How a subdivision just to the northeast of Scottsdale, Arizona was developed may be one of the principal reasons why the city has decided to cut off its water supply.
At the beginning of the year, Scottsdale announced that it would no longer allow the unincorporated community of Rio Verde Foothills to access the city’s water supply.
In a message from the City Manager’s office, it was announced that Scottsdale “cannot be responsible for the water needs of a separate community especially given its unlimited and unregulated growth.”
Because they don’t have a water reservoir of its own, the roughly 1,000 residents of the Rio Verde Foothills purchased all their water from Scottsdale. Without that supply, residents are now purchasing water, delivered by trucks, from sources farther away.
Various sources have suggested that the water issue can be traced to a more than 40-year-old Arizona law requiring subdivisions with half a dozen or more lots to show proof that they have what is officially called a 100-year Assured Water Supply as certified by the Arizona Department of Water.
But, notes the publication Business Insider, many developers “skirted around this regulation by splitting large lots into groups of four and five properties, creating the feeling of suburbia without being beholden to these regulations.”
In a statement issued by the City of Scottsdale on January 16 it was noted that the city “has warned and advised that it is not responsible for Rio Verde for many years, especially given the requirements of the city’s mandated drought plan.”
The statement continues: “The city remains firm in that position, and confident it is on the right side of the law.”
In response, the residents of Rio Verde Foothills have filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of Arizonan for Maricopa County, charging that the “City of Scottsdale has placed plaintiffs and their families under an unconscionable amount of stress and anxiety by discontinuing their domestic water supply.”
The lawsuit adds: “The lack of fresh potable water for families to be able to bathe themselves or running water to flush their toilets is a well-known basic necessity.”
It is not known when the court will make a ruling on the matter.
By Garry Boulard
