K-12 schools in Arizona are currently flush with cash. Between billions in increased state spending from the legislature, COVID cash from the feds, and declining student populations, district school spending is at an all time high. But next week, voters across Arizona will decide the fate of 23 bond requests from schools that total a historic $3.5 billion.
This level of borrowing being sought by local school districts is both unwise and unnecessary, especially given the large amounts of money that have been pumped into the system. State funding has increased so quickly in the last 36 months that the legislature decided to override the constitutional spending limit the last two fiscal years. This is funding over and above the formulaic cap in the constitution that exists to protect taxpayers from runaway and unaccountable spending.
And contrary to what you probably hear from teachers’ unions and their sycophant friends in the media, lawmakers continue to increase school spending with every state budget. With all this new spending, district schools receive more money per student than ever before, and it’s not even close.
Not included in the state spending cap, however, are federal funds. And when schools were shut down during COVID, the federal government poured trillions of dollars into them. Many of the school districts asking their taxpayers to hand over hundreds of millions of dollars in bonds next week are still sitting on a pile of unspent COVID cash…
More of Arizona’s municipalities are increasing their water conservation efforts, leading taxpayers to pay more for less.
Preexisting sustainability goals and the burgeoning Colorado River drought have offered justification for these municipalities’ efforts, which have now resulted in lawn bans, increased water rates, and restricted water usage over the last few years.
Multiple cities recently traded in their Colorado River water rights in exchange for federal funding: Tucson, Phoenix, Peoria, Glendale, Scottsdale, Gilbert, Mesa, Surprise, Queen Creek, along with the state, Apache Junction Domestic Water Improvement District, Central Arizona Groundwater Replenishment District, Metropolitan Domestic Water Improvement District in Tucson, Salt River Project, and EPCOR.
Last month, Gov. Katie Hobbs announced the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) ban on the construction of new Phoenix homes that would rely on groundwater.
These progressive restrictions and charges also continue despite noted successes in conservation in comparison to past years with smaller populations.
The answer may lie with other developments in the state over the years. Big Tech’s data centers may be one of the major drains on water supply outweighing the net savings of residents’ water conservation efforts.
Mesa
In comparison to the other cities, Mesa doesn’t impose major water conservation restrictions. It does offer $1,000 in rebates for grass removal, with an additional $100 maximum for planting native trees.
However, the city may be contributing to the water burdens faced by its neighbors. In 2019, it approved the development of a data center for Google that could use one to four million gallons of water daily. Arizona residents average about 146 gallons daily currently.
Yet, as Time pointed out, Arizona Municipal Water Users Association (AMUA) — an organization that Mesa helped found — chastised Arizona residents several weeks after the deal between Mesa and Google for using 120 gallons on average daily.
Meta (formerly Facebook, which also owns Instagram) is now building a data center there as well. The year they broke ground in Arizona, they promised to be “water positive” — meaning, restoring more water than they consume — by 2030.
Like Google centers, data centers could use around one to five million gallons of water a day according to Texas Tech University’s Water Resources Center director, Venkatesh Uddameri.
Microsoft also operates data centers out of El Mirage and Goodyear. They made the same promise to be water positive by 2030.
Over 30 percent of the world’s data centers are located in the U.S.
Scottsdale
Scottsdale banned lawns on new builds earlier this month.
The city also offers to pay residents up to $5,000 for lawn removals, and up to $1 per square foot of water surface area plus $400 for pool or spa removals. For multifamily properties, homeowner associations (HOAs), and commercial businesses, the city offered up to $40,000 to remove their lawns, with an additional $10,000 bonus for grass strips adjacent to streets.
Since Scottsdale launched its rebate program in 1992, total rebates amounted to over $4.7 million; about half of which came from grass removals. The city has removed 94 acres of grass since the program’s launch. This fiscal year’s rebate budget sits at $450,000.
Last September, Scottsdale banned HOAs from requiring overseeding lawns.
Residents surpassed the city’s goal of 10 percent water conservation, achieving 12 percent over the last two years.
Tucson
Last month, Tucson banned lawns and reduced water flow in new constructions. The city also required all new residential dwelling units to include piping for a separate discharge of gray water for direct irrigation: the untreated, leftover water from washing machines, bathtubs, and sinks.
In 2008, Tucson required all commercial development and site plans to include a rainwater harvesting plan that provided for 50 percent of the annual landscape water supply.
In 2014, Tucson passed a water waste ordinance fining individuals $250 on the first offense and $500 on subsequent offenses up to $2,500 for allowing water to escape or pool onto public property; washing driveways, sidewalks, parking areas with a hose (unless a residential customer); operating a misting system in unoccupied non-residential areas; having an irrigation head or emitter that’s broken or spraying more than 10 percent onto a street, parking lot, or sidewalk; failing to control a leak; and failing to meet the 50 percent rainwater harvesting requirement for landscape irrigation.
Tucson also offers multiple rebates: $100 per residential, multi-family, or commercial premium high-efficiency toilet; $150 for a flushometer valve/bowl combination; $200 for high-efficiency or water-free urinal installation; $100 or $200 for a residential high-efficiency clothes washer; up to $2,000 for a residential rainwater harvesting system; and up to $1,000 for a gray water system. The city also offers special incentives for low-income residents: free high-efficiency toilets, grants up to $1,000 and loans up to $2,000 for a rainwater harvesting system, grants and loans up to $500 for a gray water harvesting system, discounted high-efficiency clothes washers, and free plumbing repairs.
Each year, Tucson makes available up to $250,000 in grant money to establish stormwater harvesting in neighborhoods.
Phoenix
Last month, the Phoenix City Council approved the Sustainable Desert Development Policy, requiring rezoning cases on new developments to satisfy city-approved standards on EPA WaterSense efficiency certifications; drought tolerant and/or native landscaping; restrictions on turf usage; outdoor irrigation efficiency standards; green infrastructure or low-impact development provisions for surface parking areas, streets, and sidewalks; participation in the city’s Efficiency Checkup program; new swimming pool standards; new wet-cooling system standards; and preservation of natural open spaces.
Additionally, the policy will require any entities that use over 250,000 gallons of water per day to submit a water conservation plan, approved by city staff. Any entities that use over 500,000 gallons of water per day must derive 30 percent of their water consumption from a recycled or conserved water source.
Entities dubbed “large water users,” may be denied operation even if their conservation plan is acceptable to the city. The policy stated that the city may reject the large water user if there’s inadequate water resource availability in their proposed location, inconsistency with the city’s planning documents; undesirable economic value and impact of their proposed water use; undesirable impact to water rates; or incompatibility with the city’s definition of a key industry beneficial to the economy.
The city doesn’t offer any rebate programs, though last December city officials expressed a desire to launch one to incentivize lawn removals. The city signed a joint pledge between locales in California and Nevada to remove ornamental turf.
The city also imposes an ordinance onto new developers, the Water Resources Acquisition Fee (WRAF) ordinance, which may be mitigated via credit if the developer provides a permanent reduction in annual water demand on the city.
The city has promised that it won’t institute mandatory water use restrictions in the near future, though it warned that severe or worsening drought conditions within the next 10-15 years may warrant such restrictions. Policy changes could include water waste punishments similar to Tucson’s, requiring child safe pool covers to reduce evaporation, banning turf irrigation, and banning car washing.
Flagstaff
Flagstaff has stricter water use requirements than some of the other Arizona cities.
The city has a watering allowance schedule during which residents may water their landscape: even-numbered addresses on Sundays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, and odd-numbered addresses on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays. Nobody may water on Mondays, and the city prohibits watering between 9 am and 5 pm. Gardeners wishing to water by hand — “incidental hand watering” — may do so on any day, except from 9 am to 5 pm. However, vehicle washing is not subject to the water schedule restrictions.
The schedule is only permitted to be used when the city is at the first stages of burdened water demand. At level two, the city bans irrigation; car washing at home; driveway, sidewalk, and tennis court washing; filling of fountains, ponds, streams, or pools over 100 gallons. The city also increases water rates for those using over 6,400 gallons, and potable standpipe rates increase by 130 percent. At level three, potable water use is banned outside.
Those who violate the rules within any of the three levels are subject to fines starting at $25, doubling with each violation.
The city implements a diverse set of rebate programs. Commercial properties may receive free high-efficiency sink aerators, free high-efficiency shower heads, free pre-rinse spray valves, $86 rebate or 50 percent of project cost for commercial toilets, $158 or 50 percent of project cost for hotel toilets; and $157 or 50 percent of the project cost for commercial urinals.
Both residential and commercial properties may receive a rebate at 25 cents per square foot for converting to low-water landscaping. They may also receive a $100 rebate on installation of a rainwater harvesting system with 1000-gallon minimum capacity, and free 55-gallon rainwater harvesting barrels.
The city reported that their conservation efforts, beginning in 1988, have yielded a 50 percent water use reduction.
Gilbert
The town of Gilbert is offering up to $800 to residents and up to $3,000 to non-residential customers who swap their lawns for desert landscaping that uses less water. The city set aside $60,000 for the residential program, and $15,000 for the non-residential program.
A Gilbert spokesperson told AZ Free News that they have a total of $120,000 per year to issue on their rebate programs, and that the allocated funding within that budget may change from year to year based on the popularity of each program.
Anyone who receives $600 or more in water bill credits must complete a W9 for the Gilbert Water Conservation, as per the Biden administration IRS reporting requirement enacted last year.
Those aren’t the only water conservation financial incentives that Gilbert has offered. The town introduced rebates up to $250 for residential, $400 for non-residential properties to install smart irrigation controllers.
In May, the town applied for a $3 million grant from the Water Conservation Fund to replace grass on government property with desert-tolerant landscaping. The grant money ultimately comes from federal COVID-19 relief funds.
Gilbert announced that it saved 254 million gallons due to its conservation efforts in 2019, and 375 million in 2018.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Save Our Schools Arizona (SOS) and some Dem lawmakers were up in arms last week. And anytime that happens, you know you’re probably doing something right.
Last Wednesday, the Republican-led legislature passed the $17.8 billion budget, and it was a big win for students, parents, school choice, and Arizona’s taxpayers. Despite the fact that Governor Katie Hobbs made it clear that she planned to dismantle school choice for all with a full repeal of the beloved Empowerment Scholarship Accounts (ESA), Hobbs signed the budget without any cap or restrictions on the historic program. This should be cause for celebration—unless, of course, you’re SOS or certain Democrat lawmakers.
Predictably, SOS got right to work on spreading lies about the popular ESA program, claiming it would drain K-12 public schools of funding, hurt Arizona’s economy, and even bankrupt the state. That last lie is particularly absurd, but then again SOS has a history of such desperation when its back is against the wall. (Can you imagine being this bent out of shape that children from all walks of life can get an education that best fits their needs?)
The reality is that the ESA program has absolutely exploded during this fiscal year…
In between dodging questions about why she won’t debate Kari Lake and holding school choice funds hostage, Katie Hobbs has been making some curious campaign promises lately. And none have been more suspect than what she claims is her current position on tax hikes.
After dragging her feet on the issue, Hobbs finally made her stance known last month when she declared that she has no plans to raise taxes if elected governor. Then, like a good Democrat who promises everything under the sun, she took it one step further, claiming that she would cut taxes for 800,000 Arizona families.
But anyone who has followed Hobbs’ political career knows that this is just another outrageous lie. During her time in the state legislature, Katie Hobbs regularly opposed tax cuts for families while making it a habit to support multiple tax hikes.
Public education funding accounts for nearly $11 billion of Arizona’s $18 billion state budget. Considering this cost, taxpayers should have a clear perception about the return on this massive investment.
We can define the purpose of public education as the process of producing capable adults who can effectively participate in the economic activity of the community. This puts the focus on developing students who can be productive after they leave our public education system and identifies the return on investment for substantial state spending.
The economic benefit of Career and Technical Education (CTE) should then become the primary objective of each public education institution that is funded by the taxpayers of the state. The goal of CTE should be the attainment of professional degrees and technical certificates that demonstrate proficiency in various career-related specialties that allow students to attain beneficial employment.
There are several public education institutions that share the responsibility for preparing our students to be productive adults.
1. Pre-K-12 District and Charter Public Schools
Some Examples:
District Schools: Mesa Unified, Chandler Unified, and Tucson Unified are the largest in the state.
Charter Schools: American Leadership Academy, Legacy Traditional, Archway (Great Hearts)
Maricopa Community Colleges and Pima Community Colleges are the largest.
3. Technical Schools
East Valley Institute of Technology (EVIT), West Maricopa Education Center (West-MEC), and Pima County Joint Technical Education District (Pima-JTED) are the largest.
4. Colleges and Universities
Arizona State University, University of Arizona, and Northern Arizona University are the three public universities.
Coordination and Collaboration
Students often use several of these institutions in their educational journey but many of the programs overlap in their requirements. However, many students have also found that their credits earned by completing courses in one institution are not readily transferable to another institution, resulting in a student having to repeat classes they have already passed. This unnecessarily delays their attainment of educational goals and adds additional costs.
There does not appear to be any good reason for this uncoordinated approach to public education. It also serves to harm students and discourage their educational progress.
While some institutions do attempt to collaborate for the better benefit of students, the effort is spotty and uncoordinated. In a recent presentation to the EVIT Board of Directors, Chief Academic Officer Ronda Doolen demonstrated the chaotic approach to the transfer of credits from one institution to another. There is clearly no consistency and no universal process for doing so leaving students, as the clients of the system, to be served poorly.
Universal Portability, Student-Centric Education
One solution is to have state level certifications for certain classes that can be applied to each student’s education transcript and universally accepted by any public education institution in the state. This makes a student’s academic achievements “portable” and shifts the focus from “institution-centric” to “student–centric” in order to better benefit students.
One current model is the Dual-Credit platforms that are now in place between some high schools and local community colleges. However, the programs are usually governed by specific Inter-Governmental Agreements (IGAs) at the school or district level. But the programs are typically difficult to navigate and there is no guarantee of universal acceptance of credits that can be applied at any Arizona public school.
An example would be a basic college level English course (“English 101”) that can be universally accredited as fulfilling any higher education requirement. However, this basic course typically has different course titles depending on the institution and may or may not be accepted at a community college or one of the Arizona universities—depending on the whims of that particular institution. This basic course should have one course title, one course number, and one course description in use by every public education institution in the state of Arizona and be fully portable between them.
Other courses that should have universal accreditation would be Basic History, Civics, Basic Math and Science Courses, Basic Arts and Humanities courses, and Foreign Languages. It would be far more efficient and far less costly to have these courses taken at accredited high school or community college institutions instead of at the university level.
Follow the Money, Institutional Self-Interest, and Territorialism
Many of the roadblocks to a more efficient and service-oriented approach to public education revolve around funding. However, we must first recognize that most education funding is ultimately derived from taxpayers. These taxpayers do not typically have much of an interest as to which institution receives their tax dollars as compared to their more beneficial interest that their funds are spent efficiently and not wasted on ineffective or duplicative efforts.
Unfortunately, there is an institutional self-interest in how funds are allocated to them by the state. No one wants to have their budget cut. This can lead to a bias in how universal course credits are supported that can run counter to the best interests of students, for whom these institutions were originally created to serve.
An example would be that there is little practical justification for our universities to offer general education courses that are also taught at community colleges, and some high schools, at a fraction of the cost to students and taxpayers. Wouldn’t it far more useful to have highly paid university professors spending their time teaching advanced courses that could only be offered at the university?
There does not seem to be any evidence that an English 101 course better serves a student if it is taken at a university as compared to a community college or even a good high school. This one single reform should significantly reduce the cost of education for students and their parents, who help pay their tuition, even though it may threaten the territory of certain institutional “empires” that have built up at taxpayer expense.
Re-thinking Public Education, Some Conclusions
The goal of public education should be to develop productive adults.
Public education should then be more focused on Career and Technical Education in order to have real value for students and the community.
Public education must be re-oriented to be “student-centric” and less institution-centric” to be more efficient and cost effective.
Course credits in higher education should be “portable” and universally accepted by all taxpayer-funded public education institutions.
Kurt Rohrs is a candidate for the Chandler Unified School District Governing Board. You can find out more about his campaign here.
