“The Reality Is, It All Comes Back to Catch Us”: Urban Population Increase and Water Conservation In the Arid West

Open PDF in Browser: Madison Dobson,* “The Reality Is, It All Came Back to Catch Us”[1]: Urban Population Increase and Water Conservation in the Arid West

---

Aridification, or a long term drought causing the drying of a region, has consumed the American West. Unlike most other natural disasters that occur acutely over the course of a couple of days (like hurricanes), drought is a creeping phenomenon—it can be difficult to identify when it began, how it progresses, and when it ends. This creeping nature means that the West has the time to adapt to survive in an ever drying environment. However, it also means that the West often takes reactive actions against droughts instead of implementing proactive policies, as they can be considered unnecessarily burdensome without the knowledge of how severe the drought will become. Therefore, despite the water insecurity caused by Western aridification, Western cities are experiencing massive growth as thousands of people are relocating there for lower costs of living, better job opportunities, and warmer weather—but with little to no concern about how the region’s drought might affect them. This tension leads to a delicate equilibrium between managing the urban population increase through more development and managing the conservation of water to allow these cities to continue to exist. In addressing this problem, the policies of Las Vegas, Nevada, and Phoenix, Arizona, have been successful in enacting the most severe measures of any Western city. Given that more Western cities are continuing to face these dual issues, this Note aims to provide an explanation of the policies that Phoenix and Las Vegas have enacted to strike an appropriate balance between development and water conservation. In doing so, it will analyze the impacts of both approaches so that similarly situated Western cities can make informed decisions on how they wish to strike this balance. The Note concludes by advocating for analogous Western cities to adopt an approach similar to that of Las Vegas, as opposed to that of Phoenix, due to the advantageous equitable and economic effects of Las Vegas’s policies.

Introduction

People naturally migrate away from areas that experience natural disasters.^[2] With the increasing severity and frequency of natural disasters caused by climate change, more people who live in disaster‑prone regions are and will be forced to permanently relocate.^[3] Large‑scale, climate‑induced population displacement is already happening in coastal communities.^[4] Erosion and rise in sea level coupled with more acute natural disasters, like hurricanes and flooding, continue to cause the permanent loss of land and housing for millions of people living on the world’s coasts.^[5] In the United States, more than 129 million people, or about 40 percent of the country’s total population, live in coastal communities.^[6] While the coasts of the United States support many industries and provide recreational opportunities, they also “face permanent inundation and flooding threats from sea level rise, intense rain, high tide flooding, and severe storms.”^[7] Tragedies like the 2024 North Carolina floods, where “the deadliest and most damaging storm ever to hit” the state caused approximately $53 billion in damage, are becoming increasingly common.^[8] Natural disasters like these transform communities from coastal paradises to lands “unfit for human habitation,” resulting in displacement and migration from hurricane‑ and flood‑prone regions.^[9]

Unlike the fallout from floods and hurricanes, however, displacement and migration from drought‑stricken regions is uncommon. While droughts cause as much (if not more) human suffering as acute natural disasters, societies around the globe have developed a “complacent attitude” toward drought and thus view droughts as less severe or intense as compared to acute natural disasters.^[10] This complacency largely stems from humanity’s natural inclination to view weather phenomena as temporary. In the wetter months of the year, they forget the pain they felt in the drier months; in the milder years of the drought, people forget the sacrifices they made in the harsher years.^[11] Drought, by its nature, is a “creeping” phenomenon, as its occurrence and effects are gradually felt over time, causing most droughts to be identified only after their more serious effects have occurred.^[12] Accordingly, humanity’s complacent attitude toward droughts plus droughts’ creeping nature result in the adoption and implementation of unsustainable water use policies: The affected society views each drought‑caused weather occurrence as a temporary weather phenomenon and not as a part of a larger, longer‑term drought.^[13]

Droughts are typically only identified once they have had large impacts, so governments typically begin enacting drought mitigation measures once the situation has already reached the level of an emergency. This results in reactive legislation aimed at alleviating the current burdens brought on by the drought instead of long‑term policies aimed at mitigating both current and future droughts.^[14] This shortsighted practice of implementing reactive measures in response to the current effects of the drought results in those measures falling by the wayside when the drought temporarily weakens and the rain returns—a vicious loop experts call the “hydro‑illogical” cycle.^[15]

However, the occurrence of drought is also unique in that, through its creeping nature, it is a natural disaster that people have the time to adapt to.^[16] Drought is a catalyst for emigration only if the affected population cannot adapt to the environmental conditions it causes, like lower amounts of rainfall.^[17] A society’s ability to adapt to the effects of a drought is formed by political, economic, and social factors, which are capable of changing over time as the drought intensifies.^[18] Drought overpowers populations that are slow to adapt to drying conditions or are less resilient; so, to survive, a society must continually adapt faster than the drought strengthens and remain resilient when those adaptations are insufficient.^[19]

The American West is experiencing a drought so severe it constitutes aridification: a long‑term drought causing the drying of the entire region.^[20] The Colorado River, a vital water source throughout the West, is experiencing its harshest drought in recorded history.^[21] The Colorado River Basin,^[22] the region dependent on the Colorado River’s waters, is in its “driest period on record stretching back 1,200 years.”^[23] Between 2000 and 2021, the Basin’s water supply shrank by approximately ten trillion gallons of water.^[24] In the West’s “permanent shift to a drier future,”^[25] the region’s main reservoirs, Lake Powell and Lake Mead (both on the Colorado River), have recently experienced record low water levels. For instance, Lake Mead’s water level dropped more than 150 feet since January 2000, and Lake Powell’s water level dropped about 125 feet in the same time period.^[26] More so, scientific projections predict this drought will only worsen due to climate change.^[27] Specifically, climate change is predicted to cause less rainfall throughout the Rocky Mountains and Western United States, thus exacerbating the ongoing drought.^[28]

Despite the aridification of the American West, its cities are some of the fastest growing in the country. Phoenix, Arizona, and Las Vegas, Nevada, have been among the top cities in the United States for relocators.^[29] In Phoenix, real estate inventory has steadily grown, and its apartment market is one of the fastest growing of the last decade in the United States.^[30] Over 800,000 people have moved to the Phoenix metropolitan area since 2012, and the county it sits in, Maricopa County, “has more new residents than any other county” in the country, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.^[31] Similarly, in Las Vegas, real estate inventory has also grown steadily with its population, which has grown by approximately 400,000, or 20 percent, since 2010.^[32]

This all begs the question: Why are people moving to these desert cities despite their ongoing aridification? This is especially perplexing given that increases in population exacerbate the drought by further straining the West’s limited water resources. The circumstances surrounding drought, such as its creeping nature and the hydro‑illogical cycle of retroactive water conservation efforts, prove that it is unlikely that migrants to desert cities are considering the consequences of drought or even paying any attention to water conservation and the effects of the region’s drought in their relocation evaluations.

Instead, people are moving to both Phoenix and Las Vegas because of the warm weather, job opportunities, strong economy, lower cost of living, and beautiful geography both cities offer.^[33] The warm weather factor, while often viewed as a positive, can be just as much, if not more, of a negative in reality. Phoenix is the hottest city in the United States.^[34] Yet, despite the health risks presented by Phoenix’s recent record‑breaking heat waves and the ongoing drought, “most current and prospective Phoenix residents are not overly concerned about the heat,” a sentiment also expressed by migrants to Las Vegas.^[35] Thus, it is clear that migrants are not considering the effects of the region’s ongoing aridification when they decide to migrate to these cities. At least, migrants are not weighing the disadvantages of the region’s drought as strongly as the advantages of the region’s economy and culture.^[36] The people who are moving there disregard how the impact of their relocation exacerbates the water security issues these cities are already experiencing, which will only worsen with time.^[37] Given that it seems unlikely people will stop migrating to this region and its cities due to the real positive living conditions they promise, state and local governments are left to determine the best path forward regarding the appropriate balance between accommodating their increasing populations through building new developments and mitigating the region’s ongoing aridification through conserving water.^[38] Phoenix and Las Vegas have taken differing approaches to mitigating these issues. Phoenix has mostly focused on enacting regulations to limit new development or to impose water conservation measures on only new developments,^[39] whereas Las Vegas has implemented regulations to generally limit the city’s water consumption.^[40]

This Note analyzes the policies Phoenix and Las Vegas have implemented regarding sustainable real estate development and water conservation. In the process, it takes a critical look at the effects these policies are having on issues of equity, economics, and environmentalism and whether these policies are worth adopting in similarly situated cities in the American West. Ultimately, this Note argues that analogous Western cities should follow the sector‑by‑sector approach that Las Vegas has implemented, as it increases the severity of its water conservation policies with the severity of the drought and reallocates the burden of conservation to both those more at fault and those better equipped to bear the burden. While Phoenix’s approach is not ineffective, it does not seek to mitigate the inequities existing in its current water management system. Instead, Phoenix’s approach perpetuates their existence.

Part I elaborates on the legal foundations underlying the challenges facing Phoenix and Las Vegas in their efforts to continue developing to accommodate their increasing populations while also conserving their water resources.^[41] Fundamentally, this issue demonstrates each state’s weighty responsibility to strike the appropriate balance between its authority to regulate water and its authority to regulate development by leveraging its power to provide public utilities and to properly zone communities.^[42] Section I.A focuses on the legal regimes that regulate water.^[43] Here, Nevada’s prior appropriation system is described at length,^[44] followed by an explanation of Arizona’s mixed system for water regulation.^[45] To conclude this Part, Section I.B discusses the legal structure allowing states and municipalities to regulate their own development.^[46]

Next, Part II analyzes Phoenix’s policies regarding water conservation and development.^[47] Phoenix and its greater metropolitan area have made headlines with their response to the explosive growth the region has recently experienced: a prohibition of new residential development occurring on plots of land that use groundwater.^[48] Section II.A describes the background of Phoenix’s water conservation and development policies,^[49] leading into a description of how the State of Arizona has become involved in the effort in Section II.B.^[50] This Part concludes with Section II.C—a detailed explanation of Phoenix’s recently enacted Sustainable Desert City Development Policy, which highlights the residential development prohibition mentioned previously.^[51]

To contrast with Phoenix’s approach, Part III describes Las Vegas’s policies regarding water conservation and development.^[52] Las Vegas and the region of southern Nevada have pioneered many of the country’s most effective water conservation measures, from countless one‑issue policies, like a pool cover rebate program, to the region’s “water cops.”^[53] Section III.A elaborates on how Las Vegas has regulated its residential sector,^[54] calling specific attention to its “water cops.”^[55] To conclude this Part, Section III.B explains Las Vegas’s approach to regulating its commercial sector.^[56]

Following the descriptions of Phoenix’s and Las Vegas’s approaches to regulating water conservation and development, Part IV provides a direct comparison between the cities’ policies.^[57] In making this comparison, Section IV.A analyzes the equitable effects of both city’s approaches,^[58] Section IV.B discusses the economic effects of each policy,^[59] and Section IV.C describes the respective environmental and sustainable effects.^[60] Lastly, Section IV.D concludes this Part by directly comparing the overall effects of Phoenix’s policies to those of Las Vegas, leading to the determination that similarly situated cities in the American West should follow Las Vegas’s approach to water conservation and development as opposed to Phoenix’s approach.^[61]

The Note concludes by comparing the successes of the policies implemented by each city while critiquing the areas of concern they cause.^[62] Through this comparative approach, the Note aims to demonstrate to analogous Western cities the benefits and drawbacks of the policies adopted by Phoenix and Las Vegas. To conclude, the Note provides recommendations for similarly situated cities on how to avoid the drawbacks of these approaches.

Legal Foundations

Before delving into the details of each city’s policies to balance water conservation with continued development, it is crucial to understand the legal schemes in which these policies are operating. Accordingly, this Part examines the legal foundations that states and municipalities have utilized to balance the increasing development required to manage growing populations with the West’s dwindling water supplies. Section I.A begins with a discussion of the government’s power to regulate water through the West’s prior appropriation water rights regime and the regime’s differing applications in Nevada and Arizona. In Section I.A.1, Nevada’s prior appropriation system of water rights is described, while Section I.A.2 explains Arizona’s mixed system of water regulation. Then, Section I.B analyzes the government’s police power in connection with its authority over public utilities and zoning. This Part concludes by reflecting on the interplay between the government’s authority to regulate water and development and how that intersection will be the answer to the West’s issue of managing the worsening drought while the population increases.

Zooming out, state governments have the general authority to regulate water and development through the Constitution’s grant of police power.^[63] The Tenth Amendment delegates to states the police power through its reservation of powers not delegated expressly to the federal government for the states, thus allowing for local control of local matters.^[64] States utilize their police power to regulate water as well as real estate developments through utility laws and zoning ordinances.^[65] Thus, to solve the water versus development problem in Phoenix and Las Vegas, these municipalities have mainly relied on their utility and zoning authorities.^[66] However, the legal scheme that regulates a state’s water supply is largely out of the control of these municipalities.^[67] Thus, these water regulation principles are foundational to understanding how Phoenix and Las Vegas should utilize their police power to regulate development.

Regulating Water

First and foremost, water resources are mainly regulated at the state level, as opposed to the local level, because states typically codify their water rights regime in a statute universally applicable throughout the state.^[68] The state has the authority to manage and regulate its waters through its police power, with the goal of promoting the public interest.^[69] As state populations grow, so too does the public’s interest in maintaining the state’s water supply.^[70] In both Arizona and Nevada, the overwhelming majority of water resources are allocated for agricultural purposes.^[71] Therefore, regulating the agricultural uses of water would arguably be the most effective way to maintain the state’s water supply, as a regulation aimed at conserving water used in agriculture would have a much larger impact on the total water supply of the state than a regulation aimed at any other sector. Despite the perceived windfall of regulating the agriculture sector to conserve either state’s water supply, the water conserved from imposing those regulations would not necessarily directly alleviate the stress that water systems local to urban areas like Phoenix and Las Vegas are experiencing due to their ever‑increasing populations.^[72] Additionally, urban water conservation measures typically reduce the cost of utilities for the city’s citizens.^[73] Therefore, focusing on urban water conservation, as opposed to agricultural water conservation, will better address the topic at hand—how to appropriately square growing urban populations with water conservation efforts.

Throughout the American West, state constitutions and statutes have overwhelmingly adopted the prior appropriation system of water rights and rendered the waters within the state to be either public or state property.^[74] Prior appropriation systems of water rights are based on the legal principle of “first in time, first in right”: The first entity “in time” to establish a water right has the superior right to the water.^[75] Thus, when the total water supply is limited, such as during a drought, the entity with the older water right is entitled to receive the total water supply guaranteed by their water right before any younger rights are fulfilled, if there is even a sufficient water supply remaining to fulfill any portion of these younger rights.^[76]

To establish a water right under a prior appropriation system, one must divert the water from its source for a beneficial use.^[77] While the term “beneficial use” remains vague, its three functions help provide its definition: (1) It emphasizes that ongoing use of water constitutes the basis of an appropriative right; (2) it demonstrates how water use is “limited to productive purposes”; and (3) it encourages judicial intervention to prevent wasteful water use.^[78] Water rights are “considered to be attached to [the] land” where the water is being put to beneficial use.^[79] The prior appropriation system of water rights is common throughout the American West because it does not guarantee that the supply of water will satisfy the demand—a helpful scheme for a drought‑stricken region.^[80] Built into a prior appropriation system is the fact that water users do not have a justified reliance on the availability of a water supply to meet their water rights.^[81] Therefore, it is a simpler administrative task for the state to restrict the water supply under a prior appropriation regime as no notice or administrative due process is required before the state acts.^[82]

Many municipalities in the American West get their water supplies from both prior appropriation and contractual rights. Contractual rights often stem from federal dam‑building projects run by the Bureau of Reclamation—the federal government’s “contemporary water management agency” which helps Western states “meet new water needs and balance the multitude of competing uses of water in the West.”^[83] Through these dam‑building projects, the federal government is able to influence the amount of water supply available to various states and localities in the West.^[84]

The most notable of these projects for Arizona and Nevada is the Boulder Canyon Project Act of 1928.^[85] This Act authorized the construction of the Hoover Dam on Lake Mead and apportioned the rights to Colorado River water among the lower Colorado River Basin states (Arizona, California, and Nevada).^[86] Thus, Arizona’s and Nevada’s supplies of Colorado River water are largely regulated at the federal level and are subject to change through contractual negotiations with other states in the Colorado River Basin.^[87] For instance, Phoenix is attempting to lessen the amount of Colorado River water it consumes in exchange for federal funding to build a water purification facility.^[88] While this Section provides a detailed description of how Arizona’s and Nevada’s water rights systems function, it is important to remember that federal contracts and negotiations can circum vent those systems to varying degrees too.^[89]

In all, the legal system through which water rights are secured is fairly uniform throughout the American West, with water supplies typically coming from a state’s prior appropriative right or federal contracts. With this background, it is important to explain the nuances and particularities of these legal schemes in Arizona and Nevada to best situate an analysis of the conservation policies of Phoenix and Las Vegas. Since Nevada utilizes the more standard legal approach to water rights management, this Note will describe its regime first,^[90] followed by Arizona’s less typical and unoptimized approach.^[91]

Nevada’s Prior Appropriation System

Nevada manages its waters in the standard way most Western states do—under a prior appropriation regime.^[92] This means that Nevada manages its water supply for the public’s benefit, a power that falls on Nevada’s State Engineer, who has broad authority to manage Nevada’s water through a permitting system.^[93] For instance, if the state engineer determines that an entity is not using its water right for a beneficial use, the state engineer has the authority to cancel that entity’s water permit.^[94] The state engineer can also cancel a portion of an entity’s water permit even if only a portion of the water allocated to the entity is not being put to a beneficial use.^[95] The state engineer reviews for beneficial use by determining if the amount of water requested in a permit is the amount reasonably required for the permit’s purpose such that the entity will indeed use all the water requested in the permit; otherwise, the state engineer will revoke the permit or a portion of the permit for any water not being beneficially used.^[96]

Moreover, the state engineer has the authority to regulate water across and within a water basin.^[97] Water basins are areas where all the sources of water are interconnected; therefore, if water in a river flows into a lake, removing water from the river will lower the water level of the lake, as well.^[98] Similarly, some of the water in a river will become groundwater by seeping through the soil and into aquifers—porous rock material that holds groundwater.^[99] Therefore, groundwater levels are also affected by removing water from the river and vice versa. All this water, from the river to the lake to the underground aquifer, constitutes one water basin. In Nevada, if the drilling of new water wells would affect or deplete the water source used by existing wells in the same water basin, the state engineer has the authority to restrict the new drilling activity.^[100]

The state engineer can further designate a basin as over‑appropriated, meaning that there is an insufficient water supply to provide every water rights holder in the basin with their appropriated amount of water.^[101] If the state engineer designates a basin as over‑appropriated, it prompts the duty of the water rights holders to create a water management plan that will bring the basin’s water back to an equilibrium, where the basin’s water supply will meet the appropriated demand.^[102] When analyzing the state engineer’s decision to designate a basin as over‑appropriated, courts analyze whether the evidence reasonably supports the state engineer’s conclusion; if so, that conclusion is upheld.^[103]

Recently, the state engineer’s authority greatly increased as a result of the Nevada Supreme Court’s decision in Sullivan v. Lincoln County Water District.^[104] In Sullivan, the state engineer combined the individual management of separate water basins into one superbasin management system due to the basins’ interconnectivity.^[105] The state engineer believed the combination of separate water basins into one basin management system was necessary to protect the Moapa Dace, an endangered fish species.^[106] Accordingly, the court concluded that the state engineer indeed has the authority to manage surface water (which flows in rivers and lakes) and groundwater (which seeps through the soil and collects in underground aquifers) in order to jointly administer water rights across interconnected basins.^[107] Thus, the court upheld the state engineer’s authority to combine water basins for management purposes related to protecting an endangered species because the scientific evidence of the interconnectivity of water basins supported the state engineer’s decision to jointly manage them.^[108] The decision reflects science’s increasing understanding of the interconnectivity of water sources and enables the state engineer to utilize such knowledge to maximize public welfare in future water management decisions.^[109]

Sullivan also reflects how Nevada’s water management scheme prioritizes conservation, as the court granted expansive authority to the state engineer to determine the best conservation measures for endangered species.^[110] Overall, Nevada’s legal regime for distributing water rights prioritizes conservation and modernization with science’s evolving understanding of the interconnectivity of water systems.

Arizona’s Mixed System

Unlike Nevada’s water management system, Arizona’s state government manages the waters within its borders under two separate regimes: prior appropriation and common law. First, Arizona’s prior appropriation regime manages the state’s surface and “subflow” waters.^[111] Subflow water is a type of groundwater defined as “waters which slowly find their way through the sand and gravel constituting the bed of the stream, or the lands under or immediately adjacent to the stream, and are themselves a part of the surface stream.”^[112] Arizona’s prior appropriation system operates similar to that of Nevada: The surface and subflow waters are public property and are appropriated for beneficial use, individuals and corporations possess the same appropriative rights, and no reservation for future beneficial use is permitted.^[113]

Second, Arizona’s common law regime manages “waters percolating generally through the soil” that gather as groundwater and not in “subterranean streams, flowing in natural channels between well‑defined banks.”^[114] Under the common law system, this percolating‑through‑soil groundwater is the property of the overlying landowner.^[115] Instead of the beneficial use required under prior appropriation, the common law requires reasonable use of the water by the landowner.^[116] Unless the landowner is not using their water right reasonably, the landowner’s water use will be permitted.^[117] For instance, in Arizona’s landmark case, which “established the right of the surface owner to reasonable use of the water percolating under his property,”^[118] the plaintiffs had been using the water under their property for domestic purposes.^[119] However, the defendants had dug a nearby well for irrigation purposes that took water from under plaintiffs’ property for use on defendants’ land three miles away.^[120] Because the defendants used the water for no beneficial purpose for the land from which it was taken from, the Arizona Supreme Court concluded the defendants’ use of the water was unreasonable.^[121] About a decade later, the Arizona Supreme Court further clarified the rule for determining the reasonable use of percolating water: “Percolating waters may not be used off the lands from which they are pumped if thereby others whose lands overlie the common supply are injured.”^[122] Consequently, the beneficial use requirement of prior appropriation regimes is a much stricter requirement on water users than the common law’s reasonable use standard.^[123]

This bifurcated approach to water management is based on a hydrological misconception: Science now understands how all percolating‑through‑soil groundwater is connected to both subflow groundwater and surface water in the water cycle.^[124] Because this bifurcated water rights framework operates counter to science’s understanding of the connectivity of all water sources, it poses issues for Arizona in its efforts to effectively manage its limited water supply. By choosing to not manage the state’s water supply holistically through one universal water management system regulated at the state level, Arizona’s dual management system burdens local and state governments who want to ensure their future water supply but are unaware of the state’s total supply, how much neighboring localities are consuming, and potentially even how much their own citizens are consuming. This lack of knowledge, as caused by Arizona’s bifurcated water management regimes, has caused “Arizona [to] consume[] far more groundwater than nature can replenish,” as evidenced by its current crisis.^[125]

Overall, Nevada and Arizona’s systems of water management reflect the general practices of states in the American West: adopting prior appropriation regimes to give the state more power to try to adequately manage the region’s scarce yet in demand water resources. As both rely on a mix of groundwater, prior appropriations, and dam contracts, it is crucial to understand the differences between their state appropriative regimes.^[126] While Nevada’s delegation of authority to its state engineer has aided Nevada in managing its water resources,^[127] Arizona’s bifurcated approach to regulating its groundwater is an anomaly and continues to hinder Arizona’s ability to find adequate solutions to its water conservation problems.^[128] In keeping with these approaches, Nevada’s laws regarding development and water continue to utilize the state engineer as a pivotal decision-maker. In contrast, Arizona’s approach is more ad hoc and places the burden of regulating water usage and conservation on local entities, worsening the problems manufactured by Arizona law failing to adopt a holistic approach to water regulation.^[129]

Regulating Development

Similar to how states have the authority to regulate water resources due to the police power, that power also authorizes states to regulate their own development.^[130] Real estate developments are mainly regulated through zoning at the local level, as opposed to the state level, because most state governments delegate their zoning authority to municipalities due to their proximity to and understanding of local issues.^[131] Local governments largely use utility law and the state’s police power to regulate development.^[132] Public utilities, which are owned by cities, must service residents who want those services on reasonable terms, meaning public utilities may only discriminate among their customers based on a reasonable classification.^[133] For instance, courts have deemed the actions of public utilities reasonable when they choose to not extend their service to new customers when their resource, like water, is limited.^[134] However, public utilities have a presumed duty to serve all new developments in their area of service and to anticipate the future growth of its serviceable region in order to meet future utility demand.^[135] When this presumed duty to serve is coupled with prior appropriation systems, unlimited growth results because public utilities’ duty enables cities to focus solely on land use planning without concern for the ability of the public utility to service the proposed development areas.^[136] Cities know that public utilities must meet the resulting demand of whatever land use plan they might construct.^[137] This conflict historically caused races to secure water supplies in developing Western cities given the significant potential that early water appropriations possessed: Municipalities wanted to secure water supplies adequate for their land use and growth plans; individuals wanted to secure their own water supplies for their own purposes or simply sell to these municipalities for a profit.^[138]

The state’s police power can be utilized to control the growth of a community through the practice of zoning.^[139] As such, the government can implement zoning or land use planning to promote the health, safety, and welfare of its residents.^[140] This power has enabled the legislature to determine how a community ought to balance between its priorities of beauty, health, density, and cleanliness.^[141]

Exemplifying the intersection of zoning and water regulation, the Nevada Supreme Court’s recent decision in Redrock Valley Ranch, LLC v. Washoe County broke important ground regarding how to manage both development and water rights.^[142] There, the court determined that a decision by the state engineer does not preempt zoning by any government entity that restricts water more severely than the state engineer’s decision.^[143] The government’s determination of the appropriate zoning of an area, given the available water supply, is a separate determination from that done by the state engineer because the government weighs the political, economic, and social consequences of such a decision; in contrast, the state engineer’s sole focus is on environmental consequences.^[144] Therefore, local government entities may limit water use more than is required by the state engineer as long as those limits (1) are consistent with Nevada’s long‑term water management plans and Nevada law and (2) promote the public welfare.^[145] In other words, if the state engineer wants the water use restricted a certain amount, that is the standard followed unless the local government chooses to restrict water use beyond the amount designated by the state engineer.^[146] If the local government chooses to restrict water more than the restriction required by the state engineer, then the local government’s water restriction applies, thus preempting the state engineer’s restriction.^[147]

Related to specific zoning distinctions, the Arizona Supreme Court has held that there is no duty of public utilities to serve non‑residents, even if the utilities’ water lines are directly adjacent to a non‑residential property.^[148] Moreover, Arizona practices municipal water speculation, requiring cities to choose either to not expand or to demonstrate that they have a water supply adequate to meet the demands from increased development.^[149] Municipal governments in Arizona are not permitted to approve new real estate developments unless they can “guarantee a hundred‑year water supply to satisfy its projected demand.”^[150] This required one hundred‑year water supply is known as the Assured Water Supply.^[151] The Assured Water Supply focuses on two factors: the availability of the state’s water supply, which requires complicated calculations to determine the total water supply, and the locality’s financial capabilities in storing and delivering the available water, which historically resulted in a rush to acquire water to meet the hundred‑year rule.^[152] While the practice of preemptively acquiring water to satisfy the hundred‑year rule could be viewed as appropriating water for a future use (an action not permitted under a prior appropriation system), courts have generally approved of this “forward planning” exercise in light of the state’s statutory requirements.^[153]

Overall, the power granted to state and local governments to regulate their communities is vast, and it gives cities like Phoenix and Las Vegas the authority to determine their own balances between increasing development to meet the population demand and conserving their water supplies. If Phoenix and Las Vegas do not plan their development responsibly, their public utilities will be in violation of the law, as public utility law imposes a duty on public utilities to meet future demand.^[154] Therefore, in their efforts to sustainably manage growing populations with decreasing water supplies, Phoenix and Las Vegas must utilize their zoning authorities to restrict water use as needed throughout their cities and promote public health and welfare.^[155] The ways in which Phoenix and Las Vegas have approached the issue of managing growing populations with worsening drought by utilizing public utility law and zoning have garnered lots of attention, as both cities are pioneers in various regulation and conservation efforts.

Phoenix’s Water Conservation and Development Policies

Phoenix is one of the hottest cities in the United States, both to move to and literally,^[156] and it has made recent headlines regarding both the state’s and the city’s efforts to remedy its water supply problem.^[157] Given these attributes, Part II analyzes Phoenix’s water conservation and development policies to understand how Phoenix balances its growing population with its drought‑stricken water supply.^[158] First, Section II.A briefly discusses the background of the relationship between Phoenix and water and the smaller actions that have been taken to conserve the city’s water.^[159] Then, Section II.B provides an in‑depth analysis of the Sustainable Desert City Development Policy—legislation passed by the Phoenix City Council that takes relatively drastic measures to bring the city’s growing population into balance with its water supply now and in the future.^[160] The legislation focuses on reducing the water consumption of residential areas and landscaping in an effort to mitigate both its water and population problems.

Overall, while Phoenix is implementing some policies targeted at conserving water directly, its local and state governments’ main approach to solve Phoenix’s water supply issue is through anti‑development legislation. Phoenix is the first major metropolitan area in the United States to take the anti‑development approach to this issue, making it an important and unique case study.^[161] However, despite its pioneering efforts, Phoenix’s anti‑development approach will likely prove less effective and efficient in both the short‑ and long‑term unless it is married with more policies that are more directed at conserving water.

Background

“[W]e are not out of water and we will not be running out of water,” said Arizona’s governor Katie Hobbs regarding the state’s dwindling water supply.^[162] Phoenix, like Las Vegas, is a city standing in defiance of the desert, managing a rapidly growing population in the face of aridification.^[163] The city “has maintained a very active and successful water conservation program since the 1980’s,” causing Phoenix’s overall water consumption to decrease approximately 30 percent over the last two decades.^[164] Over the same time period, average water usage per capita has remained stable, too.^[165] The major legislation implemented in 1980 that has caused these metrics is known as the Groundwater Management Act, which promoted the state’s reduced reliance on groundwater sources in favor of developing and utilizing alternative sources.^[166] In Phoenix, the Groundwater Management Act’s goal has been achieved, with the city’s existing homeowners having adequate protection to continue receiving water as needed.^[167] Treating a water conservation policy as a “consumer protection program” proved successful and has ensured Phoenix’s water supplies are available in advance of the city’s growth.^[168]

However, while Governor Hobbs’s statement rings true currently, there is one particular ongoing threat to its validity. Current predictions of Phoenix’s Assured Water Supply (the water supply needed to meet the city’s needs for the next one hundred years) state that the well will run dry by 4.86 million acre feet of water, or about 4 percent short of the water demand, over the next one hundred years.^[169] A contributing factor to this issue was the implementation of yet another legal fiction in Arizona law: Developments in the outer urban sprawl around Phoenix were built utilizing a state‑authorized program that let subdivisions “suck up groundwater in one place if they [could] pump it back into the ground elsewhere in the basin.”^[170] Groundwater supplies are now “coming up short,” the embodiment of this “hydrological disconnect coming home to roost.”^[171] Thus, developers and citizens, more generally, are greatly worried about the future of Phoenix’s water supply.^[172] When asked about the city’s lack of Assured Water Supply, Cynthia Campbell, Phoenix’s water resources management adviser, went as far as to say: “The reality is, it all came back to catch us.”^[173]

Beyond the fact that Phoenix’s Assured Water Supply is projected to be about 4 percent short of the city’s water demand over the next century, there is a compounding concern that the current projections expect Phoenix’s water supply to come up short. This is because it is more likely than not that Arizona’s allotment of Colorado River water will shrink due to the region’s ongoing aridification.^[174] Already, Arizona, California, and Nevada needed to broker a “conservation deal to keep 3 million acre‑feet of water in the Colorado River” for 2023 to 2026.^[175] In other words, the severity of Phoenix’s drought and population boom is difficult to predict. Thus, Phoenix’s water supply being short 4 percent over the next century is likely the best‑case scenario if Phoenix does not enact aggressive conservation policies now.

In response, the Phoenix Water Services Department (PWSD), Phoenix’s equivalent to Las Vegas’s Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA),^[176] began implementing more aggressive water conservation measures. To tackle this shortfall in water supply, efforts of all sizes are needed. Small efforts have resulted in measures like lessening leaks in the PWSD system.^[177] This has manifested in contracting additional positions for water management staff when excessive leaks occur and exploring new technologies for faster detection of leaks in order to reduce staff’s response time in fixing them.^[178] Larger efforts have come about in measures like upgrading the city’s water purification system.^[179] Plans are underway for upgrading the city’s existing wastewater treatment facility into an advanced water purification plant.^[180] The plant will purify sixty million gallons of water a day, enough for approximately 200,000 households a year, which would halve the amount of Phoenix’s dependence on Colorado River water.^[181] There is also a unique collaborative element to this project, as Phoenix has plans to share the purified water with other cities that buy into the plant.^[182]

Moreover, $40 million in federal COVID‑19 recovery funds have been repurposed and given to another tool the PWSD utilizes—the Arizona Water Resiliency Fund—to promote groundwater conservation and obtain sustainable water supplies.^[183] The PWSD also works with Phoenix area golf courses to assist them in developing and utilizing alternative sources of water for their lawns, such as reclaimed or raw water.^[184] Similarly, the Phoenix City Council has considered promoting technology that captures rainwater in the city’s homes and providing a rebate incentive for those who install it, but that has yet to materialize.^[185] While these policies do not worsen the water supply shortage, they tend to focus on making the current system more efficient, which will reduce water consumption only marginally compared to targeting the amount of water consumed by the various sectors of the city.

State Involvement

To remedy this gap, the State of Arizona stepped in and implemented its own regulations to enforce alongside the city’s own efforts to restrict future homebuilding in Phoenix.^[186] Arizona will deny any new certificates of the Assured Water Supply for home construction, requiring developers to find other water sources for their developments to be approved instead.^[187] Developers in search of alternative water sources have been instructed to look to entities with excess water to sell, such as farmers or Indigenous Peoples with water rights.^[188] However, farmers and Indigenous Peoples are experiencing the same drought as the rest of the region, so asking them to sell some of their already‑shrinking water supply is unlikely to result in Phoenix developers securing more water.^[189] It is unclear what alternative water sources would be ideal for developers to utilize.

Developers with current permits to build on undeveloped lots using the Assured Water Supply may still do so.^[190] This is likely because these development companies rely on their already secured water permits, and it would be unfair to revoke the developers’ current, unused water permits, leaving them high and dry with no recourse to obtain the water needed for their planned developments. In not revoking these currently unused water permits, Arizona is “counting on new water conservation measures and alternative sources to produce the water necessary for . . . developments that have already been approved.”^[191] If all currently approved permits go forward as planned, eighty thousand unbuilt lots will be developed using the Assured Water Supply, further straining the city’s water supply.^[192] In response, Phoenix has begun taking additional efforts to curb the city’s water consumption.

The Sustainable Desert City Development Policy

The most notable of those efforts is the Sustainable Desert City Development Policy (SDCDP), the most restrictive and wide‑ranging policy of any Western city in attempting to balance development with water conservation. Phoenix’s city council enacted the SDCDP in 2023 with the goal of reducing residential and commercial water consumption.^[193] To achieve this goal, the city will implement modern water efficiency standards in both indoor and outdoor developments to ensure that new construction projects will conserve more water than older developments.^[194] Most importantly, Phoenix plans to also restrict development, with measures ranging from limiting pool sizes to reducing landscaping to prohibiting development altogether.^[195] To date, this is the strongest display of a Western state’s police power in addressing the effect of population growth on water conservation efforts. The SDCDP provides drought mitigation measures as well, dissuading Phoenix from annexing land currently outside of its utility service area during times of drought.^[196]

The bulk of the SDCDP’s provisions affect landscaping in residential and commercial developments, indoor and outdoor water efficiency standards, new residential construction projects, and customers using exorbitant amounts of water daily.^[197] For instance, customers using more than five hundred thousand gallons of water a day must get at least 30 percent of it from recycled sources.^[198] The Phoenix City Council’s future considerations in expanding the plan include requirements for indoor and outdoor water meters, which could help “the city hold developers accountable to agreements that outline reduced irrigation.”^[199]

While the SDCDP is a large step by Phoenix in working toward bettering the city’s water sustainability, most aspects of the SDCDP have yet to be codified.^[200] The process to codify these policies takes time due to city staff needing to determine “what measures are practical and realistic to mandate,” and if changes are made to city ordinances or city building codes, those changes would be subject to a public comment process.^[201] Thus far, Phoenix has enacted an ordinance for the SDCDP provision requiring new projects expected to use more than 250,000 gallons a day to submit a water conservation plan to the PWSD.^[202] In the meantime, the SDCDP provisions that have not been codified will instead function as rezoning stipulations, allowing developers to continue to build new properties and request land to be rezoned as long as developers comply with both the codified and uncodified provisions of the SDCDP.^[203]

The SDCDP’s largest impact is on the Phoenix metropolitan area’s residential water use and residential development.^[204] In creating the SDCDP, the Phoenix City Council was inspired by the Verdin neighborhood development (Verdin) in North Phoenix, a development that embraced water conservation measures.^[205] Verdin’s developers were motivated to create a water‑smart neighborhood because its land is “one of the only pieces of private property in the Sonoran [Desert] Preserve area.”^[206] Therefore, they wanted to make the neighborhood have a “natural desert feel” that was “sensitive to the surrounding wildlife and to water conservation.”^[207] Verdin saved eighty million gallons a year through utilizing natural and native landscaping around the neighborhood and was overall projected to use fifty‑five million fewer gallons of water per year than a similarly sized standard subdivision.^[208] Through the success of Verdin, the Phoenix City Council saw an opportunity to spearhead the implementation of policies reflective of Verdin’s success and utilize them to meet the city’s increasing housing demand while still conserving water.^[209]

An additional SDCDP regulation affecting residential properties is the third‑party certification requirement.^[210] For the certification requirement, residential developers must get their homes certified as water efficient by a third party.^[211] One of the popular certifications in this field is EPA’s WaterSense program; for Phoenix developers to achieve such a certification, their homes have to use 30 percent less water than an average home.^[212] While the SDCDP implemented relatively aggressive residential land use limitations, like this certification requirement, other types of developments, like commercial buildings and factories, have remained largely unaffected and continued developing as normal.^[213]

The SDCDP also impacts the landscaping of Phoenix.^[214] All nonresidential city customers must remove their nonfunctional turf, including city‑owned turf in spaces like roadway medians.^[215] North Phoenix already had this policy in place, but with its incorporation into the SDCDP, the policy is now applicable in the larger Phoenix metropolitan area, contributing to greater conservation and the return of the desert landscape to the city.^[216] For all new developments, residential or not, the SDCDP requires their landscaping to be drought tolerant and consist of native plants instead of thirsty non‑native plants.^[217] This contributes to the city’s conservation efforts because it ensures new developments will create less strain on water resources.^[218]

Between the likely temporary end of groundwater permits and the implementation of aggressive water conservation and land use policies through the SDCDP, the City of Phoenix is signaling the end of its period of explosive growth.^[219] These restrictive policies embody the most any Western city has flexed its police power to manage the problems of development and water conservation. Instead of attacking the problem from the water conservation side, Phoenix aimed its efforts mainly at curbing development instead. By limiting development, the hope is likely that people will stop migrating to Phoenix, as there will be an insufficient supply of places to live and work. Fewer people moving to Phoenix means less of a strain on the city’s water supply, which would allow Phoenix’s water conservation policies to be less severe. While these policies might not significantly curb the problem in the short term given that many preapproved developments are still being built, these policies have the potential to drastically change the calculus of Phoenix’s problem in the coming years for the better. Will the positive effects of these policies ultimately materialize too late though? The answer remains unclear.

Las Vegas’s Water Conservation and Development Policies

Despite facing the same problem of a shrinking water supply while populations increase, Phoenix and Las Vegas are tackling the problem in considerably different ways. Therefore, Part III focuses on the actions Las Vegas has taken to balance its increasing population with its decreasing water supply, in order to form the second half of the foundation of the case comparison in Part IV.^[220] In doing so, Part III will begin by briefly discussing the background of the relationship between Las Vegas and water as well as some common misconceptions. Section III.A analyzes the city’s approach to regulating water in the residential sector and highlights Las Vegas’s wastewater patrol.^[221] Section III.B then discusses Las Vegas’s regulations of the commercial sector.^[222]

Accordingly, before a detailed explanation of Las Vegas’s policies, it is crucial to provide a contextual background: Entering Las Vegas, one is met with grandiose displays of water in the desert, from the many pools lining the Las Vegas Strip to the city’s lush golf courses.^[223] One particularly grand display is the famous Bellagio Fountains, a seemingly irresponsible waste of water in the Nevadan desert.^[224] However, the water in the Bellagio Fountains is actually too salty to drink and is only enough to irrigate about eight acres.^[225] The Bellagio Fountains also do not take from the city’s water supply; instead, the Fountains use groundwater from the Bellagio Casino’s private well.^[226] In fact, less than 5 percent of Southern Nevada’s total water use comes from the casinos lining the Strip.^[227] The other 95 percent of Southern Nevada’s total water use is by residential developments, commercial and industrial developments, golf courses, the government, common areas, and more.^[228]

Las Vegas is “one of the most water‑minded places on Earth” as well as one of the “most water secure area[s] that relies on the Colorado River.”^[229] Since 2002, Southern Nevada’s population has grown by approximately 829,000 people, yet the region was able to cut its Colorado River usage by approximately 55 percent, or 38 billion gallons, during that same time period.^[230] In fact, the SNWA, which is tasked with managing the region’s water supply, succeeded in significantly decreasing the region’s reliance on Colorado River water by recycling nearly all of the water used indoors and returning it to Lake Mead, the region’s reservoir on the Colorado River.^[231] Southern Nevada has the largest water recycling plant in the Colorado River Basin, which is always expanding in order to accommodate the region’s increasing population.^[232] This recycling plant is a water conservation victory as, in 2021, about half of the water the region consumed was recycled and returned to Lake Mead.^[233]

Beyond the recycling of the region’s water, the SNWA’s success in reducing the region’s water consumption is also rooted in its mandatory conservation measures, such as “seasonal watering restrictions, golf course water budgets, a grass replacement program, water waste penalties, and changes to municipal codes that significantly reduced the impact of new development on [Southern Nevada’s] water supply.”^[234] Due to Las Vegas’s successes in balancing water conservation amid its exponential population growth by focusing on what policies are most effective and best‑suited to each sector, Las Vegas’s policies should serve as a model for other Western cities facing similar issues. In other words, Las Vegas’s choice to impose harsher conservation efforts on the sector that consumes the most water—the residential sector—and not on sectors that consume less water—like the commercial sector—is both logical and has proven effective in reducing the city’s water usage.

The Residential Sector

The SNWA’s conservation measures are largely aimed at reducing water use in the residential sector because it consumes the most water of any other sector in Southern Nevada.^[235] Within Las Vegas, residential use accounts for 60 percent of the city’s water consumption.^[236] This differs from the largest sector of water consumption in all of Nevada, the agricultural sector, which consumes 78 percent of the state’s total water supply.^[237] Statewide, the residential and commercial sectors account for a combined 13 percent of the state’s water consumption.^[238] This discrepancy between how water is consumed in Nevada at the state and local levels could be viewed as a reason to focus conservation efforts solely on the agricultural sector—to make the biggest impact by targeting the biggest water consumer. However, this discrepancy further highlights why that approach would not effectively aid the problem in Las Vegas, as regulating agricultural water consumption in the rest of the state would have little impact on Las Vegas’s local water systems that are currently under strain from mainly residential consumption.^[239] There is no guarantee that water conserved from regulating the agricultural sector throughout the rest of the state would directly increase the water supply of Las Vegas.^[240] Thus, the most effective way to aid Las Vegas’s water scarcity problem is to address Las Vegas’s, not Nevada’s, main water‑consuming sector: the residential sector. As a result, both the SNWA and Nevada legislature have implemented policies aimed at curbing residential water use in Las Vegas.^[241]

With this goal of reducing residential water use, the SNWA invested in the “Water Smart Homes” program, which ran from 2005 until 2020.^[242] This program outfitted select new residential developments with “water‑saving features and products ranging from pressure‑limiting water‑main valves to ‘smart’ landscape irrigation systems,” ranging from showerheads to bath faucets.^[243] Additionally, each home received an adjustable pressure reduction valve that maintained “optimum efficiency” of water pressure throughout the home.^[244] During the program’s operation from 2005 to 2020, approximately seventeen thousand homes were built under the standards of the program, amounting to about fourteen billion gallons of water saved.^[245] The program ended when state and federal actors stepped in. The Arizona Legislature passed Assembly Bill 163, which “required all new single‑family residential construction after Jan[uary] 1, 2020, to include WaterSense‑labeled toilets and fixtures.”^[246] On the federal side, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began an updated version of the SNWA’s program and called it the EPA WaterSense‑Labeled Homes V2 Program.^[247] EPA’s program served as a pilot study for the agency’s new V2 Program, which provided updated requirements for homes to be certified as WaterSense‑Labeled, such as “WaterSense‑labeled plumbing products and an inspection for leaks, and an efficiency requirement that homes” use 30 percent less water than “typical new construction based on national standards and norms.”^[248] During the pilot study period from July 2020 to March 2021, “568 homes in the Las Vegas area received the WaterSense label.”^[249] The Las Vegas pilot study proved that homes that secure the WaterSense label are saving significant amounts of water, about 44,000 gallons of water per year per home, which equates to about a 45 percent reduction in water use per home.^[250]

Another program introduced to help reduce the amount of residential water use was the “Pool Cover Instant Rebate Coupon Program,” which addressed a common issue faced by desert cities looking to conserve water: the loss of water from pools through evaporation.^[251] There are about 200,000 residential swimming pools in the Las Vegas area, and the water in each pool rapidly evaporates under the Nevada sun, resulting in an estimated annual loss of 23,000 gallons of water.^[252] By using a pool cover, water loss caused by that evaporation is reduced by up to 95 percent.^[253] This prompted the SNWA to enact the Pool Cover Instant Rebate Coupon Program, which reduced the cost of a pool cover for pool owners.^[254] The program was discontinued in 2020 due to the success of its prior efforts, which caused increasingly less rebates to be submitted since 2010, likely due to the program’s financial incentive for pool owners to get permanent pool covers.^[255] From 2005 until 2020, the program led to the distribution of over 45,000 rebates and the retention of 5.6 billion gallons of water.^[256]

With outdoor watering contributing to the total residential water usage of Las Vegas, the SNWA implemented a Cash For Grass program in 1999, paying homeowners three dollars per square foot of grass they replaced with water‑efficient desert landscaping.^[257] Since 1999, this program has resulted in the removal of 241 million square feet of grass, “saving more than 203 billion gallons of water.”^[258] In 2027, a new policy, Assembly Bill 356 (AB 356),^[259] will go into effect that will ban nonfunctional grass (that which solely exists for decoration in roadway “medians, roundabouts, business centers, HOA entrances[,] and bordering parking lots and streets”) from being irrigated with Colorado River water.^[260] This will hopefully save another 10 percent, or ten billion gallons of water, a year of Las Vegas’s allotment of Colorado River water.^[261]

The latest major SNWA policy is the imposition of excessive use fees within the water rate structure.^[262] This aims to reduce the amount of water consumed by the top 10 percent of Las Vegas water users, which accounts for 30 percent of the total water consumed by the city.^[263] In Las Vegas, residents are charged nine dollars per 1,000 gallons of water they consume above the city’s excessive use threshold of 28,000 gallons per month,^[264] with repeat offenders potentially receiving $5,000 fines.^[265] Within the first six months of this policy’s operation, about sixty thousand residents were charged excessive use fees, totaling $12 million.^[266] In 2021, there were 1,931 fines within the Las Vegas Valley Water District, totaling $560,320.^[267] While these methods might seem harsh, they have resulted in the almost unthinkable feat of decreasing Southern Nevada’s water consumption despite its unprecedented population boom.^[268] These methods are also necessary because it is most effective to address local stresses on local water systems by reducing those stresses locally instead of, for instance, enacting similarly harsh water conservation measures on the statewide agricultural sector. Generally, it is more likely that local solutions, like excessive use fees, will solve a local problem more quickly and more directly than a statewide solution.^[269]

The Nevada legislature is also playing a part in the water conservation effort. It recently enacted Assembly Bill 220 (AB 220), granting the SNWA the authority to limit the amount of water that single-family homes can use in a year to a half‑acre foot or 163,000 gallons.^[270] Eighty percent of homeowners in Southern Nevada and Las Vegas already consume less than a half‑acre foot of water a year, with the average home in Clark County (home of Las Vegas) consuming 130,000 gallons a year; so most homeowners will be unaffected by this legislation.^[271] On the other hand, the top 10 percent of water users consume 36 percent of all the water used in Las Vegas’s residential sector.^[272] These top 10 to 20 percent of water users usually have large homes coupled with expansive lawns and a pool or two.^[273] Therefore, the goal of AB 220 is to curb the water consumption of those top 10 to 20 percent of water users by forcibly limiting their water consumption.^[274] However, AB 220 will not go into effect unless the drought in the Colorado River Basin worsens, resulting in an even smaller amount of water supply for Las Vegas.^[275] A flow‑limiting device will likely be implemented if the SNWA needs to enforce the half‑acre foot limit, which will not entirely cut off a home’s water supply but instead cause a lower flow to enter the home.^[276] Even then, this legislation serves as a tool for the SNWA to guarantee that all residents receive adequate water supplies for basic necessities and to have greater authority regarding water use in new developments.^[277]

Additionally, AB 220 implements a system where property owners will be paid to connect their septic systems to the preexisting recycled water system in the city, enabling further water conservation.^[278] This septic system provision requires a showing that there is sufficient water available for new housing developments before they are approved.^[279] This grants public water utility companies more influence over such developments as it flips the typical burden of public utility law: Instead of the city making development plans that the public utility has a duty to fulfill, the public water utility can stop development if it determines there is an insufficient supply of water for the proposed development.^[280] With both the water limitation on single-family homes and the septic system payment plan, AB 220 is the first legislation of its kind in the United States, breaking new ground on water conservation efforts for Nevada.^[281]

Las Vegas has continued to implement the programs discussed above instead of directly limiting development due to the current programs’ successes and because new developments and building codes already conserve more water than existing buildings do.^[282] Overall, the way Las Vegas and Southern Nevada have targeted specific areas within the residential sector, such as lawns and pools, to limit water consumption has proven incredibly effective. Despite this success, however, the city still has a problem with residential properties wasting water. To combat this, Las Vegas decided to flex its police power a little more and created a water cop department.^[283]

The “Water Cops”^[284]

Las Vegas’s affectionately labeled “water cops,” or wastewater patrol, were created to help impose fees to curb water waste in the residential sector.^[285] The Las Vegas Valley Water District—the government entity that receives water from the SNWA to deliver to the residents of the Las Vegas Valley—created its wastewater patrol pursuant to the “the purposes of the Las Vegas Valley Water District Act” and Chapter 167 of the 1947 Nevada Statutes.^[286] Paramount among these purposes is the “preservation of public health, safety, or welfare.”^[287] The people on the wastewater patrol operate as investigators who mainly ensure compliance with Las Vegas’s local water regulations.^[288] The wastewater patrol even goes so far as to patrol neighborhoods around the Las Vegas Valley, looking to catch evidence of water waste, such as “water flowing onto sidewalks, leaky irrigation systems . . . [or] sprinklers running outside acceptable hours.”^[289] They document these violations and check to ensure old violations have been fixed.^[290]

The fact that the Las Vegas Valley Water District has enforcement personnel patrolling neighborhoods has proven an effective way to cut down on water waste, as many people might not notice nor act to fix a leaky sprinkler without feeling obligated to. Devyn Choltko, one of the wastewater investigators, has commented that “[m]ost people don’t even know they have a problem” with wasting water until an investigator gives them a notice.^[291] If the notice is ignored, the resident will be fined.^[292] As a result of this system, just 10 precent “or less of property owners that have a water waste investigation take place at their property . . . end up receiving a fee,” according to Bronson Mack, a SNWA spokesperson.^[293] Therefore, 90 percent or more of the residents who receive a notice from the wastewater patrol cease the conduct that was causing water waste on their property—a major win for the wastewater patrol program.^[294]

The SNWA’s prohibition on wasting water largely prohibits any water from flowing or spraying off a property, whether intentionally or through malfunctioning equipment, and bans property owners from using spray irrigation in the heat of the day during the summer.^[295] Exemptions to these regulations are specific types of irrigation that do not cause excessive water usage (like drip irrigation), residential car washing with a special hose, and any use to relieve a public health or safety hazard.^[296]

These regulations are clearly conveyed on the wastewater patrol’s website, empowering individuals to report water waste where they see it in their community.^[297] However, more often than not, residents do not realize they or their neighbors are violating a wastewater regulation until informed by the wastewater patrol.^[298] In that case, the patrol will not impose a fee on the resident unless the violation continues.^[299] The fees imposed by the water cops can vary from $80 for the first violation to $5,000 for repeat violations depending on the property’s water meter size, the property’s history of wastewater violations, and the region’s stage of drought.^[300]

AB 220 and local Las Vegas policies like the water cops are the first of their kind, showing how Nevada and Las Vegas are pioneers in the water conservation effort. From local SNWA policies like the Water Smart Homes program and Pool Cover Instant Rebate Coupon Program, aimed at reducing residential water consumption in targeted ways, to state legislation like AB 220, aimed at limiting residential water consumption generally, these efforts demonstrate how seriously the city is approaching its water conservation issue. Las Vegas is even going so far as to utilize its police power in the most literal sense by creating a new enforcement authority focused on preventing water waste.^[301] These policies aimed at regulating the residential sector are aggressive and largely successful in reducing residential water consumption. Thus, while it seems that Las Vegas has taken large steps to remedy the problem at hand by targeting the sector that consumes the most water, it is just as important to analyze what the city is doing to regulate its economic engine—its commercial sector.

The Commercial Sector

Overall, the conservation policies applicable to Las Vegas’s commercial sector are less aimed at reducing water consumption throughout the economy and more targeted at reducing the water use of specific parts of the commercial sector. Although there have been some widely applicable policies, like the Water Efficient Technologies Program, which has helped save more than twenty‑four billion gallons of water since 2001, Las Vegas has not focused much attention on commercial and business water use in its efforts to conserve water.^[302] This approach is logical given that commercial and industrial water consumption take up only 13.2 percent of Las Vegas’s total water supply and that the city is advocating for new development to adopt more water‑conscious conservation measures.^[303]

For instance, golf is a huge industry in Las Vegas; its economic impact is nearly $2 billion and it generates $750 million in revenue from tourism alone.^[304] Despite the golf sector’s large impact on the local economy, Las Vegas’s golf courses only consume 5 percent of the city’s water supply.^[305] Golf courses consume such small amounts of water in Las Vegas due to the government’s imposition of strict water budgets for golf courses.^[306] To ensure compliance with their water budgets and avoid the high penalties imposed for exceeding them, golf courses use a “combination of potable, raw, reclaimed and recycled water to help extend the community’s [water] supply.”^[307] Moreover, some Las Vegas golf courses save more water by using “warm season turf,” which stays green during the warm months and gets painted green during the cold months.^[308] Some golf courses have even participated in the SNWA’s program that converts unused turf to desert landscaping with the help of data recorded by GPS‑equipped golf balls that shows golf courses which areas of turf never get used by players.^[309] Lastly, some golf courses also utilize weather stations that inform their central irrigation computers to adjust irrigation run times of the golf course daily based on weather conditions.^[310] The SNWA’s current approach to further limit golf courses’ water consumption has been less active due to its earlier successes. Recently, the SNWA imposed an effective moratorium on new golf course construction by not allowing them to use Southern Nevada’s main water source—Colorado River water.^[311] The aforementioned 2027 law that bans the use of Colorado River water for irrigating nonfunctional grass, AB 356, will also prohibit the use of Colorado River water in the irrigation of nonfunctional grass at golf courses.^[312]

A recent attempt at legislation in Las Vegas’s commercial development sector is the Southern Nevada Economic Development and Conservation Act (“SNEDCA”), also known as the Clark County Lands Bill, which failed to pass in the U.S. House of Representatives.^[313] SNEDCA was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives in 2021, advocating to develop tens of thousands of acres of the desert surrounding Las Vegas in order to perpetuate the expansion of the city’s urban sprawl.^[314] As a part of the project, SNEDCA endorsed the Horizon Lateral pipeline, which would take more water from Lake Mead and potentially incentivize water consumption of Lake Mead below “the last 895 feet of the reservoir [which is] currently inaccessible to intake systems.”^[315] The authors of SNEDCA attempted to skirt around the flaws in the project by not mentioning drought mitigation or the effects of climate change on the region’s water supply in the bill.^[316] Likely due to the strain SNEDCA would put on the region’s already strained water resources, SNEDCA failed to pass in the House.^[317]

Despite the failure of SNEDCA’s passage, Las Vegas is still finding other ways to develop. One prominent development is the Apex Industrial Park (Apex): a seven-thousand-acre plot of land in the City of North Las Vegas set aside for manufacturing and general business development.^[318] Apex already has full utilities, including a new water system project which “includes a 15‑mile transmission main, a 20 million‑gallon‑per‑day pumping station, a 5 million‑gallon reservoir and a power substation.”^[319] To accomplish this feat and contribute to the continued growth of Apex, the SNWA has contributed over $250 million to Apex’s development.^[320] Nevada’s Senator Catherine Cortez Masto and Representative Steven Horsford introduced legislation in both the U.S. Senate and House, entitled the Apex Area Technical Correction Act (AATCA), to streamline Apex’s ongoing development.^[321] One of the purposes of the AATCA was to ease the burden of the permitting process for securing access to utilities from the Bureau of Land Management for businesses developing in Apex.^[322] Generally, this legislation granted North Las Vegas and the Apex Industrial Park Owners Association the authority “to issue utility and infrastructure‑related permits without dealing with the federal government’s [administrative] delays.”^[323] Doing so would create an incredible incentive for businesses to develop in Apex due to simpler procedures to secure water permits. While waiting for congressional action on the AATCA, Apex moved ahead as planned; the AATCA was simply intended to speed up the planned development.^[324] In July 2025, the AATCA became law and became effective the date of its enactment, paving the way for a more efficient permitting process for the development of Apex which, many hope, will also result in more efficient development for Apex overall.^[325]

In all, these attempts at federal legislation, both successful and not, demonstrate that Las Vegas’s and Southern Nevada’s priorities lie with continuing development and business growth.^[326] In light of this, residents might be frustrated that their local government is encouraging economic growth and attaching fewer conservation requirements to it, while, in contrast, the same government is subjecting their residents to water limits, policing by water cops, and excessive fees for wasting water.^[327] The balance Las Vegas has decided to strike between conserving water and continuing development for its growing population is to make the city’s current residents take on the brunt of the conservation effort so that there is enough water to continue developing the city’s urban sprawl. The central benefits of this approach are that the ways in which Las Vegas is limiting its residents’ water usage are mostly meant to stop people from wasting water, which is reasonable to ask of a population, and it allows for the continued economic prosperity of the city. The main drawbacks of this approach are that, overall, Las Vegas is regulating the residential sector considerably more than the commercial sector and enacting harsher conservation policies on its current residents in order to make room for its new residents moving in from all around the country. However, despite these drawbacks, Las Vegas’s approach should be preferred by other similarly situated Western cities over Phoenix’s approach.

Case‑Study Comparisons

Phoenix and Las Vegas are facing the same problem—decreasing water supplies despite rapidly growing populations. Through the policies of both cities, as outlined above, it is clear both Phoenix and Las Vegas have prioritized addressing their water supply shortages. Their commitment is evident from both cities being at the forefront of this effort: Las Vegas pioneering the conversion of its current system to be more water conscious and Phoenix shepherding the limitation of its residential developments to conserve water by stopping its urban expansion.^[328] However, there are benefits and drawbacks to each city’s approach.

While Las Vegas places the burden of conservation more so on its current residents, especially those that consume the most water, Phoenix places it on would‑be residents and those living on the outskirts of its urban area, as demonstrated in Section IV.A.^[329] Section IV.B outlines how Las Vegas prioritizes continued development of all types, and even attempts to remove red tape to alleviate the administrative burdens that come with development projects; whereas, Phoenix prioritizes nonresidential developments and the revitalization of the city’s urban core.^[330] Lastly, Section IV.C discusses how, overall, both Phoenix and Las Vegas’s conservation measures succeed in their intended purpose—helping their city conserve water and promoting environmental sustainability.^[331]

Equity

First and foremost, the manner in which these approaches are equitable is crucial to their success. The central concern with equitably distributing the burden of water conservation in Phoenix and Las Vegas is ensuring that those who use the most water and have the most resources, such as businesses and high‑income residents, are the parties affected first and the most by the conservation policies. Without equitably distributing the burden of water conservation, these local policies could face harsh opposition from the voting public, which could ultimately result in the termination of these policies. Moreover, equitably distributing this burden is more likely to result in more effective and efficient water conservation, as it will likely be easier for those who use the most water to cut back their water usage more than those already using small amounts of water. Given the importance of this factor in analyzing these policies, the approaches of both Phoenix and Las Vegas are outlined at length below, with Las Vegas’s approach resulting in a more successful equitable distribution of these burdens.

Effects in Phoenix

To analyze the equity of Phoenix’s approach, the effects of its approach must be discussed, starting with its main new policy: the SDCDP. Phoenix is the first major metropolitan area in the United States to implement a policy plan like the SDCDP, which limits development and demands the use of alternative water sources.^[332] Therefore, it is important to analyze how the SDCDP, along with other relevant local and state policies, will impact Phoenix, especially regarding the placement of the burdens of water conservation, the expected economic effects, and the environmental and sustainable outcomes. Similar to Las Vegas, while the equity of the burden is complicated, these policies are likely to have positive economic and environmental effects.

Phoenix’s situation of limiting future development to ensure its current residents’ water supply poses a complex equity issue. For instance, by limiting residential development, Phoenix’s existing homeowners and customers benefit because they escape the bulk of the burden of conserving more water.^[333] Alternatively, these measures burden those who would be moving into the new developments that will not be built, such as people migrating to Phoenix and those who live in the outskirts of the Phoenix metropolitan area.^[334] Small, unincorporated towns in the desert outside of Phoenix are where most of the region’s cheaper homes are built, so the towns have been “hot spots for growth.”^[335] Therefore, by restricting development for the sake of water conservation and directing growth away from water‑insecure areas bordering Phoenix, the region’s lower‑income populations will likely bear a greater burden than those who can afford to live closer to Phoenix’s water‑secure downtown.^[336]

Alternatively, there are wealthy Phoenix suburbs like the aptly named Queen Creek that have insufficient water supplies.^[337] Queen Creek, with its “‘oasis’” lake of recycled water, is one of Arizona’s fastest‑growing cities, with a current population of 75,000 that is “projected to grow to 175,000 by the time it is built out decades from now.”^[338] However, Queen Creek has already stretched its groundwater supply as far as it can—the city does not have enough groundwater to support its intended growth.^[339] Its projected population increase of 100,000 will only be possible if Queen Creek can secure an additional 9.8 billion gallons of water per year.^[340] While the town has been searching for new water sources, such as the Bartlett Lake reservoir or sources in western Arizona, the search has not been successful so far.^[341] With this being said, Queen Creek is the fourth‑richest city in Arizona,^[342] so the city of Queen Creek is likely better financially equipped than other less affluent cities in Arizona to find alternative water sources, or to relocate if necessary. Lack of access to water is never an equitable remedy for aridification concerns, but the city of Queen Creek has a stronger safety net to help them manage the lack of water supply than the lower‑income cities of Phoenix, whose residents, especially those with lower incomes, have and continue to deal with the many adverse effects of aridification.

The most important of those adverse effects is the number of heat‑related deaths. In 2020 alone, there were 323 heat‑related deaths in Maricopa County—the county containing Phoenix and some suburbs—which led to government efforts to protect vulnerable populations from the heat.^[343] The residents hit the hardest by these heat waves and lack of water are Phoenix’s most vulnerable.^[344] For instance, a seventy‑two‑year‑old woman died in her home “after Arizona’s largest electric utility turned off her service for failure to pay $51.”^[345] Moreover, racial minority groups had “disproportionately high death rates”: In 2023, racial minority groups comprised about 20 percent of Maricopa County’s population but 40 percent of heat‑related deaths.^[346] The same year, people experiencing homelessness constituted about half of heat‑related deaths.^[347] Furthermore, about 15 percent of heat‑related deaths in Maricopa County happen indoors, typically resulting from air conditioning that was broken or turned off.^[348] The remaining 85 percent of heat‑related deaths in Maricopa County occur outside, mostly to people working landscaping and construction jobs or using public transportation.^[349]

To help remedy the effects of this heat‑related crisis, both Phoenix and a local nonprofit organization have begun implementing helpful programs. Phoenix will install water fountains, water bottle filling stations, and misters around the city in addition to erecting four hundred bus stop shelters that will provide shade to those in need.^[350] Phoenix’s Office of Homeless Solutions and Office of Heat Response and Mitigation regularly provide water bottles, pop‑up shade, and even “cooling busses” to give people who otherwise cannot afford to escape the heat, like Phoenix’s residents experiencing homelessness, alternative ways to do so.^[351] Moreover, a nonprofit organization called Trees Matter aims to increase canopy shade coverage in Phoenix’s low‑income neighborhoods of color, which will help mitigate the issues caused by the city’s intense heat but could pose a threat to the availability of water in those neighborhoods, as planting and growing trees requires a lot of water.^[352] In attempting to solve this heat‑related health crisis, it is crucial for groups like Trees Matter to partner with the local government, as Phoenix is better equipped to determine the appropriate balance between mitigating its residents’ heat‑related health issues and conserving water; it is a delicate balance to strike, and a city government has more resources to strike it properly.

Phoenix’s vulnerable populations are additionally impacted by the price of water.^[353] While water itself is usually affordable,^[354] the resource is often part of the same customer bill as other city utilities, leading to large bills that lower‑income residents sometimes struggle to pay.^[355] Nonpayment causes water to be disconnected from the residence, resulting in water insecurity.^[356] There are often additional fees to stop and then restart the water connection to a residence, adding fuel to the fire if one cannot pay the original utility bill.^[357] Late payments come with additional fees, too, making it easy to see how “[w]ater insecurity tracks poverty and disproportionately . . . affect[s] the most vulnerable.”^[358] To mitigate these issues, Phoenix has implemented various programs to avoid the disconnection of water utilities.^[359] These programs include offering payment plans, providing customer assistance, giving “ample notice” before disconnecting the water, working with nonprofit organizations in the community to aid customers in getting back “on their feet,” and not disconnecting water on extreme heat days.^[360]

On the other hand, utilities find disconnecting water following nonpayment “necessary to ensure the financial viability of . . . water utilit[ies] and the continued investment in the rehabilitation and replacement of aging infrastructure that provides safe, clean, [and] reliable water deliveries.”^[361] If water utilities lack the funds to replace their aging infrastructure, low‑income residents will disproportionately feel the consequences of utilities being unable to provide safe drinking water because they often live in areas of the city with the oldest infrastructure.^[362] In all, the effects of Phoenix’s low‑income residents being unable to pay their utility bill can be far‑reaching, from not having water in their home to the neighborhood losing access to water altogether due to crumbling infrastructure.^[363]

While Phoenix’s vulnerable populations struggle to pay their utility bills, Phoenix’s wealthier residents are able to pay for their excessive water use.^[364] Phoenix intentionally drove up the price of excessive water use in an effort to increase water conservation, largely by decreasing the amount of water usage allowed before charging an additional fee.^[365] However, the city’s established, high‑income population is largely “oblivious to th[is] cost.”^[366] For instance, the manner in which these systems have been implemented allows Phoenix’s wealthier residents to continue using water to grow large, lush lawns because (1) their properties are not new and thus unaffected by the SDCDP’s restrictions on lawns, and (2) they likely have sufficient funds to pay a higher water bill if the water needed for their lawns is in excess of the limit.^[367] This causes additional harm to both the city’s desert environment and its water conservation efforts.^[368] While high‑income residents continue their “water‑rich lifestyles,” the city’s vulnerable communities will become “more water vulnerable as utilities raise water rates for residential customers” due to decreasing water supplies “even though [vulnerable communities] use much less water than affluent communities.”^[369]

To mitigate the disparity between Phoenix’s high‑ and low‑income populations, government intervention is needed to reallocate the burden of water conservation from the vulnerable to the wealthy.^[370] Doing so would create more equitable distribution of the burden of water conservation because vulnerable populations “lack the resources and support to cope with rapidly changing climate conditions and shifting water security” as opposed to high‑income populations.^[371] Therefore, it is fair to make Phoenix’s high‑income residents shoulder more of the burden to conserve the city’s water instead of placing that burden on the city’s low‑income population, which is already suffering greatly. This is the case for the two main reasons outlined in the preceding paragraphs: (1) The high‑income populations have more resources than low‑income populations to be able to shoulder the burden of water conservation, and (2) the high‑income residents generally use more water than vulnerable populations. Phoenix can greatly improve on the way it chooses to distribute the burden of water conservation on its citizens by focusing on creating equity in its policies. To see where and how Phoenix can improve the equitable effects of its approach, Las Vegas’s policies provide a helpful comparison.

Effects in Las Vegas

To begin analyzing the equitable effects of Las Vegas’s approach, its newest policy, AB 220, helps frame the discussion. The SNWA enacted legislation, AB 220, to regulate water within existing single-family homes but not for other developments, such as multifamily homes or business centers.^[372] This discrepancy in which building types have restricted water supplies is prejudicial toward the permanent and more high‑income residents of Las Vegas who want to and can afford to own a single‑family property in the city.^[373] In fact, many single‑family homeowners consider these policies an “overreach.”^[374] However, between single‑family and multifamily homes, the biggest opportunity to decrease residential water consumption is by restricting the water supply of single‑family homes.^[375] This is because the majority of water used in multifamily homes is used indoors, which means that it is treated and recycled back to Lake Mead, as opposed to the unreclaimable water more commonly used outdoors at single‑family homes, such as for landscaping and pools. Thus, multifamily homes consume much less water than single-family homes.^[376] Moreover, single-family homes are also much more likely to have lawns and pools than multifamily homes, resulting in even more water consumption by those properties.^[377] For all of these reasons, AB 220’s policies targeted at single‑family homes are not an overreach but an effort to reduce water waste and consumption in an area of the residential sector where there is room for improvements.

Additionally, AB 220 has been considered the “best option[] for ratepayers and taxpayers” because it enables the SNWA to limit the water flows of the residents who use the most water, thus equitably distributing the burden of paying for conservation, literally, on those who choose to use the most water.^[378] The excessive use fees also aid the stability of water rates for the majority of residents because, like AB 220, the residents who use the most water literally must pay for that usage while residents who conserve their water pay less.^[379] This particular form of justice rewards conserving water within one’s home.^[380]

On the other hand, the fact that Las Vegas intends to keep developing in the manner advocated by the SNEDCA does not serve equitable needs.^[381] Continuing the development of the city’s urban sprawl will “disproportionately threaten the health and safety of lower‑income and disadvantaged communities” while “pandering to wealthy outside demands.”^[382] Instead of developing for development’s sake, Southern Nevada should build efficiently with its natural resources and preexisting infrastructure to benefit all residents.^[383] By allowing and advocating for more construction projects in the region while at the same time curtailing much of their residents’ water usage through harsh regulations, Southern Nevada and Las Vegas are valuing continued growth over lessening the burden of water conservation on its residents.^[384] It is logical for the state to harshly curb the residential sector’s water usage: The state might currently have a valid reason for limiting its residential water consumption more than its development because residential use constitutes the majority of the region’s water consumption.^[385] However, if the region’s encouragement of more commercial and industrial development continues, the calculus might soon change.

As the region’s drought worsens, so too do its desert heat waves.^[386] As a result, Las Vegas had eighty‑two heat‑related deaths in 2020, resulting in government efforts to protect vulnerable, low‑income populations and ensure their access to water, similar to those undertaken by Phoenix.^[387] The heat waves in Las Vegas are harshest on its low‑income residents who are largely renters, thus meaning they cannot “install solar panels to save energy costs [during heat waves] and [instead] must rely on landlords to fix broken air conditioners.”^[388] Residents have suggested adding “water fountains, water bottle filling stations and misters at transit stops” throughout the city to help mitigate the effects of these heat waves—heat waves which will only worsen with the drought.^[389] Therefore, enacting legislation like the single‑family home restriction and AB 220 is an equitable and just course of action because it shifts the burden of conserving the city’s water more to the wealthier residents rather than the city’s lower income, non‑homeowning residents: a population that is already suffering greatly from the drought’s heat waves.

Accordingly, Las Vegas’s approach more equitably distributes the burden of water conservation among its growing population than Phoenix’s approach because Las Vegas’s policies place that burden first and to a greater extent on those who use the most water and those who have the most resources and are thus the most capable to make significant and sustainable reductions in water usage.

Economics

Next, the economic effects of both cities’ policies are important factors in determining their success. Implementing water conservation policies that stifle economic development would be the death knell of these cities just as much as not implementing any water conservation policies would. Therefore, the economic effects of Phoenix’s approach and Las Vegas’s approach are discussed below.

Effects in Phoenix

The largest economic effect of Phoenix’s approach is caused by the SDCDP. Through the limiting of residential development by the SDCDP, the “era of explosive growth in Greater Phoenix is coming to an end.”^[390] The price of housing in Phoenix is likely to increase significantly due to the limiting of its housing supply, disadvantaging people looking for property and benefitting landowners in the short‑ and long‑term. People looking for property, especially those of lower economic status, will be financially burdened by these increasing housing prices. Current homeowners, however, are in an ideal position because they have secured their property before the restrictions, so the value of their homes will only increase.^[391] Alternatively, developers are in a more complicated position because these policies will benefit them in the short term. The value of their preapproved developments will likely increase due to the restrictions. However, developers will likely struggle in the long term because, once their preapproved developments have been built, they will be unable to continue developing. This will likely result in major financial losses for Phoenix’s development sector. Seemingly the only way for developers to avoid this fate is to find alternative water supplies to enable the city’s continued growth.^[392]

The SDCDP will incentivize the discovery and development of alternative water supplies in order to avoid the SDCDP’s prohibition on development and to obtain approval for new developments.^[393] To find alternative sources of existing water, Phoenix would need to negotiate with “farmers and Native American tribes for their share of river water,” something neither group seems poised to do, given that each community is experiencing the same water shortages as the city.^[394] To develop alternative water supplies, Phoenix is looking to “improve groundwater capacity to supplement its surface water supply from snowmelt,” as well as “expand the use of highly treated wastewater, or reclaimed water.”^[395] Meanwhile, there are some efforts throughout the state to create desalination plants to make ocean water useable for Arizona’s populace.^[396] If these endeavors are successful, they could truly spur an economic boom in both Phoenix and the American West.^[397] Another result of these policies could be developers returning their focus to Phoenix’s urban core. The fact that the SDCDP’s prohibition on development does not extend to Phoenix’s downtown will likely make growth in the older, established portion of the city more attractive to developers than continued development of the region’s urban sprawl.^[398]

Additionally, because Phoenix allows existing water users to come up with their own water conservation plans, existing businesses have the burdensome task of determining how much water conservation is worth to them.^[399] Should they continue at current water consumption levels and operate as usual? Should they implement water conservation reforms that could cost them financially and disrupt their normal operations? The choice is up to each individual business.^[400] However, prospective businesses are subject to new regulations.^[401] If a new business could potentially use large amounts of water, the SDCDP requires them to “submit a water conservation plan for city approval.”^[402] In analyzing these plans, Phoenix considers “whether the project is a key industry that will benefit Phoenix’s economy, the economic value and impact of the proposed water use and the impact on water rates.”^[403] If the city determines that the plan is not compatible with Phoenix’s available water resources, the city can revoke its approval of the new business’s development; if the business promises to utilize water‑saving technology and does not do so, or if it consumes more than 120 percent of its expected water use, the city can suspend their water services or impose hefty fines.^[404] Alternatively, if the city determines that the plan is not compatible with the available water resources but the proposed business “has enough economic benefit to merit the large water use,” the city will likely approve the development.^[405] Phoenix might reach out to existing businesses that consume large amounts of water to require them to go through a similar process to reapprove their water usage.^[406] Nevertheless, such a requirement has yet to be enacted because doing so would require the temporary revocation and reinstitution of these businesses’ water permits—an action which would likely be viewed as unfair to these businesses who have economically relied on their current water permits.^[407]

On the development side, the SDCDP only limits residential and not industrial or commercial development, so a considerable portion of Phoenix’s economy will likely be relatively unaffected in the wake of its implementation.^[408] Unless the provisions adopted through the SDCDP prove insufficient to ensure the water sustainability of the city and additional measures are needed to lessen industry’s water consumption, addressing the problem of accommodating growing populations despite worsening drought will likely have little impact on the region’s economy outside of the residential development sphere.^[409]

Consequently, Phoenix’s ad hoc approach to water conservation lends itself to ad hoc economic effects, with the only notable and clear economic impact being the limitation of future residential development.

Effects in Las Vegas

Similarly, the economic effects of Las Vegas’s policies vary considerably. As mentioned in Section III.B, golf courses are a critical industry for Las Vegas and are a successful example of water‑conscious development.^[410] They have an estimated $2 billion annual economic impact on the city.^[411] Yet, despite other attempts at development that would further deplete Las Vegas’s water supply, golf courses have been water conservation champions, from using a combination of different types of water to extend the city’s water supply to utilizing weather stations to allow for water‑smart irrigation of the courses.^[412] Las Vegas’s golf industry demonstrates how it is possible for the commercial sector to conserve water while generating considerable revenue and having a considerable economic impact on the city.

Second, it is despite SNEDCA’s projected positive economic activity that it failed to pass in the U.S. House of Representatives.^[413] In construction alone, it would have likely generated thousands of jobs and significant revenue from both building the proposed water pipeline and developing the land into more urban sprawl.^[414] However, representatives in Congress considered the likely positive economic outcome of the passage of SNEDCA not worth the damage to Las Vegas’s water supply, and so the bill did not pass.^[415] This reflects the important calculation that governments at all levels are weighing between continuing the development of desert regions and conserving the water for the already existing developments there. In the case of SNEDCA, the latter argument won.

Third, Apex is a victory for business development in Las Vegas.^[416] With the passage of the AATCA, the project will ultimately bolster the local economy by providing approximately 116,000 local jobs, with approximately 32,000 of them being full‑time with “average annual wages paying around $67,000 a year,” and by generating close to $200 billion in total revenue.^[417] Now that builders in the Apex development are able to bypass federal administrative red tape, the development is a more desirable place for companies to build.^[418] There is already eight million square feet of industrial space constructed in Apex, with thirty-two million square feet currently under construction.^[419] The revenue from an industry‑focused development like Apex will also assist Las Vegas with the ongoing diversification of its economy, which is crucial for the continued economic sustainability of a region famous for its tourism and entertainment offerings.^[420]

The success of Apex is helping expand the middle ground between Las Vegas’s divergent approaches in adapting its economy to the ongoing drought. On one side is the economic and conservation success of the city’s golf courses; on the other side is the failure of SNEDCA despite its projected economic success. While Apex will unlikely be as impactful on the city’s economy and conservation efforts as its golf courses have been, Apex is also unlikely to take a concerning amount of the city’s water supply like SNEDCA would have. Apex’s success, as long as it continues, stands as a testament to Las Vegas’s ability to walk the tightrope between enabling economic development while conserving water. Overall, Las Vegas is making relatively good decisions regarding ways to continue growing its economy while ensuring that doing so will not jeopardize its water supply.

Comparing the economic effects of Phoenix’s approach to that of Las Vegas, Las Vegas’s approach likely has an advantage. While Phoenix’s scheme directs most of its attention at limiting development for only one sector (the residential sector), it significantly limits the development of that portion of the economy. In doing so, Phoenix’s policies might create more economic uncertainty for that sector and for the rest of the economy, as the relaxed approach to regulating other businesses seemingly allows existing businesses to continue operating as they are. Alternatively, Las Vegas’s policies allow for continued economic development and tend to require compliance with the latest water conservation policies for any development, whether old or new. Thus, Las Vegas’s policies have more positive economic effects in that they are predictable and allow for economic development to grow in tandem with water conservation efforts, while the economic effects of Phoenix’s policies are less predictable and seem to act on the belief that there can either be economic development or water conservation, not both.

Environmentalism and Sustainability

Lastly, the approaches of both Phoenix and Las Vegas focus heavily on water conservation, as that directly remedies part of their problem: having a shrinking water supply at the same time as a population boom. Consequently, the success of each city’s approach depends in large part on their success in promoting sustainable water use. As has been described briefly throughout this Note, the methods of Phoenix and Las Vegas are relatively successful in promoting environmentalism and sustainability. The environmental effects of both cities’ approaches are highlighted in turn below.

Effects in Phoenix

The environmental effects of Phoenix’s policies are overall positive, as these policies are intended to guarantee the sustainable development of the region and make sure the city does not “have new housing growth without a secure water supply.”^[421] This is an important focus for Phoenix as its current situation—not having sufficient water supply for the next hundred years—is a result of the city building beyond its means.^[422] Thankfully for the environment and for Phoenix’s sustainability, the city has been decreasing its water consumption slowly throughout the past couple decades, but even with that decrease, the city’s water usage is unsustainable long term.^[423] The implementation of the SDCDP is expected to greatly benefit Phoenix’s physical environment and the city’s ability to be sustainable.^[424]

The biggest area of environmental improvement for Phoenix’s policies would be if Phoenix lobbies the Arizona state government to break away from its water management system where surface and subflow waters are managed separately from groundwater.^[425] Keeping the management of these water sources separate is based on a hydrological misconception as to the existence of separate water systems.^[426] Additionally, that misconception has hindered the sustainable management of Arizona and Phoenix’s water supply, as well.^[427] By keeping this dual system of water management in place, it is harder to determine the region’s total water supply and how much water an entity should be able to take from surface and subflow waters versus groundwater. Therefore, it would behoove Phoenix if the State of Arizona replaced its water management system with the standard approach used in other western states, such as Nevada, where the law recognizes the interconnected nature of regional water supplies. There will likely be problems in abandoning this long‑held legal tradition in Arizona, but they would be outweighed by the benefits of implementing the straightforward and sustainable standard water management system of prior appropriation.

Overall, while there are improvements Arizona could make to assist Phoenix in solving its water conservation problem, Phoenix’s policies do successfully promote sustainable water use.

Effects in Las Vegas

Like Phoenix’s policies, the environmental effects of Las Vegas’s policies are generally environmentally friendly and will help Las Vegas retain its water supply in a sustainable fashion, even with the worsening drought and increasing population.^[428] Las Vegas is generally viewed as the “model for water conservation in the West,” after all.^[429] The fact that SNEDCA failed to pass will allow Las Vegas to maintain its current sustainability levels, as undertaking a construction project of the anticipated scale of SNEDCA without plans to mitigate the effects of drought and climate change would have had incredibly negative environmental ramifications, which the city has now avoided.^[430] SNEDCA would have effectively added a new city bordering Las Vegas, resulting in harmful environmental effects, such as increased urban heat and worsening air quality from cars and construction.^[431] Accordingly, Las Vegas’s policies should be viewed positively in the environmentalism and sustainability space, as long as no large new developments reminiscent of the environmental naivety of the SNEDCA are approved and built.

Therefore, the policies of both Phoenix and Las Vegas have positive environmental effects, in large part because that was why they were enacted. On this front, both approaches are equally successful, which demonstrates the importance of the analysis of the equitable and economic effects of both cities’ approaches.

Comparing Approaches

Given the similarities between the water conservation problems facing Phoenix, Las Vegas, and many other cities in the West, this Section directly compares the policies of Phoenix and Las Vegas to determine whether either city’s approach should serve as a model for similarly situated cities.

Regarding Phoenix’s approach, analogous cities in the American West should take heed when choosing to follow it in attempting to balance growing populations with shrinking water supplies. Phoenix’s limited development approach, while being necessary to preserve the city’s water supplies, enables the continuation of the current inequities imposed by water conservation efforts on the city’s population while having neutral effects on the city’s economy and environment. It would still be beneficial for similarly situated cities to adopt some of Phoenix’s policies in water conservation and development, but they should aim to couple the implementation of those policies with others that address the inequities that exist in their current water conservation system—something that Phoenix ought to do as well.

Phoenix’s policies also incentivize intensive research and scientific endeavors as the city and developers look for and use alternative water sources in a way that Las Vegas’s policies do not incentivize.^[432] Instead, Las Vegas will likely just continue expanding its water recycling plant on Lake Mead as they have for many years.^[433] While neither approach is negative, in the unlikely event that Phoenix’s encouragement of developing alternative water sources does succeed, Phoenix’s approach could cause significant economic development in the region.^[434] Overall, though, both sets of policies will largely benefit the environment and ensure their respective cities’ continued development in a sustainable manner.^[435]

In general, the stated policies of both cities will help them accomplish their goals, but only to the extent that each city’s respective legal schemes will enable their policies to be effective in reaching them. Arizona law requires municipal governments to have a hundred‑year water supply that will satisfy the state’s projected water demand.^[436] However, Phoenix’s water supply is insufficient to satisfy the city’s water demand for the next hundred years, and it is at least partly the result of Arizona’s bifurcated water law system that manages groundwater differently than surface and subflow waters.^[437] The hydrological misconception this system is based on has likely caused the city and the state to misunderstand the amount of water it had remaining in groundwater sources, resulting in Phoenix’s current race to enact sweeping sustainable measures through the SDCDP.^[438]

In contrast, the legal standards of Nevada’s prior appropriation system of water regulation allows for the law to reflect the interconnectivity of water systems.^[439] Even today, Nevada continues to promote responsible water management by keeping its legal system updated to reflect science’s current understanding of water networks.^[440] Nevada’s recent decision in Sullivan reflects the state’s application of water law to hydrological truths, allowing for greater management of the whole water system to better address conservation through the connectivity of water sources.^[441] Thus, it is easier for Nevada to optimally regulate water use across the state to account for the differing water demands between cities and rural communities, while such a feat is harder for Arizona to accomplish due to its two water management systems that seemingly do not account for each other’s targeted water supply and water use.

Las Vegas’s sector‑by‑sector approach has proven to be the most effective method to balancing these issues for three reasons. First, it focuses its policies on how to help each unique sector conserve water. Second, it escalates the intensity of its policies as the intensity of the drought escalates. Third, it attempts to redistribute the burden of water conservation from Las Vegas’s most vulnerable populations to its most insulated in a way that allows for its economy to continue flourishing without greatly harming the environment. Consequently, Las Vegas’s approach has greatly conserved the city’s water supply without sacrificing the city’s ongoing development. Phoenix’s approach, on the other hand, has focused less clearly in the sector‑by‑sector strategy, opting to instead focus mainly on limiting new development either by effectively banning new construction through prohibiting new permits on the Assured Water Supply or by requiring more intensive conservation efforts by new businesses than before. Thus, while Las Vegas is able to balance water conservation efforts with continued growth, Phoenix has opted to curb growth to conserve its water supply. In making a recommendation to the many similarly situated Western cities, it would likely be the most beneficial to follow Las Vegas’s approach, as it will likely be the most effective and adaptable way to balance the solution to water conservation while continuing development.

Looking toward the future and how these policies will continue to affect their respective cities, it is important to analyze how successful they are at equitably distributing the burden of water conservation and limiting development, promoting economic growth, and protecting the environment. No one policy or approach can ever be perfect, and Las Vegas’s and Phoenix’s are no exception. While Las Vegas’s approach might have some weaknesses in entirely redistributing the burden of water conservation, it generally does a great job, especially as it wants to encourage continuing development. The economic and environmental impacts of Las Vegas’s approach might vary but, again, the approach is overall successful in achieving continued development while protecting the environment and conserving water.

Similarly, Phoenix’s approach to equitably distributing the burden of water conservation is mixed as is its economic impact. As these policies are relatively new and only apply to new developments, it might take several years before either the distribution of the conservation burden or the economic impact of these policies can be fully understood. However, it seems as though Phoenix’s approach has largely positive effects on the environment (effects that could be amplified if Arizona were to change the legal system with which it manages its water). As Phoenix and Las Vegas continue implementing these and future policies, it is important to keep in mind these impacts to ensure their continued success in the eyes of the cities’ residents and in the eyes of the law. The shortsightedness of these desert cities in not proactively mitigating the region’s aridification has already come back to bite them, as demonstrated through the various policies they have scrambled to implement; but hopefully these policies were not enacted too late and will prove sufficient to protect these cities from further harm.

Conclusion

When cities are faced with drought, retroactive policies are the most common to be implemented, as cities are not quick to acknowledge that the drought will cause a water supply problem. Now that cities like Phoenix and Las Vegas have acknowledged the problem that the region’s ongoing aridification is causing them, these cities too have implemented retroactive policies, attempting to mitigate their water supply problem when it might already be too late. The coming decades will prove whether these cities acted at the right time and in the right ways, as it is currently hard to know with certainty how the drought will worsen and how much longer these cities’ population booms will last.

Both Phoenix and Las Vegas are acting now to ensure the water stability of their cities. To do this, both cities are testing the limits of their police power authority. This power is the most effective and powerful tool at their disposal to mitigate the region’s water scarcity crisis, a crisis that is increasingly worsened by both cities’ population explosions.^[442] People are unlikely to stop migrating, of their own accord, to either city due to the unique benefits each city possesses, and the cities cannot force people to stop coming.^[443] Given these parameters, both Phoenix and Las Vegas have struck their respective balances between water conservation and development, with Las Vegas implementing aggressive measures aimed at the continued growth of both conservation and development to ensure ongoing sustainability and Phoenix enacting provisions aimed at slowing development and promoting moderate conservation efforts.^[444]

Overall, similarly situated cities in the American West—ones experiencing an ever‑decreasing water supply due to the region’s ongoing drought while also experiencing incredible population booms—should follow Las Vegas’s example of balancing growing populations with shrinking water supplies. This is because Las Vegas’s sector‑by‑sector approach (1) focuses policies on what would be the most effective way for each sector to conserve water, (2) escalates in intensity in conjunction with the severity of the situation, and (3) attempts to redistribute the burden of water conservation from the city’s most vulnerable to the city’s most insulated. All of this is achieved while the city still cultivates a flourishing economy that is not accomplished at the expense of the environment. While Las Vegas’s approach balances many competing issues and interests, it has nevertheless proven successful and manageable. The only warning for other cities, which Las Vegas should also heed, is that the balance between development and conservation will become harder to manage if urban expansion continues.

In the end, these policies, and the ones Phoenix and Las Vegas will likely keep enacting well into the future, will either be what saves the existence of these cities or will be viewed as their last‑ditch effort to fix a problem they always should have seen coming. Will the reality be that it all came back to catch them?

 

---

*Production Editor, University of Colorado Law Review, Volume 97; JD Candidate, University of Colorado Law School, Class of 2026; BA in Political Science from the University of Wisconsin Madison. In expressing my deepest appreciation to those who made this Note possible, my thanks goes first and foremost to my hard working peers on Volume 97, especially to Catie Pursifull whose admirable leadership of her editing team and commitment to this piece helped polish it into its final product. Additionally, I extend my gratitude to Professor Michael Pappas who kindly gave me his knowledge of natural resource law and his aid in workshopping the outline that became this Note. Thank you to my friends and family for all of your support and encouragement, in this endeavor and much more. Lastly, I want to thank the natural wonders of the American Southwest and those I experienced them with, as those landmarks inspired this piece. May we cherish them. May we protect them.

1. Quote by Cynthia Campbell, Phoenix’s Water Resources Management Advisor. Christopher Flavelle & Jack Healy, Arizona Limits Construction Around Phoenix as Its Water Supply Dwindles, N.Y. Times (June 3, 2023), https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/01/climate/arizona-phoenix-permits-housing-water.html [https://perma.cc/YZ4Y-8MXY]. ↑
2. See Lawrence Huang, Climate Migration 101: An Explainer, Migration Pol’y Inst. (Nov. 16, 2023), https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/climate-migration-101-explainer [https://perma.cc/VL4M-L9WM]. ↑
3. Robin Bronen, Rights, Resilience and Community‑Led Relocation: Creating a National Governance Framework, 45 Harbinger 25, 29 (2021). ↑
4. Id.; Robin Bronen, Higher Ground: Protecting Human Rights as the Climate Crisis Forces Coastal Retreat, Hum. Rts., Oct. 2019, at 14, 14. ↑
5. Bronen, supra note 3, at 29. ↑
6. Climate Change Impacts on Coasts, EPA: Climate Change Impacts, https://www.epa.gov/climateimpacts/climate-change-impacts-coasts [https://perma.cc/CCX6-BH2X] (last updated Aug. 22, 2025). ↑
7. Id. Additional hurdles to remedying the problems caused by these natural disasters are the perseverance of climate denial among U.S. citizens and government officials, Molly Bergen, How the Trump Administration Bakes Climate Denial into U.S. Policy, NRDC (May 14, 2025), https://www.nrdc.org/stories/how-trump-administration-bakes-climate-denial-us-policy [https://perma.cc/AT6Z-Z38D]; Nayiri Mullinix, Nearly 15% of Americans Deny Climate Change Is Real, AI Study Finds, Univ. of Mich.: Mich. News (Feb. 14, 2024), https://news.umich.edu/nearly-15-of-americans-deny-climate-change-is-real-ai-study-finds [https://perma.cc/4PK6-E6DF], and the lack of government funding to respond to natural disasters, Rob Moore & Anna Weber, FEMA Goes into Hurricane Season Low on Funds—for 2nd Straight Year, NRDC (Aug. 19, 2024), https://www.nrdc.org/bio/rob-moore/fema-goes-hurricane-season-low-funds-2nd-straight-year [https://perma.cc/TS5D-QBX6]. While it is important to call attention to these obstacles to climate change resilience, they are beyond the scope of this Note. ↑
8. The Associated Press, North Carolina Government Calculates Hurricane Helene Damages, Needs at Least $53B, NPR (Oct. 24, 2024, at 1:07 AM), https://www.npr.org/2024/10/24/g-s1-29660/north-carolina-hurricane-helene-damage [https://perma.cc/GC54-JY2M]. ↑
9. Gaim Kibreab, Climate Change and Human Migration: A Tenuous Relationship?, 20 Fordham Env’t L. Rev. 357, 359 (2010). ↑
10. Robert W. Adler, Balancing Compassion and Risk in Climate Adaptation: U.S. Water, Drought, and Agricultural Law, 64 Fla. L. Rev. 201, 208 (2012). ↑
11. Id. (quoting John Steinbeck, East of Eden 6 (Penguin Books 2002)) (“And it never failed that during the dry years people forgot about the rich years, and during the wet years they lost all memo[ry] of the dry years. It was always that way.”). ↑
12. Id. ↑
13. Id. at 208–09. ↑
14. Id. ↑
15. Id. at 209. ↑
16. Id. at 208; see Kibreab, supra note 9, at 375–76. ↑
17. Kibreab, supra note 9, at 375–76. ↑
18. See id. ↑
19. See generally At COP27 Scientists Warn Against Limits of Adaptation, U.N. Climate Change News (Nov. 10, 2022), https://unfccc.int/news/at-cop27-scientists-warn-against-limits-of-adaptation [https://perma.cc/5DBG-ZG32] (describing how “[a]daptation alone cannot keep up with the impacts of climate change”). ↑
20. Drought and Conservation Measures, L.V. Valley Water Dist., https://www.lvvwd.com/conservation/measures/index.html [https://perma.cc/U692-WWAF]; LastWeekTonight, Water: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO), (YouTube, June 27, 2022), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtxew5XUVbQ (on file with the University of Colorado Law Review). ↑
21. Drought and Conservation Measures, supra note 20. ↑
22. A river basin, also known as a watershed, is “an area of land that collects the precipitation within it and drains it into a common outlet.” Shannon Mullane, 40 Million People Share the Shrinking Colorado River. Here’s How That Water Gets Divvied Up, Colo. Sun, https://coloradosun.com/2023/08/14/colorado-river-explained [https://perma.cc/EGW5-6V3G] (last updated Sep. 1, 2023, at 10:12 AM). The Colorado River Basin is enormous, covering a region of several states whose precipitation all drains into the Gulf of California. Id. There are seven Colorado River Basin states: Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Wyoming, and Utah. Id. ↑
23. Id. ↑
24. Id. ↑
25. Drought and Conservation Measures, supra note 20. ↑
26. Id.; Earth Res. Observation & Sci. Ctr., Water Levels, U.S. Geological Surv.: Earthshots, https://eros.usgs.gov/earthshots/water-levels [https://perma.cc/2RKW-HKLD] (noting that around the year 2000, the peak water level of Lake Powell was approximately 3,700 feet, while the peak water level of the most recent year available, 2022, was approximately 3,575 feet). The estimated water level decrease of Lake Powell was calculated based off of the “Lake Powell Historical Water Level Data” graph in the latter source. Earth Res. Observation & Sci. Ctr., supra. ↑
27. Drought and Conservation Measures, supra note 20; see Kibreab, supra note 9, at 370. ↑
28. See Adler, supra note 10, at 208–09; Drought and Conservation Measures, supra note 20. ↑
29. Richard Berger, Many Popular Destinations for Relocators Are Water‑Starved, GlobeSt. (June 29, 2023, at 8:09 AM), https://www.globest.com/2023/06/29/many-relocating-to-water-starved-phoenix [https://perma.cc/YQQ6-VP8Z]. In the 2010 Census, the Phoenix metropolitan area (consisting of Phoenix, Mesa, and Chandler) had a population of 4,192,887, which increased to 4,845,834 in the 2020 Census. Compare Phoenix Metropolitan Area Counties (2010), U.S. Census Bureau, https://data.census.gov/table?q=All+Counties+within+Phoenix-Mesa-Chandler,+AZ+Metro+Area&y=2010 [https://perma.cc/NTK7-DS93], with Phoenix Metropolitan Area Counties (2020), U.S. Census Bureau, https://data.census.gov/table?q=All+Counties+within+Phoenix-Mesa-Chandler,+AZ+Metro+Area&y=2020 [https://perma.cc/E8M5-72YS]. In the 2010 Census, the Las Vegas metropolitan area (consisting of Las Vegas, Henderson, and North Las Vegas) had a population of 1,951,269, which increased to 2,265,461 in the 2020 Census. Compare Las Vegas Metropolitan Area Counties (2010), U.S. Census Bureau, https://data.census.gov/table?q=All+Counties+within+Las+Vegas-Henderson-North+Las+Vegas,+NV+Metro+Area&y=2010 [https://perma.cc/LA3N-LES4], with Las Vegas Metropolitan Area Counties (2020), U.S. Census Bureau, https://data.census.gov/table?q=All+Counties+within+Las+Vegas-Henderson-North+Las+Vegas,+NV+Metro+Area [https://perma.cc/CNW7-NYEW]. Thus, while there were likely people who moved out of both Phoenix and Las Vegas between 2010 and 2020, the net migration for both cities remained positive. In fact, the states of Arizona and Nevada rank seventh and ninth among the fifty states’ net migration statistics, meaning that significantly more people move into both states than out of them compared to the majority of other states. Net Migration, U.S. News: Best States, https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings/economy/growth/net-migration [https://perma.cc/UFW5-XCSZ]. ↑
30. See Berger, supra note 29. ↑
31. Hayleigh Evans, “You Don’t Have to Shovel Sunshine”: Amid Heat Waves, Why Do People Still Move to Phoenix?, AZCentral: Loc., https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-environment/2023/11/03/after-record-hot-summer-phoenix-attracting-new-residents/71345244007 [https://perma.cc/6WGP-7G4K] (last updated Nov. 22, 2023, at 3:35 PM). ↑
32. E.g., The Wall Street Journal, Las Vegas: A Water Conservation Trailblazer Amid the Worst Drought in 1,200 Years | WSJ (YouTube, Oct. 11, 2022), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gE6gYC_I08 (on file with the University of Colorado Law Review); see also Earth Res. Observation & Sci. Ctr., Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, U.S. Geological Surv.: Earthshots, https://eros.usgs.gov/earthshots/las-vegas-nevada-usa [https://perma.cc/WS22-RE7N] (reporting that from 2000 to 2010, Las Vegas’s population growth was the third highest in the country); What We’re Doing to Conserve, S. Nev. Water Auth., https://www.snwa.com/water-resources/conservation-initiatives/index.html [https://perma.cc/X4BU-TWJV]; Las Vegas Housing Market Report, Rocket Homes, https://www.rockethomes.com/real-estate-trends/nv/las-vegas [https://perma.cc/YYM3-XQ9D] (last updated Mar. 31, 2025, at 8:20 PM). ↑
33. Evans, supra note 31; Berger, supra note 29; 15 Reasons People Move to Las Vegas, Yale Ledger (Dec. 7, 2022), https://campuspress.yale.edu/ledger/15-reasons-people-move-to-las-vegas [https://perma.cc/8AUA-XTZ5]. Las Vegas is an ideal place for people looking for sunny, hot days and growing job markets. 15 Reasons People Move to Las Vegas, supra. Known for its famous Strip lined with world‑famous hotels and casinos, Las Vegas is a hub for the service and hospitality industry, but the city has also recently expanded into the technological and entrepreneurial spaces as well. Id. Las Vegas home prices are some of the most affordable in the United States, and, with its low taxes and grocery prices, the overall cost of living in Las Vegas is much lower than in other parts of the United States. Id. Similarly, Phoenix has attracted many young people due to its abundant job opportunities and affordable housing market. See Berger, supra note 29; Phoenix Leads the Nation in Active Industrial Development, AZ Big Media (Aug. 5, 2024), https://azbigmedia.com/real-estate/phoenix-leads-the-nation-in-active-industrial-development [https://perma.cc/26TC-BU67]. ↑
34. Brian Lada, 10 of the Hottest Cities in the US, AccuWeather: Weather News, https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/10-of-the-hottest-cities-in-the-us/432421 [https://perma.cc/RQR5-XQE2] (last updated June 4, 2024, at 6:46 AM). ↑
35. Evans, supra note 31; Brian Wedewer, Top 10 Reasons to Move to Las Vegas, Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices, https://21vegas.com/blog/top-10-reasons-to-move-to-las-vegas [https://perma.cc/M8ZK-7CCM] (noting “[e]ast coasters” who move to Las Vegas delight in the lack of snow and ever‑present dry heat). Most migrants view Phoenix’s heat as a positive because many are relocating from northern states and looking to escape their freezing temperatures. Evans, supra note 31 (“‘There’s so much more opportunity here, and yes, the summers get hot, but you don’t have to shovel sunshine,’ said Sydnie Mickelson, a 29‑year‑old Biltmore resident who moved to the area in 2018. ‘I will take over 110 degrees for three to four months over eight months of winter.’”). ↑
36. Adler, supra note 10, at 208–09. ↑
37. Id. at 208; see, e.g., Evans, supra note 31 (discussing the trend that “people of all ages” are tending to migrate to areas with “warmer winters [and] hotter summers” while disregarding the impacts their moves have on climate change). ↑
38. This Note focuses on the state and local approaches to adapting to the aridification of the West, given that state and local governments are closer to the issue and are often faster at responding to it. See generally WATCH: Panel Discusses Why Local Governments Seem More Effective than Federal Counterparts, Vand. Univ.: News (Nov. 8, 2021, at 9:00 AM), https://news.vanderbilt.edu/2021/11/08/watch-panel-discusses-why-local-governments-seem-more-effective-than-federal-counterparts [https://perma.cc/5MA9-QUEQ] (discussing the effectiveness of state and local governments as compared to the federal government). The federal government has played and continues to play a role in managing the Colorado River Basin’s water resources, but that discussion is largely outside the scope of this Note’s analysis. Strengthening Western Resilience in the Face of Drought, U.S. Dep’t of the Interior: Blog (Aug. 15, 2024), https://www.doi.gov/blog/strengthening-western-resilience-face-drought [https://perma.cc/94Z5-85VA]. ↑
39. See infra Part II. ↑
40. See infra Part III. ↑
41. See infra Part I. ↑
42. See infra Part I. ↑
43. See infra Section I.A. ↑
44. See infra Section I.A.1. ↑
45. See infra Section I.A.2. ↑
46. See infra Section I.B. ↑
47. See infra Part II. ↑
48. Jack Rogers, Arizona Blocks New Homes in Greater Phoenix Due to Lack of Water, GlobeSt. (June 5, 2023, at 8:21 AM), https://www.globest.com/2023/06/05/arizona-blocks-new-homes-in-greater-phoenix-due-to-lack-of-water [https://perma.cc/Q45D-MR9Q]. ↑
49. See infra Section II.A. ↑
50. See infra Section II.B. ↑
51. See infra Section II.C. ↑
52. See infra Part III. ↑
53. Brian Will, Las Vegas ‘Water Cops’ Keep the Valley’s Water Leaks in Check, 8 News Now: News, https://www.8newsnow.com/news/local-news/las-vegas-water-cops-keep-the-valleys-water-leaks-in-check [https://perma.cc/2XEY-M96P] (last updated Sep. 5, 2024, at 4:53 PM). ↑
54. See infra Section III.A. ↑
55. See infra Section III.A.1; Will, supra note 53. ↑
56. See infra Section III.B. ↑
57. See infra Part IV. ↑
58. See infra Section IV.A. ↑
59. See infra Section IV.B. ↑
60. See infra Section IV.C. ↑
61. See infra Section IV.D. ↑
62. See infra Conclusion. ↑
63. E.g., Hudson Cnty. Water Co. v. McCarter, 209 U.S. 349, 355–56 (1908). ↑
64. See U.S. Const. amend. X; Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251, 275–76 (1918). ↑
65. See United Fuel Gas Co. v. Railroad Comm’n, 278 U.S. 300, 308–09 (1929) (“[A] state may require a public service [utility] company subject to its control to make reasonable extensions of its service in order to satisfy a new or increased demand, present or anticipated, . . . [and the utility company] may be compelled to continue to use present facilities to supply an existing need so long as it continues to do business in the state.”); Vill. of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 397 (1926) (holding that a zoning ordinance as applied to apartment developments was a valid exercise of the state’s police power). ↑
66. See infra Parts II, III. ↑
67. See infra Section I.A. ↑
68. E.g., Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 533.005–533.565 (2025) (enacting a prior appropriation water rights regime for Nevada); Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 45‑101–45‑2712 (2025) (enacting a prior appropriation water rights regime for the surface waters of Arizona). ↑
69. Hudson Cnty. Water Co. v. McCarter, 209 U.S. 349, 355 (1908); California‑Oregon Power Co. v. Beaver Portland Cement Co., 73 F.2d 555, 567 (9th Cir. 1934), aff’d, 295 U.S. 142 (1935). ↑
70. Hudson Cnty., 209 U.S. at 356. ↑
71. Loretta Singletary, Public Policies Affecting Water Use in Nevada Water Issues Education Series – No. 1, Univ. of Nev., Reno Extension (2005), https://extension.unr.edu/publication.aspx?PubID=4764 [https://perma.cc/XX78-268D]; Agriculture, Ariz. Dep’t of Water Res.: Conservation, https://www.azwater.gov/conservation/agriculture [https://perma.cc/3KQW-69SL]. ↑
72. See Larry Levine, Urban Water Conservation Strategies Can Help Address Both Water Quality and Quantity Needs, NRDC (July 23, 2014), https://www.nrdc.org/bio/larry-levine/waste-less-pollute-less-using-urban-water-conservation-advance-clean-water-act [https://perma.cc/3UH4-TEFS] (emphasizing the need for urban conservation strategies); see also S. Khan, The Importance of Water Conservation in Urban Areas, Planet Pulse: Water Issues (Mar. 24, 2025), https://planetpulse.blog/2025/03/24/the-importance-of-water-conservation-in-urban-areas [https://perma.cc/C7UN-G9PS] (“Water conservation in urban areas is essential for ensuring long-term sustainability.”). ↑
73. See supra note 72. ↑
74. California‑Oregon Power, 73 F.2d at 567. ↑
75. E.g., Diamond Nat. Res. Prot. & Conservation Ass’n v. Diamond Valley Ranch, LLC, 511 P.3d 1003, 1005 (Nev. 2022). ↑
76. Id. ↑
77. Id.; e.g., Sullivan v. Lincoln Cnty. Water Dist., 542 P.3d 411, 419 (Nev. 2024). ↑
78. Scott L. Campbell & Davis Wright Tremaine, Examination of Title to Western Water Rights, 31B Rocky Mtn. Min. L. Inst. 9, 23 (1992). ↑
79. Jack F. Ross, Acquisition of Existing Water Rights, 13 Rocky Mtn. Min. L. Inst. 1 (1967). ↑
80. See Wilson v. Pahrump Fair Water, LLC, 481 P.3d 853, 854 (Nev. 2021). ↑
81. Id. ↑
82. See id. ↑
83. About Us, Bureau of Reclamation, https://www.usbr.gov/main/about [https://perma.cc/5RJQ-8DKS] (last updated Jan. 7, 2020); accord The Law of the River, Bureau of Reclamation: Lower Colo. Region, https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g1000/lawofrvr.html [https://perma.cc/47NK-MS9U] (last updated Mar. 2008). ↑
84. See supra note 83. ↑
85. See, e.g., supra note 83. ↑
86. See supra note 83. Through the Colorado River Compact of 1922, all seven of the Colorado River Basin states were divided into the upper basin states (Colorado, New Mexico, Wyoming, and Utah) and the lower basin states (Arizona, California, and Nevada). The Law of the River, supra note 83; Mullane, supra note 22. The 1922 Compact states that each basin division has the “right to develop and use 7.5 million acre‑feet (maf) of river water annually. This approach reserved water for future upper basin development and allowed planning and development in the lower basin to proceed.” The Law of the River, supra note 83. The Colorado River Compact of 1922 was thus ratified by the Boulder Canyon Project of 1928, as it apportioned the lower basin states’ 7.5 million acre‑feet allotment of water from the Colorado River. Id. ↑
87. See The Law of the River, supra note 83 (“The Colorado River is managed and operated under numerous compacts, federal laws, court decisions and decrees, contracts, and regulatory guidelines collectively known as the ‘Law of the River.’”). ↑
88. Marissa Sarbak, City of Phoenix Negotiates Colorado River Rights with Bureau of Reclamation, ABC15 Ariz. (Dec. 19, 2024, at 10:22 PM), https://www.abc15.com/news/local-news/city-of-phoenix-negotiates-colorado-river-rights-with-bureau-of-reclamation [https://perma.cc/5484-PL6X]. ↑
89. The discussions below regarding Nevada and Arizona’s water rights systems also do not touch on Tribal water rights and allocations. See generally Tribal Nations: A Map of Native Nations, Nev. Dep’t of Native Am. Affs., https://dnaa.nv.gov/tribal-nations [https://perma.cc/Y62V-DVV9] (noting that the federally recognized Tribes around Las Vegas are the Las Vegas Paiute Tribe, the Moapa Band of Paiutes, and the Fort Mojave Indian Tribe); Places & Regions: Tribal Lands, Visit Ariz., https://www.visitarizona.com/places/american-indian [https://perma.cc/QS92-UZ57] (noting that the federally recognized Tribes around Phoenix are the Salt River Pima‑Maricopa Indian Community, Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, Ak‑Chin Indian Community, and Gila River Indian Community). Tribal water rights are not further discussed in this Note because (1) they are legally distinct from the water rights systems operable in the non‑reservation parts of Nevada and Arizona and (2) taking them from Tribes to solve the urban water conservation issue is not an ideal solution as it could harm the Tribes. See Scott King, ‘Prove It or Lose It.’ How Tribes Are Forced to Fight to Secure Senior Water Rights, Sierra Nev. Ally (June 1, 2023), https://sierranevadaally.org/2023/06/01/prove-it-or-lose-it-how-tribes-are-forced-to-fight-to-secure-senior-water-rights [https://perma.cc/R2QK-V538]. ↑
90. See infra Section I.A.1. ↑
91. See infra Section I.A.2. ↑
92. Sullivan v. Lincoln Cnty. Water Dist., 542 P.3d 411, 419 (Nev. 2024); Wilson v. Pahrump Fair Water, LLC, 481 P.3d 853, 854 (Nev. 2021). Nevada’s prior appropriation system includes pre‑statutorily vested rights—which were based in pre‑1913 common law and cannot be affected by statutory law—and statutorily granted rights, which are given through state‑issued permits and certificates. E.g., Sullivan, 542 P.3d at 419. ↑
93. Sullivan, 542 P.3d at 419; Wilson, 481 P.3d at 854; Bacher v. Off. of the State Eng’r of Nev., 146 P.3d 793, 800 (Nev. 2006); In re Water Rts. in the Humboldt River Stream Sys., 246 P. 692, 694 (Nev. 1926). ↑
94. Desert Irrigation, Ltd. v. State, 944 P.2d 835, 842 (Nev. 1997). ↑
95. See id. ↑
96. Bacher, 146 P.3d at 799–800. ↑
97. See Wilson, 481 P.3d at 854; Diamond Nat. Res. Prot. & Conservation Ass’n v. Diamond Valley Ranch, LLC, 511 P.3d 1003, 1005 (Nev. 2022). ↑
98. See Watersheds and Drainage Basins, U.S. Geological Surv.: Water Sci. Sch. (June 8, 2019), https://www.usgs.gov/special-topics/water-science-school/science/watersheds-and-drainage-basins#overview [https://perma.cc/G3X2-DBCB]. ↑
99. See Groundwater: What Is Groundwater?, U.S. Geological Surv.: Water Sci. Sch. (Nov. 6, 2018), https://www.usgs.gov/special-topics/water-science-school/science/groundwater-what-groundwater [https://perma.cc/T44B-FE7F]; What Is Groundwater?, U.S. Geological Surv.: Frequently Asked Questions, https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/what-groundwater [https://perma.cc/53Q7-ACYY] (last updated June 3, 2025). ↑
100. See supra note 97. ↑
101. See supra note 97. ↑
102. See supra note 97. ↑
103. Bacher v. Off. of the State Eng’r of Nev., 146 P.3d 793, 800 (Nev. 2006); see also In re Water Rts. in the Humboldt River Stream Sys., 246 P. 692, 694–95 (Nev. 1926) (holding that the statute regulating the state engineer does not provide recourse from a decision by the state engineer in the same procedural methods as are available in courts of equity). ↑
104. Sullivan v. Lincoln Cnty. Water Dist., 542 P.3d 411, 424 (Nev. 2024). ↑
105. Id. ↑
106. Id. ↑
107. Id. at 416. ↑
108. Id. ↑
109. E.g., id. at 424. ↑
110. Kat Fulwider, Nevada Supreme Court Ruling Could Spell Change for Water Management in the Silver State, KUNR Pub. Radio (Feb. 1, 2024, at 2:19 PM), https://www.kunr.org/2024-02-01/nevada-supreme-court-ruling-could-spell-change-for-water-management-in-the-silver-state [https://perma.cc/4KNW-BNUW]. ↑
111. See Maricopa Cnty. Mun. Water Conservation Dist. v. Sw. Cotton Co., 4 P.2d 369, 373 (Ariz. 1931); In re Gen. Adjudication of All Rts. to Use Water in Gila River Sys. & Source, 989 P.2d 739, 743 (Ariz. 1999). ↑
112. In re Gen. Adjudication of All Rts., 989 P.2d at 743 (quoting In re Gen. Adjudication of All Rts. to Use Water in Gila River Sys. & Source, 857 P.2d 1236, 1241 (Ariz. 1993)). ↑
113. See Maricopa Cnty., 4 P.2d at 374–75; Slosser v. Salt River Valley Co., 65 P. 332, 334–36 (Ariz. 1901); In re Rts. to the Use of the Gila River, 830 P.2d 442, 451 (Ariz. 1992). ↑
114. Maricopa Cnty., 4 P.2d at 375–76. ↑
115. Id.; In re Gen. Adjudication of All Rts., 989 P.2d at 743. ↑
116. See In re Gen. Adjudication of All Rts., 989 P.2d at 743. ↑
117. Id. ↑
118. In re Gen. Adjudication of all Rts. to Use Water in the Gila River Sys. & Source, 857 P.2d 1236, 1241 n.6 (Ariz. 1993). ↑
119. Bristor v. Cheatham, 255 P.2d 173, 178 (Ariz. 1953). ↑
120. Id. ↑
121. See id. at 180. ↑
122. Jarvis v. State Land Dep’t, 479 P.2d 169, 171 (Ariz. 1970). ↑
123. Contrast id. (describing the reasonable use standard), with Campbell & Tremaine, supra note 78, and Ross, supra note 79 (explaining the requirements to prove beneficial use). ↑
124. In re Gen. Adjudication of All Rts. to Use Water in Gila River Sys. & Source, 989 P.2d 739, 743 (Ariz. 1999). ↑
125. Id. at 748. ↑
126. See The Law of the River, supra note 83; Bacher v. Off. of the State Eng’r of Nev., 146 P.3d 793, 799–800 (Nev. 2006); Fulwider, supra note 110; In re Gen. Adjudication of All Rts., 989 P.2d at 743 (quoting In re Gen. Adjudication of All Rts. to Use Water in Gila River Sys. & Source, 857 P.2d 1236, 1241 (Ariz. 1993)). ↑
127. Wilson v. Pahrump Fair Water, LLC, 481 P.3d 853, 854–55 (Nev. 2021); Diamond Nat. Res. Prot. & Conservation Ass’n v. Diamond Valley Ranch, LLC, 511 P.3d 1003, 1005 (Nev. 2022). ↑
128. Contrast Sullivan v. Lincoln Cnty. Water Dist., 542 P.3d 411, 424 (Nev. 2024) (describing an example of how the standard prior appropriation system has allowed for flexible functionality and synergy), with In re Gen. Adjudication of All Rts., 989 P.2d at 743–44 (highlighting an instance where Arizona’s divergent approach to water rights caused the court to struggle with determining an outcome). ↑
129. See infra Section I.B. ↑
130. Cf. United Fuel Gas Co. v. Railroad Comm’n, 278 U.S. 300, 309 (1929) (holding that it is within a state’s police power to regulate public utilities to the extent that they attempt to discriminate among customers). See generally Vill. of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926) (holding that the state’s police power must include zoning and other reasonable regulations of urban development). ↑
131. State Land Use Planning Agency, Nev. Div. of State Lands, https://lands.nv.gov/land-use-planning/state-land-use-planning-agency [https://perma.cc/WV6E-E2JW]; Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 9‑462–9‑462.13 (2025). ↑
132. See United Fuel Gas Co., 278 U.S. at 309. See generally Ambler Realty, 272 U.S. 365. ↑
133. United Fuel Gas Co., 278 U.S. at 309; Veach v. Phoenix, 427 P.2d 335, 336 (Ariz. 1967); Bilton Mach. Tool Co. v. United Illuminating Co., 148 A. 337, 340 (Conn. 1930); TDB Tucson Grp., L.L.C. v. City of Tucson, 263 P.3d 669, 675 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). See generally Am. Pub. Power Ass’n, What Is Public Power?, in Public Power for Your Community 7 (2016), https://www.publicpower.org/system/files/documents/municipalization-public_power_for_your_community.pdf [https://perma.cc/GV4X-X9CJ] (explaining the structure and purpose of public utility companies and the duties they owe to their customers). ↑
134. Susan F. Dewey, Battle of the Heavyweights: In This Corner Environmental Rights and in the Far Corner Free Travel Rights, 1 Hastings Const. L.Q. 153, 165 (1974). ↑
135. New York ex rel. Woodhaven Gas Light Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 269 U.S. 244, 248–49 (1925) (“When reasonably required, the gas company is in duty bound to furnish gas to inhabitants of the territory covered by its franchise.”); TDB Tucson Grp., 263 P.3d at 673 (“[A]lthough it is not required to do so, once a municipality decides to provide a utility service to its residents, it must do so for all without discrimination.”); see also Lukrawka v. Spring Valley Water Co., 146 P. 640 (Cal. 1915) (“A leading California case extended the duty to serve to include a duty on water providers to acquire the necessary supplies to meet projected demands.”). Lately, this presumed duty is fading in strength as the concept is out‑of‑touch with modern land use cases, which “allow cities to control the rate and location of new development.” A. Dan Tarlock & Sarah B. Van de Wetering, Western Growth and Sustainable Water Use: If There Are No “Natural Limits,” Should We Worry About Water Supplies?, 27 Pub. Land & Res. L. Rev. 33, 59 (2006). This change bodes well for the continued existence and development of Western cities, as giving them more authority over both water and land use will result in more comprehensive, sustainable policies. ↑
136. A. Dan Tarlock & Sarah B. Van de Wetering, Growth Management and Western Water Law: From Urban Oases to Archipelagos, 14 U.C. L. Env’t J. 983, 998 (2008). ↑
137. Id. ↑
138. Id. at 1000–01. ↑
139. Vill. of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 365 (1926). ↑
140. Dewey, supra note 134, at 167. ↑
141. Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26, 33 (1954). ↑
142. See generally Redrock Valley Ranch, LLC v. Washoe Cnty., 254 P.3d 641 (Nev. 2011). Redrock Valley Ranch built upon the Nevada Supreme Court’s precedent that a county government can deny a water permit for a subdivision if the permit is inconsistent with the county’s water use plan. The county government has the authority to define the rational amount of growth for the county given its water supply. See Serpa v. Cnty. of Washoe, 901 P.2d 690, 692 (Nev. 1995). ↑
143. Redrock Valley Ranch, 254 P.3d at 645. ↑
144. Id. ↑
145. Id. ↑
146. Id.; see also Serpa, 901 P.2d at 693 (holding standards set by the state engineer do not preempt more restrictive local standards). ↑
147. See supra note 146 and accompanying text. ↑
148. TDB Tucson Grp., L.L.C. v City of Tucson, 263 P.3d 669, 675 (Ariz. 2011). ↑
149. See Tarlock & Van de Wetering, supra note 136, at 1003. ↑
150. Id. at 1003–04. ↑
151. Id.; Assured and Adequate Water Supply, Ariz. Dep’t of Water Res., https://www.azwater.gov/aaws/aaws-overview [https://perma.cc/YP5N-99YQ]. ↑
152. Tarlock & Van de Wetering, supra note 136, at 1003–04; Assured and Adequate Water Supply, supra note 151. ↑
153. Tarlock & Van de Wetering, supra note 136, at 1004. See generally Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 45–576 (2023) (listing relevant statutory requirements regarding Assured Water Supply in Arizona). ↑
154. See New York ex rel. Woodhaven Gas Light Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 269 U.S. 244, 248–49 (1925); TDB Tucson Group, L.L.C. v. City of Tucson, 263 P.3d 669, 673 (Ariz. 2011). ↑
155. See Dewey, supra note 134, at 167 (describing a similar problem in California with increasing populations and a concern for a healthy environment and advocating for the State’s use of police power to mitigate the problem). ↑
156. Berger, supra note 29 (discussing people moving to Phoenix); Lada, supra note 34 (describing the temperature of Phoenix). ↑
157. See infra Section II.B (explaining Arizona’s policy aimed at curbing Phoenix’s water use); infra Section II.C (discussing Phoenix’s new sustainability policy). ↑
158. See infra Part II. ↑
159. See infra Section II.A. ↑
160. See infra Section II.B. ↑
161. See Taylor Seely, Phoenix Approves Overhaul of Water Standards for New Construction Amid Water Shortages, AZCentral: Loc., https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2023/06/14/phoenix-approves-overhaul-of-water-standards-for-new-development/70308366007 [https://perma.cc/PND4-TC7X] (last updated June 14, 2023, at 8:45 AM). ↑
162. Oliver Milman, Arizona Limits Future Home-Building in Phoenix Area Due to Lack of Groundwater, Guardian (June 2, 2023, at 10:29 AM), https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/02/phoenix-arizona-limits-future-home-building-drought [https://perma.cc/CF6G-RQ5E]. ↑
163. See, e.g., id. ↑
164. City of Phx. Water Servs. Dep’t, Drought Management Plan and Water Use Reduction Guidelines 3 (2021), https://www.phoenix.gov/content/dam/phoenix/waterservicessite/documents/2021_drought_management_plan_final.pdf [https://perma.cc/V3SZ-RKVP]. ↑
165. City of Phx., General Information Packet 12 (2023), https://www.phoenix.gov/cityclerksite/City%20Council%20Meeting%20Files/6-29-23%20General%20Info%20Packet.pdf [https://perma.cc/UVD7-BM97]. ↑
166. See Phoenix AMA Groundwater Supply Updates, Ariz. Dep’t of Water Res., https://www.azwater.gov/phoenix-ama-groundwater-supply-updates [https://perma.cc/3CR7-PKEV]. ↑
167. See id. ↑
168. See id. ↑
169. Brandon Loomis, Arizona Will Halt New Home Approvals in Parts of Metro Phoenix as Water Supplies Tighten, AZCentral: Loc., https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-environment/2023/06/01/new-arizona-groundwater-model-shows-shortfall-state-will-halt-growth/70279189007 [https://perma.cc/L6NW-65GX] (last updated Nov. 22, 2023, at 5:38 PM); Milman, supra note 162; City of Phx., supra note 165, at 13–14. ↑
170. Flavelle & Healy, supra note 1. ↑
171. Id. (quoting Cynthia Campbell, Phoenix’s Water Resources Management Advisor). ↑
172. See id. ↑
173. Id. ↑
174. See Kirk Siegler, Facing Water Shortages, Arizona Will Curtail Some New Development Around Phoenix, NPR (June 1, 2023, at 9:24 AM), https://www.npr.org/2023/06/01/1179570051/arizona-water-shortages-phoenix-subdivisions [https://perma.cc/SCS3-8VBG]. ↑
175. Id. ↑
176. See generally Water Services Department, City of Phx., https://www.phoenix.gov/waterservices [https://perma.cc/X6U6-PGE3]. ↑
177. E.g., City of Phx., supra note 165, at 5. ↑
178. Id. ↑
179. Taylor Seely, Where Does Phoenix’s Water Come From?, AZCentral: Loc. (May 10, 2023, at 2:21 PM), https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2023/05/10/water-sources-phoenix-colorado-river-salt-river-project/70204182007 [https://perma.cc/GG5E-SWY6]. ↑
180. Id. ↑
181. Id. ↑
182. Id. ↑
183. Loomis, supra note 169. ↑
184. City of Phx., supra note 165, at 5. ↑
185. Id. at 6. ↑
186. Milman, supra note 162. ↑
187. Rogers, supra note 48; see also Milman, supra note 162. ↑
188. Milman, supra note 162. ↑
189. Id. ↑
190. See Rogers, supra note 48. ↑
191. Id.; Flavelle & Healy, supra note 1. ↑
192. Loomis, supra note 169. ↑
193. Seely, supra note 161. ↑
194. Id. ↑
195. See id. ↑
196. Id. ↑
197. Id. ↑
198. Id. ↑
199. Id. ↑
200. Id. ↑
201. Id. ↑
202. Phoenix City Council OKs Water Conservation Ordinance in Pursuit of “Sustainable Desert Development,” Ariz. Digit. Free Press (Mar. 19, 2024), https://arizonadigitalfreepress.com/phoenix-city-council-oks-water-conservation-ordinance-in-pursuit-of-sustainable-desert-development [https://perma.cc/3BHQ-YZ63]. ↑
203. See Seely, supra note 161 (emphasis added) (noting that while not all measures are explicitly codified yet, the “city allows developers to move ahead with their projects so long as they abide by the water conservation policies”). ↑
204. See Milman, supra note 162 (remarking that these measures are “certain to slow home‑building”). ↑
205. Andrew Castillo, Phoenix Passes Water Conservation Policy That Restricts Turf, Outdoor Irrigation on New Development, Promotes Native Flora, Smart Cities Dive (June 28, 2023), https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/news/archive-acc-phoenix-passes-water-conservation-policy-that-restricts-turf-outdoor-irrigation-on-new-d [https://perma.cc/YZ8Q-7PJQ]. ↑
206. Kyle Backer, These 2 Arizona Projects Balance Responsible Development and Water, AZ Big Media: Real Est. (June 1, 2023), https://azbigmedia.com/real-estate/the-2-arizona-projects-that-balance-responsible-development-and-water [https://perma.cc/P2QD-7LN6]. ↑
207. Id. (quoting Robert Johnson, vice president of land planning and development for Taylor Morrison). ↑
208. Castillo, supra note 205. ↑
209. City of Phx., supra note 165, at 5. ↑
210. See, e.g., Castillo, supra note 205; Seely, supra note 161. ↑
211. Seely, supra note 161. ↑
212. Id. ↑
213. See Flavelle & Healy, supra note 1. ↑
214. See City of Phx., supra note 165, at 5; Seely, supra note 161 (“Turf, or grass, prohibitions would be implemented in non‑functional spaces, such as roadway medians.”). ↑
215. City of Phx., supra note 165, at 7; e.g., Seely, supra note 161. ↑
216. See Seely, supra note 161. ↑
217. See Castillo, supra note 205. ↑
218. See id. ↑
219. Rogers, supra note 48. ↑
220. See infra Parts III, IV. ↑
221. See infra Sections III.A, III.A.1. ↑
222. See infra Section III.B. ↑
223. See Southern Nevada Water Authority, “Stop the Building! Stop the Resorts! Stop the Golf Courses! We Don’t Have the Water at Lake Mead!” (YouTube, Sep. 1, 2022), https://web.archive.org/web/20240310092110/https:/www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGuvyGJgBtA (on file with the University of Colorado Law Review). ↑
224. LastWeekTonight, supra note 20, at 14:45. ↑
225. Id. at 15:30. ↑
226. The Wall Street Journal, supra note 32, at 2:30; Southern Nevada Water Authority, supra note 223, at 2:53. ↑
227. See Southern Nevada Water Authority, supra note 223, at 2:44. Southern Nevada includes Boulder City, Henderson, Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, Laughlin (served by the Big Bend Water District, a division of the Southern Nevada Water Authority), the unincorporated areas of Clark County (serviced by the Clark County Water Reclamation District, a division of the Southern Nevada Water Authority), and the Las Vegas Valley (the Las Vegas Valley Water District provides services that overlap with aforementioned municipalities, including Las Vegas, Blue Diamond, Coyote Springs, Jean Kyle Canyon, Laughlin, Searchlight, and areas of unincorporated Clark County). Mission and History, S. Nev. Water Auth., https://www.snwa.com/about/mission/index.html [https://perma.cc/FFJ7-LSPV]; Big Bend Water District, L.V. Valley Water Dist., https://www.lvvwd.com/customer-service/service-areas/big-bend/index.html [https://perma.cc/XCK3-AFYE]; Who We Are, Clark Cnty. Water Reclamation Dist., https://www.cleanwaterteam.com/about-us/who-we-are [https://perma.cc/RJ3K-53EC]; About the Las Vegas Valley Water District, L.V. Valley Water Dist., https://www.lvvwd.com/about/water-district/index.html [https://perma.cc/KJ46-B2PP]. ↑
228. See Southern Nevada Water Authority, supra note 223, at 2:18. ↑
229. The Wall Street Journal, supra note 32, at 0:28; Southern Nevada Water Authority, supra note 223, at 3:15. ↑
230. Drought and Conservation Measures, supra note 20; What We’re Doing to Conserve, supra note 32. ↑
231. Drought and Conservation Measures, supra note 20; The Wall Street Journal, supra note 32, at 3:48–4:00; see Southern Nevada Water Authority, supra note 223, at 0:31–1:00, 1:57–2:07. ↑
232. See The Wall Street Journal, supra note 32, at 4:12–4:30. ↑
233. E.g., id. at 3:46. While Lake Mead’s water levels are concerningly low, this water recycling plant does not necessarily provide much aid in solving that problem. Where Your Water Comes From, S. Nev. Water Auth., https://www.snwa.com/water-resources/where-water-comes-from/index.html [https://perma.cc/9NDQ-QJT6]. Nevada is authorized to withdraw more than its allotted 300,000 acre‑feet of water from Lake Mead per year as long as enough water returns to the Lake each year that the state’s effective consumptive use is not greater than its allotted 300,000 acre‑feet per year. Id. This practice is not aimed solely at increasing the water level of Lake Mead but also to stretch Nevada’s limited allotment of water from the Lake Mead Reservoir further. Id. While this water recycling practice might have the unintended effect of slightly increasing Lake Mead’s water levels, this has yet to be proven. ↑
234. See Drought and Conservation Measures, supra note 20. ↑
235. See FOX5 Las Vegas, New Nevada Law Aims to Limit Household Water Usage, at 0:58–1:05, 1:24–1:33 (YouTube, June 13, 2023), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtq_AMT8BGs (on file with the University of Colorado Law Review). ↑
236. The Wall Street Journal, supra note 32, at 3:29. The business and industry sector is the next highest with only approximately 16 percent of the Las Vegas Valley’s total water use. What We’re Doing to Conserve, supra note 32. Throughout Nevada, the agriculture sector consumes the most water, consuming 78 percent of the state’s total water supply. In contrast, the commerce and domestic sectors only consume 13 percent. Singletary, supra note 71. ↑
237. Singletary, supra note 71. ↑
238. Id. ↑
239. See supra text accompanying note 72. ↑
240. See supra text accompanying note 72. ↑
241. Colton Lochhead, Agency Now Has Power to Limit Residential Water Use in Las Vegas, L.V. Rev.‑J.: News, https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/politics-and-government/nevada/2023-legislature/agency-now-has-power-to-limit-residential-water-use-in-las-vegas [https://perma.cc/A7E5-2GFB] (last updated June 8, 2023, at 9:11 PM); What We’re Doing to Conserve, supra note 32. ↑
242. What We’re Doing to Conserve, supra note 32. ↑
243. Michael Morris, Case Study: Water‑Smart Homes, Las Vegas, Architect (May 9, 2011), https://www.architectmagazine.com/technology/case-study-water-smart-homes-las-vegas_o [https://perma.cc/LPK4-RGVC]. ↑
244. Id. ↑
245. What We’re Doing to Conserve, supra note 32. It is unclear whether the fourteen billion gallons of water saved was the amount saved during the time the program was active (2005–2020) or if that figure is the estimated total amount of water those homes will save during their existence due to their water‑smart features. ↑
246. Jonah Schein et al., Assessing Water Use in WaterSense‑Labeled Homes and Quantifying the Savings, J. AWWA, May 2022, at 10, 13, https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-08/ws-Journal-AWWA-2022-Assessing-WaterUse-WaterSense%E2%80%90Labeled-Homes-Quantifying-Savings.pdf [https://perma.cc/29KG-5HUU]. ↑
247. Id. Las Vegas served as the pilot study for the EPA’s WaterSense‑Labeled Homes V2 Program, a program that now encourages homes throughout the country to be built or modified to be more water efficient, although not as much data is available about the quantity of WaterSense labeled homes nor the amount of water they have saved. Id. ↑
248. Id. ↑
249. Id. ↑
250. WaterSense Labeled Homes, EPA, https://www.epa.gov/watersense/watersense-labeled-homes [https://perma.cc/8LNR-K6AE] (last updated Aug. 25, 2025). ↑
251. Southern Nevada Water Authority Pool Cover Instant Rebate Program, GreenPolicy360.net (Nov. 11, 2015, at 11:47 AM), https://www.greenpolicy360.net/w/Southern_Nevada_Water_Authority_Pool_Cover_Instant_Rebate_Program [https://perma.cc/XS24-B4RA]. ↑
252. S. Nev. Water Auth., 2024–2029 Joint Water Conservation Plan 65 (2024), https://www.snwa.com/assets/pdf/reports-conservation-plan-2024.pdf [https://perma.cc/QC5R-YRX9]. ↑
253. Hailey Eisenrich, Dealing with the Drought: Swimming Pool Restrictions Enacted in Vegas, Aqua Mag.: News (Sep. 12, 2022), https://www.aquamagazine.com/news/legislation/article/15296633/dealing-with-the-drought-swimming-pool-restrictions-enacted-in-vegas [https://perma.cc/EVN9-SFQB]. ↑
254. The program offered fifty dollars or 50 percent off the purchase of a temporary pool cover (whichever was less) or $200 or 50 percent off the purchase of a permanent, mechanical pool cover (whichever was less). A pool owner could apply for a coupon every thirty‑six months. Southern Nevada Water Authority Pool Cover Instant Rebate Program, supra note 251. ↑
255. Eisenrich, supra note 253; S. Nev. Water Auth., supra note 252, at 65. ↑
256. What We’re Doing to Conserve, supra note 32. ↑
257. See The Wall Street Journal, supra note 32; Southern Nevada Water Authority, supra note 223. The Cash for Grass program is also called the Water Smart Landscape Rebate Program. What We’re Doing to Conserve, supra note 32. ↑
258. What We’re Doing to Conserve, supra note 32. ↑
259. A.B. 356, 81st Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Nev. 2021). ↑
260. Drought and Conservation Measures, supra note 20; accord The Wall Street Journal, supra note 32, at 6:06; Non‑Functional Turf Waiver Request, S. Nev. Water Auth., https://www.snwa.com/apps/watersmart-landscape-commercial-waiver [https://perma.cc/C65F-M4DE]; LastWeekTonight, supra note 20, at 15:41; Daniel Rothberg, With New Law, Las Vegas Water Agency Bets on ‘Aggressive Municipal Water Conservation Measure’ to Remove Decorative Turf, Conserve Colorado River Supply, Nev. Indep. (June 8, 2021, at 2:00 AM), https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/with-new-law-las-vegas-water-agency-bets-on-aggressive-municipal-water-conservation-measure-to-remove-decorative-turf-conserve-colorado-river-supply [https://perma.cc/6LW6-248M]; see also Southern Nevada Water Authority, supra note 223, at 2:20–2:41 (discussing the restrictions on water use for grass and other outdoor recreational purposes such as golf courses). ↑
261. See supra note 260 and accompanying text. ↑
262. See Lochhead, supra note 241. ↑
263. Id. ↑
264. Joe Moeller, Residents Frustrated by Excessive Water Use Charges in Las Vegas, KTNV (July 19, 2023, at 9:47 PM), https://www.ktnv.com/news/residents-frustrated-by-excessive-water-use-charges-in-las-vegas [https://perma.cc/ZK3B-4QHY]. ↑
265. Marvin Clemons, From $40 to $5,000, Valley Residents Being Fined More than Ever for Wasting Water, L.V. Rev.‑J.: News, https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/politics-and-government/las-vegas/from-40-to-5000-valley-residents-being-fined-more-than-ever-for-wasting-water [https://perma.cc/WB6L-EHG5] (last updated Sep. 27, 2022, at 9:17 AM). ↑
266. Moeller, supra note 264. ↑
267. Clemons, supra note 265. ↑
268. See The Wall Street Journal, supra note 32, at 0:31, 4:34. ↑
269. See Donald Kimball, Americans Believe in Local Solutions, Even If They Don’t Know It, Wash. Pol’y Ctr. (Dec. 21, 2023), https://www.washingtonpolicy.org/publications/detail/americans-believe-in-local-solutions-even-if-they-dont-know-it [https://perma.cc/HH2J-PHU4]. ↑
270. See Fox5 Las Vegas, supra note 235, at 1:06; Lochhead, supra note 241. AB 220 did not address water usage in multifamily or commercial developments because most of the water used in those developments is used indoors, and so it gets recycled. Colton Lochhead, What We Know About the Bill That Could Limit Las Vegas Water Use, L.V. Rev.‑J.: News, https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/politics-and-government/nevada/2023-legislature/what-we-know-about-the-bill-that-could-limit-las-vegas-water-use [https://perma.cc/YMA5-9JRT] (last updated May 16, 2023, at 6:54 PM). ↑
271. See Fox5 Las Vegas, supra note 235, at 1:06; Lochhead, supra note 241. ↑
272. Lochhead, supra note 270. ↑
273. Vanessa Murphy et al., I‑Team: Top Water Users in the Las Vegas Valley Revealed, 8 News Now: Investigators, https://www.8newsnow.com/investigators/i-team-top-water-users-in-the-las-vegas-valley-revealed [https://perma.cc/JYS9-AKK3] (last updated Aug. 12, 2021, at 6:25 PM). ↑
274. See Lochhead, supra note 270. ↑
275. Lochhead, supra note 241. “If the Federal Government . . . [declares a shortage on] the Colorado River for the upcoming year, the Board of Directors may limit each single‑family residence that uses the waters of the Colorado River distributed by the Southern Nevada Water Authority or a member agency of the Southern Nevada Water Authority to not more than 0.5 acre‑feet of water for that upcoming year.” A.B. 220, 82nd Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. § 29 (Nev. 2023) (amending Conservation of Colorado River Water Act, ch. 364, § 38.2, 2021 Nev. Stat. 2179, 2180). ↑
276. Lochhead, supra note 241. ↑
277. Id.; Lochhead, supra note 270. ↑
278. Colton Lochhead, After Pushback, Proposed Septic Tank Conversion Likely to Be Voluntary, L.V. Rev.‑J.: News, https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/politics-and-government/nevada/2023-legislature/after-pushback-proposed-septic-tank-conversion-likely-to-be-voluntary [https://perma.cc/F45D-6WGY] (last updated May 12, 2023, at 7:51 PM). ↑
279. See Lochhead, supra note 241. ↑
280. See id.; see also supra note 127. ↑
281. See Lochhead, supra note 241. ↑
282. See Lochhead, supra note 270. ↑
283. See infra Section III.A.1. ↑
284. Will, supra note 53. ↑
285. Id.; Clemons, supra note 265; Water Waste, L.V. Valley Water Dist., https://www.lvvwd.com/conservation/water-waste/index.html [https://perma.cc/H59N-46SY]. As of September 2024, there were twenty‑three water cops patrolling the Las Vegas valley, as opposed to the two hundred state troopers that typically patrol the valley (instead, due to hiring deficiencies, the amount of state troopers patrolling the valley in September 2024 was fifty‑one). Will, supra note 53; David Charns, Nevada State Police Staffing Crisis Creates Deadly Consequences with Few Troopers Patrolling Las Vegas Overnight, 8 News Now: Investigators, https://www.8newsnow.com/investigators/nevada-state-police-staffing-crisis-creates-deadly-consequences-with-few-troopers-patrolling-las-vegas-overnight [https://perma.cc/E4GL-BSY6] (last updated Feb. 28, 2025, at 6:15 PM); accord Yvette Fernandez, These Investigators Patrol Las Vegas Looking for One Thing: Water Waste, NPR: Climate (Aug. 28, 2025, at 5:00 AM), https://www.npr.org/2025/08/28/nx-s1-5518196/las-vegas-drought-water-patrol-conservation [https://perma.cc/2WJD-NZGH] (noting that as of August 2025, there were “about two dozen” water cops). The Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department employs over three thousand police officers. See Joseph Lombardo, L.V. Metro. Police Dep’t, 2018 Annual Report 6 (2018), https://web.archive.org/web/20191022074219/https://www.lvmpd.com/en-us/Documents/2018_Annual_Report.pdf [https://perma.cc/HJB7-9J9G]. ↑
286. L.V. Valley Water Dist., Service Rules 1 (2025), https://www.lvvwd.com/assets/pdf/service-rules.pdf [https://perma.cc/GW3G-CQ6L]; LVVWD, What’s the Difference Between SNWA and LVVWD? (YouTube, Oct. 28, 2020), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEtJAPXDAGs (on file with the University of Colorado Law Review). ↑
287. L.V. Valley Water Dist., supra note 286. ↑
288. See LVVWD, supra note 286. ↑
289. Sammy Roth, A Day in the Life of a Las Vegas Water Cop, USA Today, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/08/28/california-drought-las-vegas-water-conservation/71288822 [https://perma.cc/YM5X-6DK7] (last updated Aug. 28, 2015, at 2:58 PM). ↑
290. Id. ↑
291. Yvette Fernandez, Las Vegas Water Patrols Take on Heightened Importance in the Thirsty Mountain West, Nev. Pub. Radio (Aug. 20, 2025, at 6:33 PM), https://knpr.org/2025-08-20/las-vegas-turns-to-water-patrols-one-of-many-conservation-efforts-in-the-thirsty-mountain-west [https://perma.cc/M389-Q78Y]. ↑
292. Id. ↑
293. Id. ↑
294. See id. ↑
295. L.V. Valley Water Dist., supra note 286, at 63. ↑
296. Id. at 64. ↑
297. Water Waste, supra note 285. ↑
298. Id. ↑
299. Id. ↑
300. Id.; Will, supra note 53. ↑
301. Will, supra note 53. ↑
302. See What We’re Doing to Conserve, supra note 32. ↑
303. See Dexter Lim, OPINION: Pride Comes Before the Sprawl: The Clark County Lands Bill Is Back, Nev. Indep. (July 3, 2024, at 2:00 AM), https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/opinion-pride-comes-before-the-sprawl-the-clark-county-lands-bill-is-back [https://perma.cc/B5RW-CHDH]; see also Katie Ann McCarver, New Legislation Seeks to Drive Development, Create Jobs at Apex Industrial Park, L.V. Sun (Nov. 26, 2023, at 2:00 AM), https://lasvegassun.com/news/2023/nov/26/new-legislation-seeks-to-drive-development-create [https://perma.cc/2ZRZ-L9XY]. ↑
304. Brian Hurlburt, Golf in Nevada Is a Billion Dollar Business – Here Is Why It Should Be Supported, L.V. Golf Insider (July 23, 2025), https://www.lasvegasgolfinsider.com/golf-in-nevada-is-a-billion-dollar-business-here-is-why-it-should-be-supported [https://perma.cc/K5YR-KS4J]. ↑
305. See Southern Nevada Water Authority, supra note 223. ↑
306. What We’re Doing to Conserve, supra note 32. ↑
307. Id. “Potable [w]ater is drinking water that meets or exceeds state and federal drinking water standards.” Recycled Water Terminology, Delta Diablo, https://www.deltadiablo.org/recycled-water-terminology [https://perma.cc/9HGT-FBR3]. “Raw [w]ater is surface or groundwater that has not gone through an approved water treatment process.” Id. “Reclaimed [w]ater is previously used water that has been treated for reuse but has not yet been put to another use.” Id. “Recycled [w]ater generally refers to treated domestic wastewater that is used more than once before it passes back into the water cycle.” Id. Recycled water is also reclaimed water that has been put to some purpose. Id. ↑
308. What We’re Doing to Conserve, supra note 32. ↑
309. Id. ↑
310. Id. ↑
311. See Southern Nevada Water Authority, supra note 223; Drought and Conservation Measures, supra note 20; Where Your Water Comes From, supra note 233. ↑
312. What We’re Doing to Conserve, supra note 32; A.B. 356, 81st Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Nev. 2021). ↑
313. See Southern Nevada Economic Development and Conservation Act, H.R. 1597, 117th Cong. (2021). ↑
314. Lim, supra note 303. ↑
315. Id. ↑
316. Id. ↑
317. See H.R. 1597. ↑
318. McCarver, supra note 303. ↑
319. Id. ↑
320. Id. ↑
321. See id. ↑
322. Id. ↑
323. Kyle Chouinard, New Federal Law Cuts Red Tape for Future Growth at Apex, L.V. Sun (Aug. 26, 2025, at 2:00 AM), https://lasvegassun.com/news/2025/aug/26/new-federal-law-cuts-red-tape-for-future-growth-at [https://perma.cc/26ZA-N6HX]. ↑
324. McCarver, supra note 303. ↑
325. Apex Area Technical Corrections Act, Pub. L. No. 119‑24, 139 Stat. 406 (2025); see Chouinard, supra note 323. ↑
326. See Will, supra note 53; Lim, supra note 303. ↑
327. See supra note 326 and accompanying text. ↑
328. Fox5Las Vegas, supra note 235; Seely, supra note 161. ↑
329. See infra Section IV.A. ↑
330. See infra Section IV.B. ↑
331. See infra Section IV.C. ↑
332. Seely, supra note 161. ↑
333. Loomis, supra note 169; Seely, supra note 161. ↑
334. See Loomis, supra note 169; Flavelle & Healy, supra note 1. ↑
335. Flavelle & Healy, supra note 1 (quoting Sarah Porter, director of the Kyl Center for Water Policy at Arizona State University). ↑
336. See id.; e.g., Econ. Innovation Grp., Advancing Economic Development in Persistent‑Poverty Communities: South Phoenix, Arizona 2 (2023), https://eig.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Case-Study-1_South-Phoenix-Arizona.pdf [https://perma.cc/FFH7-MXKD] (showing the wealth disparity between one of Phoenix’s suburbs, South Phoenix, and the Phoenix metropolitan area). ↑
337. See, e.g., Flavelle & Healy, supra note 1. ↑
338. Id. ↑
339. Id. ↑
340. See id. ↑
341. See id. ↑
342. The 10 Wealthiest Cities in Arizona, Loc. Luxury, https://localluxuryre.com/wealthiest-cities-in-arizona [https://perma.cc/WEJ8-MGVU]. ↑
343. See Anita Snow, Americans Still Flocking to Cities at Risk of Extreme Natural Disasters, NBC S.D., https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/national-international/americans-continue-to-flock-to-cities-at-risk-of-extreme-natural-disasters [https://perma.cc/4RJM-5DDB] (last updated Oct. 8, 2021, at 1:37 PM). ↑
344. See id. ↑
345. Id. ↑
346. Slade Smith et al., Why Has Arizona’s Heat‑Related Death Rate Increased Tenfold in Twenty Years?, in Arizona’s Heat‑Related Death White Paper, at 1, 10 (Making Action Possible for Southern Arizona Dashboard, White Paper No. 22, 2024), https://www.mapazdashboard.arizona.edu/sites/default/files/2024-08/Heat-Related%20Deaths%20White%20Paper.pdf [https://perma.cc/L946-2XMJ] (describing how certain racial minority groups, including non‑white Latino, Black, and American Indian residents, experienced “disproportionately high death rates” as compared to white residents, “who comprise about 80% of the population” yet “accounted for about 60% of the victims”). ↑
347. Id. at 23. ↑
348. Id. at 11 n.3. ↑
349. Id. at 10, 22. ↑
350. Snow, supra note 343. ↑
351. See id.; Phoenix: A City at the Forefront of Sustainable Construction Solutions, Constructing a Sustainable Future (Jan. 29, 2024), https://www.constructing-sustainable-future.com/en/interviews/phoenix-a-city-at-the-forefront-of-sustainable-construction-solutions [https://perma.cc/PMB6-ZVAF]. ↑
352. See Snow, supra note 343. ↑
353. See Kathryn Sorensen, Lessons from Phoenix on Water Management and Equity, Trellis, https://trellis.net/article/lessons-phoenix-water-management-and-equity [https://perma.cc/FKW7-XAWM] (last updated July 24, 2024). ↑
354. Phoenix imposes a fixed monthly service charge on residents, which includes 3,740 gallons of water per month from October through May and 5,984 gallons of water per month from June through September. Water and Sewer Rates, City of Phx.: Admin., https://www.phoenix.gov/administration/departments/waterservices/city-services-bill/water-sewer-rates.html [https://perma.cc/49JQ-YMHX]. If the water consumption of a resident living within the city limits does not exceed those allotted amounts, they will pay $4.64 per month for a 5/8″ meter size, $6.03 per month for a 3/4″ meter size, $8.81 per month for a 1″ meter size, $15.77 per month for a 1.5″ meter size, $24.13 per month for a 2″ meter size, $43.62 per month for a 3″ meter size, $71.46 per month for a 4″ meter size, and $141.06 per month for a 6″ meter size. Id. Standard water meter sizes for residential use are the 5/8″ size, 3/4″ size, and the 1″ size, so most residential properties are paying between $4.64 and $8.81 per month for water if they remain under the allotted amount. Id.; How to Choose Residential Water Meter Size?, BMAG Meter: Blog (Oct. 21, 2024, at 8:42 AM), https://www.bmagmeter.com/how-to-choose-residential-water-meter-size [https://perma.cc/3WKK-KXQ3]. ↑
355. See Sorensen, supra note 353. ↑
356. Id. ↑
357. See id. ↑
358. Id. ↑
359. Id. ↑
360. Id. ↑
361. Id. ↑
362. Id. ↑
363. Id. ↑
364. See id. ↑
365. See id. In 1990, Phoenix began charging higher rates for excess water usage above a designated base amount, known as an allowance. Taylor Seely, 48% More? Phoenix’s Rising Water Rates Could Hurt – Unless You Conserve. What to Know, AZCentral: Loc., https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2023/07/07/phoenix-water-rates-increase-sharply-2023-what-you-need-to-know/70371017007 [https://perma.cc/4MUS-NU4H] (last updated Oct. 3, 2023, at 8:03 AM). The allowance decreased for the first time in October 2023, with further decreases in March 2024 and March 2025. Id. As of March 1, 2025, the allowance was 3,740 gallons of water for usage from October through May and 5,984 gallons of water for usage from June through September. City of Phoenix Water Rate Schedule: Effective March 1, 2025 (2025), https://www.phoenix.gov/content/dam/phoenix/waterservicessite/documents/rates_effective_march_2025.pdf [https://perma.cc/7QP6-3P36]. If one’s usage is below the allowance, only a flat, monthly service charge must be paid. Id. If water usage exceeds the allowance, one’s monthly service charge will increase by $4.93 per unit in the low season (December through March), $5.65 per unit in the medium season (April, May, October, and November), and $6.13 per unit in the high season (June through September). See id.; Water and Sewer Rates, supra note 354. One unit of water in this context equals 748 gallons of water in excess of the allowance. Seely, supra. For these City of Phoenix rates, an environmental charge of $0.62 is added per the total number of units metered. City of Phoenix Water Rate Schedule, supra. If one uses City of Phoenix water but lives outside of the city limits (except for the Town of Paradise), the monthly service charge is 150 percent of the city rate, and the environmental charge increases to $0.93 per total number of units metered. Id. ↑
366. Sorensen, supra note 353. ↑
367. Id.; Seely, supra note 365. ↑
368. See Sorensen, supra note 353. ↑
369. Jacob Napieralski et al., Mapping the Link Between Outdoor Water Footprint and Social Vulnerability in Metro Phoenix, AZ (USA), Landscape & Urb. Plan., Oct. 2022, at 1, 9. ↑
370. See id. While this Note focuses on reallocating the burden of conservation among individual water users, Phoenix could reallocate the burden of water conservation from individuals in the residential sector to businesses, generally, or the agriculture sector. However, this Note chooses to focus on the reallocation of the burden among individuals because the residential sector consumes the majority, approximately 66 percent, of Phoenix’s water supply. Global Institute of Sustainability and Innovation, WaterSim Training – Phoenix Area Water, at 2:44 (YouTube, Nov. 17, 2020), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Haf3t1wETxY (on file with the University of Colorado Law Review) (showing a chart with single‑family residential water demand at 50 percent, multifamily residential water demand at 16 percent, and non-residential water demand at 33 percent). Thus, it is logical for the city to burden the sector that is consuming the most water, as the city has the opportunity to literally conserve the most water by doing so. ↑
371. Napieralski et al., supra note 369, at 9. ↑
372. See Fox5 Las Vegas, supra note 235; Lochhead, supra note 270. ↑
373. Fox5 Las Vegas, supra note 235; see, e.g., Lochhead, supra note 241; Lochhead, supra note 270. ↑
374. Alan Halaly, Drought in Clark County Now “Extreme” After Bone‑Dry Streak, L.V. Rev.‑J.: Loc., https://www.reviewjournal.com/local/weather/drought-in-clark-county-now-extreme-after-bone-dry-streak [https://perma.cc/GVX8-ETJU] (last updated Dec. 12, 2024, at 6:40 PM). ↑
375. See Lochhead, supra note 270. ↑
376. Id. To demonstrate the scale and success of Las Vegas’s ability to recycle water used indoors, SNWA spokesman Bronson Mack went as far as to say, “We could turn on every shower and faucet in every hotel room on the Strip, and it would not increase the amount of water we consume from the Colorado River because it is all being safely and sustainably returned to the lake.” Alan Halaly, On Water Recycling, Nevada Is Leagues Ahead of Other States, Study Shows, L.V. Rev. J.: Loc. (Apr. 3, 2025, at 6:01 AM), https://www.reviewjournal.com/local/local-nevada/on-water-recycling-nevada-is-leagues-ahead-of-other-states-study-shows-3346203 [https://perma.cc/YFG2-PFV8]. ↑
377. See Lochhead, supra note 270. ↑
378. See Lochhead, supra note 241. ↑
379. See id.; see also Moeller, supra note 264 (quoting general manager of SNWA John Entsminger) (“[T]he top 10% [of owners of half acre parcels of land] use more than the bottom 50%.”). ↑
380. See Lochhead, supra note 241; Moeller, supra note 264; Fox5 Las Vegas, supra note 235. ↑
381. See Lim, supra note 303. ↑
382. Id. ↑
383. E.g., id. ↑
384. See id.; see also Lochhead, supra note 241 (noting Nevada is now “the first state in the nation to give a local water agency the power to limit individual home water use”); Moeller, supra note 264 (“60,000 customers were hit with excessive use charges in the first six months of the year, totaling more than $12 million.”); Fox5 Las Vegas, supra note 235, at 00:17 (discussing the new water control power given to the SNWA). ↑
385. See, e.g., The Wall Street Journal, supra note 32. ↑
386. See Snow, supra note 343. ↑
387. Id. ↑
388. Id. The fact that low‑income residents are the most impacted by heat waves is a massive issue and a topic that could be the basis of its own article. For the purposes of this Note, it serves to call attention to the fact that this is another equity issue because low‑income residents are least likely to have contributed to the issue of short water supplies, as they cannot afford to pay for excessive or wasteful water usage, and yet, they are the ones experiencing the most suffering due to these heat waves often because of lack of water. This causal connection is demonstrated through the proposed solutions to the problem. See infra note 389 and accompanying text. ↑
389. See Snow, supra note 343. ↑
390. Rogers, supra note 48. ↑
391. Tying in with the equity argument, homeownership in Arizona is more common and easier financially for white residents to accomplish. See Garrett Archer, Homeownership Rates for Minority Groups Trend Up in Arizona, but Challenges Still Exist, ABC15 Ariz.: News, https://www.abc15.com/news/state/homeownership-rates-for-minority-groups-trend-up-in-arizona-but-challenges-still-exist [https://perma.cc/ZEL5-8W2N] (last updated Feb. 21, 2024, at 7:02 PM). While the homeownership rate in Arizona is 73 percent for white residents, it is 41 percent for Black residents, 66 percent for Asian residents, and 59 percent for Hispanic residents. Id. Additionally, the share of homeowners spending over 30 percent of their household income on housing expenses was 20.5 percent for white residents and 19.7 percent for Asian residents, compared to 24.7 percent for Black residents and 23.5 percent for Hispanic residents. Id. Other financial hurdles to buying a home are often encountered more by racial minority populations. Id. For instance, the mortgage denial rate for white residents was 15 percent, but it was 21 percent for Black residents and 19 percent for Hispanic residents. Id. Student loan debt is another hurdle that white residents encounter less, only 21 percent of the time, while Black, Asian, and Hispanic residents encounter it 41 percent, 22 percent, and 29 percent of the time, respectively. Id. Thus, the fact that Phoenix’s policies tend to benefit current homeowners likely means they are benefiting the white residents who are more likely to own a home than the racial minority residents who are less likely to own a home and more likely to encounter financial difficulty in doing so. See id. ↑
392. See Rogers, supra note 48. ↑
393. Id.; Milman, supra note 162. ↑
394. Rogers, supra note 48; accord Milman, supra note 162. ↑
395. Phoenix Water Services Drought Management, City of Phx.: Admin., https://www.phoenix.gov/administration/departments/waterservices/supply-conservation/drought/drought-shortage-operations.html [https://perma.cc/9RHH-5M34]; accord Bob Christie, Desalination Plants Among Proposals to Find New Water for Arizona, KAWC: News (Aug, 25, 2025, at 9:45 AM), https://www.kawc.org/news/2025-08-25/desalination-plants-among-proposals-to-find-new-water-for-arizona [https://perma.cc/KT3L-KH6W]. ↑
396. Christie, supra note 395. ↑
397. See, e.g., Milman, supra note 162 (noting that the PWSD said “developers would need to find other sources [in order to continue] to build” and that Sharon Megdal, the director of the University of Arizona’s Water Resources Research Center stated that “desalinated brackish groundwater could . . . [help] increase future [water] supplies” for the city, thus allowing the developers to continue building). ↑
398. Loomis, supra note 169. ↑
399. See Ysabelle Kempe, Phoenix Water Conservation Policy Targets Future Development, Smart Cities Dive (June 23, 2023), https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/news/phoenix-sustainable-water-development-policy-approved [https://perma.cc/VJ4K-2AKU]. ↑
400. See id. (“[T]he city is not taking a one‑size‑fits‑all approach . . . [Max Wilson, deputy director of the PWSD’s water planning division] said, and is instead allowing users to come up with their own plans regarding their use and conservation of water.”). ↑
401. Id. ↑
402. Id. ↑
403. Id. ↑
404. Id.; Taylor Seely, Phoenix Has New Water Rules, and Penalties, for Businesses Using 250K‑Plus Gallons a Day, AZCentral: Loc., https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2024/03/07/new-water-requirements-in-phoenix-force-companies-to-plan-conservation/72858070007 [https://perma.cc/34NF-K8K2] (last updated Mar. 8, 2024, at 9:28 AM). Due to the recency of this legislation, it is unclear whether Phoenix has suspended services or revoked its approval of a new business as a result of this policy. Instead, it is more likely that new businesses choose to implement water‑saving technology in order to get approval. ↑
405. Kempe, supra note 399. ↑
406. Id. ↑
407. This sentiment is similar to that of developers with currently unused water permits for the Assured Water Supply in that it would be unfair to those developers to revoke their permits due to their economic reliance on them. See id. ↑
408. Flavelle & Healy, supra note 1. ↑
409. E.g., id. ↑
410. See supra Section III.B (discussing the water conservation policies of Las Vegas’s golf courses). ↑
411. Hurlburt, supra note 304. ↑
412. What We’re Doing to Conserve, supra note 32. ↑
413. See Southern Nevada Economic Development and Conservation Act, H.R. 1597, 117th Cong. (2021); supra Section III.B (discussing SNEDCA). ↑
414. See Lim, supra note 303. ↑
415. See H.R. 1597; supra Section III.B (discussing SNEDCA). ↑
416. The fact that Congress failed to pass SNEDCA but enacted the AATCA is seemingly contradictory. However, this difference in bill passage might be due to two factors: (1) the Democratic‑majority 117th Congress failed to pass SNEDCA while the Republican‑majority 119th Congress passed the AATCA; and (2) SNEDCA affected Southern Nevada generally while the AATCA focused on a specific project, which might have caused legislators to be more receptive to granting approval of the latter. Contrast H.R. 1597, and Jennifer E. Manning, Cong. Rsch. Serv., R46705, Membership of the 117th Congress: A Profile (2022), with Apex Area Technical Corrections Act, Pub. L. No. 119‑24, 139 Stat. 406 (2025), and Jennifer E. Manning, Cong. Rsch. Serv., R48535, Membership of the 119th Congress: A Profile (2025). ↑
417. Chouinard, supra note 323; accord McCarver, supra note 303. ↑
418. Chouinard, supra note 323. ↑
419. Id. ↑
420. See McCarver, supra note 303. ↑
421. See Loomis, supra note 169. ↑
422. See Milman, supra note 162. ↑
423. See id. ↑
424. See id. ↑
425. See Maricopa Cnty. Mun. Water Conservation Dist. v. Sw. Cotton Co., 4 P.2d 369, 373 (Ariz. 1931). ↑
426. See In re Gen. Adjudication of All Rts. to Use Water in Gila River Sys. & Source, 989 P.2d 739, 743 (Ariz. 1999). ↑
427. See id. ↑
428. See Lochhead, supra note 241. ↑
429. Halaly, supra note 374; see also Heather Hansman, How Sin City Finally Learned to Sustain Itself, Adventure.com (May 1, 2023), https://adventure.com/how-las-vegas-conserves-water [https://perma.cc/JK4W-6BPQ] (noting how Las Vegas has become a “model for water conservation”); Daniel Rothberg, Las Vegas Is Going All in on Its Water Conservation Plan, Smithsonian Mag. (Apr./May 2024), https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/las-vegas-going-all-in-water-conservation-plan-180983974 [https://perma.cc/4DDX-MCWW] (describing Las Vegas’s advanced conservation methods); Sin City Las Vegas Is Paving the Way for Water Conservation, Intellihot, https://intellihot.com/sin-city-las-vegas-is-paving-the-way-for-water-conservation [https://perma.cc/HCY6-22J2] (same). ↑
430. See Lim, supra note 303. ↑
431. Id. ↑
432. Drought and Conservation Measures, supra note 20; Southern Nevada Water Authority, supra note 223. ↑
433. The Wall Street Journal, supra note 32. ↑
434. See Milman, supra note 162; Rogers, supra note 48. ↑
435. See Lim, supra note 303. It is too soon to tell what the long‑term effects of these approaches are on the environment. If both cities continue to promote water conservation efforts as they have been, there might be little difference between their long‑term effects on the environment. This is because Phoenix would stop development as needed without requiring much water conservation from existing residents and properties. As less structures are being built, the city would conserve more water, but the way in which Phoenix’s residents use water is unsustainable. Accordingly, without imposing more aggressive conservation measures on its residents, Phoenix’s approach has long‑term sustainability concerns. Moreover, Las Vegas would continue developing, which naturally leads to more water consumption, but would require stricter and stricter water conservation measures to be taken by new and existing buildings. Because these water conservation regulations are unlikely to restrict water usage enough to supply both conservation efforts and water required for construction and use of new properties, Las Vegas’s approach has long‑term sustainability issues, as well. ↑
436. Tarlock & Van de Wetering, supra note 136, at 1003–04 (“Under the state [of Arizona]’s groundwater management law, a local government cannot approve a new development of platted land unless a city can guarantee a hundred‑year water supply to satisfy its projected demand. This requires complicated determinations of available ground, surface and Central Arizona Project water.”). ↑
437. Id. ↑
438. In re Gen. Adjudication of All Rts. to Use Water in Gila River Sys. & Source, 989 P.2d 739, 743 (Ariz. 1999). ↑
439. See Sullivan v. Lincoln Cnty. Water Dist., 542 P.3d 411, 416, 424 (Nev. 2024). ↑
440. Id. ↑
441. Id. ↑
442. See, e.g., Fox5Las Vegas, supra note 235; Seely, supra note 161; Berger, supra note 29. ↑
443. See Dewey, supra note 134, at 161 (“The right to free travel, including migration and settlement, is well‑established in American law . . . .”). ↑
444. Fox5Las Vegas, supra note 235; Seely, supra note 161. ↑