Extracted text (via pymupdf)
28418 characters
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
COUNCIL MINUTES
February 12, 2026
The City Council of the City of Mesa met in the Study Session room at City Hall, 20 East Main Street, on
February 12, 2026, at 7:34 a.m.
COUNCIL PRESENT
COUNCIL ABSENT
OFFICERS PRESENT
Mark Freeman
Scott Somers*
Rich Adams*
Jennifer Duff
Francisco Heredia
Alicia Goforth
Dorean Taylor
None
Scott Butler
Holly Moseley
Jim Smith
(*Participated in the meeting through the use of video conference equipment.)
Mayor Freeman conducted a roll call.
1-a.
Hear a presentation, discuss, and provide direction on Mesa City Center, including the
redevelopment of the Post Office into Arizona State University Creative Technologies building,
construction of a new retail Post Office, and development of the Light Walk.
This presentation will be rescheduled to a future date.
1-b.
Hear a presentation, discuss, and receive an update on the current conditions of the Colorado
River and impacts to the City of Mesa water portfolio.
Water Resources Director Christopher Hassert introduced Assistant Director Jessie Heywood and
displayed a PowerPoint presentation. (See Attachment 1)
Mr. Hassert advised that the 20-year Colorado River operating guidelines established in 2007 are
set to expire at the end of 2026, amid an ongoing, prolonged drought and discussed the water
level challenges and negotiations with other states. He reviewed the City’s service areas and the
water resources for each zone. He defined the term “acre-foot” as it relates to water supply, noting
that one acre-foot is equivalent to a volume of water covering nearly the size of a football field,
160 feet. (See Pages 2 through 4 of Attachment 1)
Mr. Hassert explained that surface water for the City Zone area is treated at the Val Vista Water
Treatment Plant, which is operated by Phoenix and jointly owned with Mesa. He stated that the
City of Mesa (COM) has a treatment capacity of 90 million gallons per day (MGD) and access to
about 62,000 acre-feet of water annually through Salt River Project (SRP), while current demand
Study Session
February 12, 2026
Page 2
is significantly lower at 33,000–35,000 acre-feet. He noted that demand is stable due to limited
growth in the largely built-out area, resulting in excess capacity. He emphasized that this water
supply is independent of the Colorado River, relying instead on in-state Salt and Verde River
systems, which are currently at about 57% capacity. (See Page 5 of Attachment 1.)
In response to multiple questions from Councilmember Goforth, Mr. Hassert shared that in the
past when SRP declared a shortage and significantly reduced supplies, the City maintained
supply capacity above its demand within the City Zone, and the City continues to have excess
capacity available. He explained the forecasting process that staff performs to determine the
amount of water the City will require, and confirmed that the City does not store any unused water.
Responding to a question posed by Councilmember Taylor, Mr. Hassert affirmed that Mesa only
uses approximately 50% of its SRP on-project water, its main provider, which is sufficient to serve
households in that region. He mentioned that although there is excess capacity in on-project
areas, that water cannot be transferred elsewhere.
Mr. Hassert discussed the Central Arizona Project (CAP) off-project water supply which has been
developed independently, primarily from Colorado River sources. He added that the biggest share
of Colorado River water comes from municipal and industrial (M&I), and the current demand in
the eastern and southern zones is about 58,000 acre-feet; however, Mesa has about 61,000 acre-
feet available, slightly exceeding current demand. He indicated that future Colorado River cuts
are expected to create challenges, making additional and backup supplies necessary. (See Page
6 of Attachment 1)
Responding to a question posed by Councilmember Duff, Mr. Hassert explained that while
infrastructure could physically allow water to move from SRP canals to the CAP canal, on-project
water cannot legally be transferred and the benefits must stay with the land. He noted that Mesa
is able to transfer its share of New Conservation Space (NCS) water, since Mesa pays for NCS
water and related projects, allowing that water to be moved to the Southeast.
Mr. Hassert identified Mesa’s additional water supplies and discussed the water exchange
process for the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC). He emphasized that the water obtained
through the GRIC exchange is significantly cheaper, $85 per acre-foot versus $365 for standard
CAP M&I water. (See Pages 7 and 8 of Attachment 1)
Responding to a question from Councilmember Goforth, Mr. Hassert answered that the exchange
water costs fluctuate annually based on CAP energy costs. He indicated that the pumping rate
recently dropped from $95 to $85 per acre-foot, while standard (M&I) CAP water continues to
increase in price.
Mr. Hassert stated that CAP is the largest energy consumer in the state of Arizona.
Mr. Hassert reviewed Mesa’s NCS additional water supply and the history and expansion of
Roosevelt Dam, noting that the project was significant for Mesa, providing an additional 41,000
acre-feet of flood storage. He emphasized that the NCS water is not limited to specific projects
and may be used anywhere within Mesa’s service area. He indicated that Bartlett Dam, located
on the Verde River, is undergoing construction of a new dam, creating new flood storage. He
reported that Mesa is a stakeholder and anticipates receiving between 10,000- to 13,000-acre
feet to help support off-project areas. (See Page 9 of Attachment 1)
Study Session
February 12, 2026
Page 3
In response to multiple questions from Councilmember Taylor, Mr. Hassert explicated the
calculations of the water storage and commented that staff expect to increase the annual NCS
supply from 12,500 to approximately 15,000 acre-feet of storage.
Responding to a question posed by Mayor Freeman, Mr. Hassert replied that Mesa uses about
88 million gallons of water per day, or approximately 98,000 acre-feet annually citywide, with
about 58,000 acre-feet in CAP service areas.
In response to a question from Councilmember Duff, Mr. Hassert reported that this year the
reservoir levels across the West are expected to be below average. He noted, while conditions
within the SRP system are currently holding steady, they remain below average, and Colorado
River supplies are also projected to be below average.
Councilmember Duff commented that Arizona’s water supply depends more on snowfall than
rainfall.
Councilmember Taylor shared that during a recent SRP watershed tour, hydrologists reported
reservoirs at Bartlett Lake, Horseshoe Bend, and the Verde River were slightly above maximum
allowance at that time due to recent rain, though conditions are expected to fluctuate.
Mr. Hassert explained that Mesa’s backup groundwater source provides approximately 10,000
acre-feet per year in the City’s 100-year Assured Water Supply. He described the two components
of groundwater and the process for using the aquifer and how the amount for the water supply is
determined. He stated that Mesa typically pumps about half that amount in a normal year to
preserve groundwater as a backup supply, though pumping could increase during Colorado River
shortages, particularly to support eastern and southern service areas. (See Page 10 of
Attachment 1)
In response to multiple questions from Councilmember Taylor, Mr. Hassert commented that
leakage mainly comes from pipe joints and seeps back into the aquifer, and Mesa receives credit.
He mentioned that Mesa’s leakage rate is about 5%, which is considered good since Arizona
requires water providers to stay below 10% under the 1980 Groundwater Management Act.
Responding to a question posed by Councilmember Goforth, Mr. Hassert explained how unused
groundwater is allocated.
Mr. Hassert provided an overview of Mesa’s long-term storage credits (LTSCs), noting that the
City has over 500,000 acre-feet banked underground. He pointed out several ways to earn LTSC
and emphasized that Mesa has approximately 10 years of LTSC to use. (See Page 11 of
Attachment 1)
In response to multiple questions from Councilmember Duff, Mr. Hassert discussed the process
for large water users who must obtain their own LTSC rather than using the City’s supply. He
explained that Mesa directs companies to third-party suppliers and estimates how many credits
are required over a three-year forecast. He elaborated on the locations of water pumping and the
credit source. He advised that many large companies are redesigning operations to use less
water, partly because LTSCs are expensive. He described how a closed loop system operates
more efficiently.
Responding to a question from Councilmember Taylor, City Manager Scott Butler said that
Google has begun transitioning from water cooled to air cooled facilities due to water use
Study Session
February 12, 2026
Page 4
concerns from the community. He stressed that the City encourages companies to use the most
sustainable water and energy technologies.
In response to a question posed by Councilmember Heredia, Mr. Hassert stated that every city
or town has guidelines in place through the 1980 Groundwater Management Act on how water is
pumped and the constraints, as well as each city must maintain its own Assured Water Supply.
He mentioned the partnerships with the Arizona Municipal Water Users Association (AMWUA),
and the future of water use. He mentioned that all cities have groundwater challenges.
Mr. Butler added that the City stays vigilant in ensuring that water supplies are protected.
Responding to a question posed by Mayor Freeman, Mr. Hassert replied that the City has 557,084
acre-feet of annually stored water credits, and when water is pumped from the ground those
credits are extinguished. He discussed the options for recharge programs to increase their LTSC
and exchange water. He noted that Mesa continues to build storage credits, but in years with
severe water cuts, the City may use some of those stored credits, which are permanently reduced
once pumped.
Mr. Heywood presented historical data showing that Mesa’s water demand rose sharply in the
1990s due to population growth and higher per-customer use, peaked around 2004, and has
since leveled off despite continued customer growth, largely due to efficiency improvements. He
noted that surface water sources are expected to increase in supply beginning in 2027–2028 with
the Central Mesa Reuse Pipeline delivering a full year of reclaimed water to the GRIC. (See Page
12 of Attachment 1)
Mr. Hassert added that the water supply is ordered by cost priority, with the least expensive water
used first (CAP exchange water with GRIC at about $85 per acre-foot), while more expensive
sources are added afterward.
In response to a question from Mayor Freeman, Mr. Hassert replied that the City pays
approximately $70 per acre-foot for SRP water.
Mr. Heywood provided an overview of a scenario involving significant Colorado River cuts and
leased water projected to occur in 2027 that assumes a gap between projected demand and
available surface water. He described another scenario that includes additional water sources
where the City would be able to meet demand. (See Pages 13 and 14 of Attachment 1)
Mr. Hassert clarified that within the next five years, even with an estimated 20% water cut, Mesa
would rely very little on backup supplies. He added that since the actual cuts are still being
negotiated, any additional reductions would further decrease available surface water, requiring
greater use of alternative supplies. He noted that beyond 2030, current efforts, such as projects
involving Bartlett Dam and exploring new water sources, will become critical to maintaining
supply, emphasizing the need for long-term planning to stay ahead of potential shortages.
Responding to multiple questions posed by Councilmember Taylor, Mr. Hassert cautioned that
SRP project water must remain on designated project lands and cannot be used citywide, but
Mesa can utilize their additional water sources funded at Roosevelt and Bartlett Dams to transfer
its own water through the CAP canal. He added that these supplies can be used citywide, though
they are typically directed where needed.
Study Session
February 12, 2026
Page 5
In response to multiple questions from Councilmember Duff, Mr. Hassert explained that future
cuts to the CAP will create a firm limit on available Colorado River water, effectively capping how
much cities can grow their water use. He advised that cities, including Mesa, must plan within
these limits unless they develop alternative supplies. He added that rural areas are largely
independent since those areas rely on separate aquifers that are not hydrologically connected to
the City’s.
Mr. Hassert reported that to prepare for potentially more severe and long-term water cuts, Mesa
has been proactively expanding its water supply portfolio for several years. He discussed key
efforts, including adding supply from the Bartlett Dam project, about 3,000 acre-feet annually, and
combining it with existing NCS water stored behind Roosevelt Dam. He also highlighted the GRIC
exchange, which currently provides about 8,000 acre-feet, but could increase to 16,000–17,000
with the reuse pipeline. He commented that the City is exploring infrastructure improvements to
increase reclaimed water production and maximize available Colorado River supplies. (See Page
15 of Attachment 1)
In response to multiple questions posed by Councilmember Duff, Mr. Hassert confirmed that Mesa
is not close to reaching its capacity of the exchange, and that the exchange cannot decrease their
limit per the contract which is secured until 2100. He answered that the COM is working with the
City of Phoenix on the 91st Avenue Water Treatment Plant that would treat excess reclaimed
water to drinking standards, with Phoenix using the water locally while Mesa would receive an
equivalent supply through exchange. He noted the project is costly but may receive federal
funding.
Mr. Hassert described several strategies to expand Mesa’s water supply and efficiency. He
summarized the key points to managing Mesa’s water resources. He indicated that the City has
a strong and diversified water portfolio and is continuously evaluating and adjusting strategies to
stay ahead of shortages while considering long-term feasibility and cost. He discussed the
different levels of the water shortage plan, tools, and customer outreach. (See Pages 15 and 16
of Attachment 1)
Responding to multiple questions from Councilmember Taylor, Mr. Hassert replied that while the
GRIC can face initial cuts to the CAP amounts, the federal government contract requires the
government to replace those supplies, by securing storage, ultimately benefiting Mesa by
stabilizing its exchange supply.
Councilmember Taylor emphasized that Mesa has responsibly and proactively managed its water
planning, including long-term projections for growth and its 100-year Assured Water Plan. She
stressed that each city is accountable for its water use and infrastructure decisions, and
suggested the importance of communicating to residents that Mesa has effectively secured the
current water capacity and the intentions for future water, and has the right to protect its resources.
Discussion ensued regarding the GRIC water exchange, investing in water infrastructure
expansions, and the Drought Management Plan.
In response to a question from Mayor Freeman, Mr. Hassert confirmed that the City is still waiting
for its Assured Water Supply designation to be approved by the Arizona Department of Water
Resources (ADWR).
Study Session
February 12, 2026
Page 6
Government Relations Manager Kathy Macdonald advised that the application has been under
review since October 2023, but the City’s designation has been extended in the meantime. She
noted that there are currently 118 water bills in legislature.
Mayor Freeman commented on the challenges to capture excess water in past years and stressed
the importance of having local control and not outsourcing through legislature. He indicated that
projects, such as the Bartlett Dam and system improvements, help to better store and utilize
water.
Responding to a question from Mayor Freeman, Mr. Hassert explained that building a well costs
approximately $6 to $7 million total; to manage costs and market fluctuations, the City is phasing
projects and bidding wells in stages rather than all at once. He highlighted current Desert Wells
25 and 26 projects, noting additional well fields are planned farther south with projects extending
over the next 20 years.
Councilmember Duff expressed appreciation for Mr. Hassert’s leadership and expertise, crediting
him and his team for strengthening Mesa’s water system and leaving the City in a strong position.
Mr. Butler praised Mr. Hassert and his team for building a resilient and diverse water portfolio that
supports residents and attracts businesses. He emphasized the importance of exploring multiple
future water sources despite challenges and costs, and thanked Mr. Hassert for his leadership.
Mr. Butler announced that the new Water Resources Director will be Joseph Giudice upon Mr.
Hassert retiring. He stated that Mr. Giudice has provided strong leadership in the Solid Waste
Department and brings significant water-related experience from his time with the City of Phoenix
prior to joining the COM.
Councilmember Adams thanked Mr. Hassert and suggested having a presentation prior to the
utility rate increase for residents to better understand the need for rate adjustments. He
emphasized the importance of maintaining infrastructure and acknowledged past efforts that built
Mesa’s reliable water system.
Mayor Freeman raised concerns about a proposed state bill that would impose a four-year
moratorium on municipal fee and rate increases, warning of limitations on the City’s ability to
respond to funding for the City’s needs.
Mayor Freeman thanked staff for the presentation.
2.
Acknowledge receipt of minutes of various boards and committees.
2-a.
Historic Preservation Advisory Board meeting held on November 4, 2025.
2-b.
Economic Development Advisory Board meeting held on January 6, 2026.
2-c.
Planning and Zoning Public Hearing Board meeting held on January 14, 2026.
2-d
Planning and Zoning Board Study Session meeting held on January 14, 2026.
2-e
Planning and Zoning Board Special Meeting held on January 14, 2026.
Study Session
February 12, 2026
Page 7
It was moved by Councilmember Duff, seconded by Councilmember Taylor, that receipt of the
above-listed minutes be acknowledged.
Upon tabulation of votes, it showed:
AYES – Freeman–Somers–Adams–Duff–Goforth–Heredia–Taylor
NAYS – None
Carried unanimously.
3.
Current events summary including meetings and conferences attended.
Mayor Freeman and Councilmembers highlighted the events, meetings, and conferences recently
attended.
4.
Scheduling of meetings.
City Manager Scott Butler stated that the schedule of meetings is as follows:
Thursday, February 19, 2026, 7:30 a.m. – Strategic Planning Session
Monday, February 23, 2026, 5:00 p.m. – Study Session
Monday, February 23, 2026, 5:45 p.m. – Regular Council
5.
Adjournment.
Without objection, the Study Session adjourned at 9:23 a.m.
____________________________________
MARK FREEMAN, MAYOR
ATTEST:
_______________________________
HOLLY MOSELEY, CITY CLERK
I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Study Session
of the City Council of Mesa, Arizona, held on the 12th day of February 2026. I further certify that the
meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present.
_______________________________
HOLLY MOSELEY, CITY CLERK
lr
(Attachments – 1)
Mesa Water
Resources
Presented by Chris Hassert
Study Session
February 12, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 1 of 17
Introduction
The 2007 Operating Guidelines for the Colorado
River expire at the end of this year
The Seven Basin States are working toward new
Guidelines to start in 2027
Arizona has already absorbed supply reductions
Deeper cuts inevitable to address the supply-
demand imbalance on the River System
Prolonged drought and robust demand have
contributed to falling reservoir levels
Near term hydrologic projections are not
encouraging
Every Water Provider is unique and must
address the challenges before them
Study Session
February 12, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 2 of 17
On-Project vs.
Off-Project
"On-Project" area is
the City Zone and
served by SRP
"Off-Project" area is
comprised of the
Eastern & Southern
Zones and served by
Colorado River Water
All areas can be
supplied with
Groundwater
Study Session
February 12, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 3 of 17
Water usage for a Mesa median
residential customer
6,000 gallons per month
72,000 gallons per year or 0.22 acre-
feet/year
1 acre-foot serves 4.5 median
residential households for 1 year
1,000 acre-feet serves 4,500 median
residential customers (households)
1,000 acre-feet serves 3,000 households
consuming the average demand of 9kgal
per month
Water Units Refresher
Study Session
February 12, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 4 of 17
Salt River Project (SRP)
“On-Project”
SRP Resources
Annual af/yr
SRP Cutover Land (Acres)(1)
21,194
Surface Water Allocation (af/ac/yr)(1)
2.27
Allocation Water Availability =
48,110
Normal Flow Water Availability
14,000
TOTAL SRP Water=
62,110
Study Session
February 12, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 5 of 17
Central Arizona Project
"Off-Project"”
CAP Resources (AF/YR)
Full Portfolio
MESA Municipal (M&I)
43,503
M&I Total
43,503
SRPMIC Lease (IP)
1,669
IP Total
1,669
Wellton-Mohawk (P3)
2,622
P3 Total
2,622
RWCD (NIA)
627
Hohokam (NIA)
4,924
NIA Total
5,551
Available Allocation
53,345
Study Session
February 12, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 6 of 17
Mesa's Additional
Water Supplies
Gila River Indian Community
(GRIC) Water Exchange
New Conservation Space
(NCS) Water
Groundwater Pumping
Underground Long-Term
Storage Credits (LTSC)
Study Session
February 12, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 7 of 17
Gila River Indian Community
Water Exchange
5:4 exchange of Reuse Water from
NWWRP, SEWRP & GWRP for CAP water
delivered at SBWTP or BRWTP
Water obtained through the exchange
charged at the CAP pumping charge
($85/AF) opposed to M&I CAP rate
of ($365/AF)
Agreement allows Mesa to deliver up to
29,400 AF of Reuse water to be exchanged
for 23,520 AF of CAP water
For CY 2026, Mesa's CAP Order accounts
for 8,128 AF of water through the Exchange
Reuse water that will be delivered through
the CMRP doubles the volume above
Study Session
February 12, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 8 of 17
New Conservation Space (NCS)
Roosevelt Dam, completed in 1911
In 1996, a $430M project raised the
dam by 77 feet to increase storage
in Lake Roosevelt
Storage increased by 304,729 acre-
feet
Mesa's share of increased storage is
41,000 acre-feet
In the City's 100-year AWS, ADWR
recognizes an annual usage of
12,500 acre-feet
This water can be used anywhere in
Mesa's service area
Study Session
February 12, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 9 of 17
Groundwater
Pumping
Two types of Groundwater
Assured Water Supply
Groundwater Allowance
Incidental Recharge
Groundwater can be pumped in all
parts of the service area
Mesa has 35 active groundwater wells
Pumping could be focused in the
Eastern and Southern Zones during
CAP supply reductions
Assured Water Supply Groundwater
Allowance
AF
2025 Total Demand
98,799
Annual Incidental Recharge 5.35%
5,286
Groundwater Allowance
467,895
Annual Amount
4,679
Total Annual Groundwater Allowance +
Incidental Recharge
9,965
Study Session
February 12, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 10 of 17
Long-Term Storage
Credits (LTSCs)
Mesa has over 550,000 acre-feet of LTSCs banked
underground
Three quarters of the stored credits are in the
Roosevelt Water Conservation District (RWCD)
Groundwater Savings Facility (GSF)
Granite Reef Underground Storage Project (GRUSP)
operated by SRP was completed in 1994
Since 2000, Mesa has banked nearly 90,000 acre-
feet of Reclaimed and NCS water at GRUSP
LTSCs are recovered through Mesa's groundwater
pumping wells
Long Term Storage Credits
af
GRUSP
88,228
NWUSF
49,710
RWCD GSF
413,033
SRP GSF
4,642
Red Mtn USF
1,470
Total Stored Credits
557,084
Total Annual LTSCs
5,571
Study Session
February 12, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 11 of 17
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
100,000
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
Acre-Feet
Off-Project Surface Water Supply vs Demand
GRIC Exchange M & I Priority Water
Total Indian Community Contracts
Subcontract M & I Priority Water
Historical Off-Project Demands
Projected Average Growth Off-Project Demands
Projected Moderate Growth Off-Project Demands
Study Session
February 12, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 12 of 17
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
100,000
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
Acre-Feet
20% Cut to Colorado River Supplies vs Demand Scenarios
GRIC Exchange M & I Priority Water
16% Cut to Total Indian Community Contracts
20% Cut to M&I Priority Water
Historical Off-Project Demands
Projected Average Growth Off-Project Demands
Projected Moderate Growth Off-Project Demands
Study Session
February 12, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 13 of 17
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
100,000
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
Acre-Feet
20% Cut to Colorado River Supplies vs Demand Scenarios
GRIC Exchange M & I Priority Water
16% Cut to Total Indian Community Contracts
20% Cut to M&I Priority Water
ADWR Groundwater Allowance and Incidental Recharge
NCS Water
Long-Term Storage Credits
Historical Off-Project Demands
Projected Average Growth Off-Project Demands
Projected Moderate Growth Off-Project Demands
Study Session
February 12, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 14 of 17
Future Supplies
Long-Term Solutions
Raise Bartlett Dam – $150M for 3,000
acre-feet per year average
Divert more Reuse Water to the Gila
River Indian Community
State led Importation Projects selected
by WIFA
Advanced Water Treatment at 91st Ave
WWTP – Exchange Water
Septic to Sewer
Continue finding and fixing leaks
Real time leak detection through Smart
metering
Study Session
February 12, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 15 of 17
Key Takeaways
The current 20-year Operating Plan for the
Colorado River expires at the end of this year
Additional Supply reductions will be inevitable
starting in 2027
Reductions may be introduced in phases
Mesa began building a resilient water portfolio
a half century ago and continues to add to our
supplies
Future supplies will be expensive as options
become more scarce
Water Conservation is a tool that can temper
future demand
Study Session
February 12, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 16 of 17
Find fact sheets and more resources online at
mesaaz.gov/water
Study Session
February 12, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 17 of 17