-tuning this.”

Wheatley’s comments came after a series of mostly large-lot water users spoke before the council to express their concerns about the possible negative impact the proposed fees and adjustments could have on their rural way of life.

“I understand that reliable infrastructure has real costs. My concern is how those costs are distributed and as proposed may create a disproportionate burden, especially on legacy and large lots. Higher usage needs context,” said water user Eli Slover. “Queen Creek has worked recently to preserve its agricultural heritage. Large-lot properties may use more water for horses, livestock, pasture, cultivated areas and other agricultural needs. But higher usage does not automatically mean waste. We should be careful not to preserve those uses through one policy while placing disproportionate burden on them through another.”

If passed, the water resource fee would start at $3.07 per 1,000 gallons of water, based on metered use. Increases to the fee would be phased in incrementally, and the council would have to approve an increase each year for at least the first six years of the new fee.

The proposal also includes a credit based on the water the town receives back through the wastewater system to offset groundwater pumping. The proposed credits would be given to residents with a combined water and wastewater town utility account.

Under the proposal, a residential customer with a combined account who uses 10,000 gallons of water a month would have a new water resource fee of $30.71, minus the effluent credit for a total of $18.43 in the first year. Combined with a monthly $39.44 water delivery fee, the total monthly bill would be $57.89.

Customers who use 10,000 gallons a month but only have a water account with the town utility would not get the effluent credit. For them, the total monthly bill with the water delivery fee, the new water resource fee of $30.71 in year one and no credit would be $70.15 a month.

The new water resource fee will go toward paying for the 1.7 million acre-feet of Harquahala basin water that the town purchased in 2025 for a total of $285 million. An acre-foot is enough water to cover 1 acre in 1 foot of water, or about 326,000 gallons.

The fee will also pay for the millions of dollars needed to get the water out of the Harquahala basin and move it to the Central Arizona Project canal that will deliver the water.

The water resource fee will replace the Central Arizona Groundwater Replenishment District assessment on customer property tax bills, including the amount the town has been offsetting for its water customers since 2018.

“What we have done is we have assured a 110-year water supply for ourselves, for our children, for our children’s children, meaning there are no cuts to that,” Wheatley said. “Our goal 10 years ago was to determine our self-sufficiency and to be able to lock in water — that we know is going to be a scarcity — at the cheapest rate possible. And CAGRD is buying the same water that we are for 60% more. We’re realizing those savings, but we have to pay for it.”

Scott McCarty, the town’s chief financial officer and deputy town manager, emphasized that the new fee is based on replenishment, not consumption. He added that the fee will be phased in for two reasons. The first is to allow large water customers to make changes to reduce consumption.

“And then the second is really the driver of it, which is to just mitigate the initial financial impacts to the people that pay the bill and allow them time to adjust to the potential financial impacts over a six-year period,” McCarty said.

And the financial impact could be substantial for those with large lots who use irrigated water and do not have a combined water and wastewater account with the town utility.

Gary Ellers told council he and his neighbors are already paying a fee for irrigated water.

“I plugged in my numbers to the town system for year one (and) my total cost will be $7,700 for the first year,” Ellers said. “By year six, my annual water bill will be just under $21,000 for one year. The cumulative cost for all six years is over $83,000. I’m going to have to sell both my kidneys at that point.”

Ellers asked the council to consider a different fee structure for potable versus irrigation water.

“We have heard you. We are listening,” Council Member Robin Benning said. “We’re going to work really hard to try to make this fair and equitable because, obviously, in some of the examples that each of you have stated it does seem like it’s a little bit high and I get that. But at the end of the day what we have to do is we have to meet the state law which says that we have to replenish (groundwater sources).”

Janet Perez can be reached at jperez@iniusa.org. Please send your comments about this article to AzOpinions@iniusa.org. We are committed to publishing a wide variety of reader opinions, as long as they meet our Civility Guidelines.