Minutes of the Work Session held on February 3, 2025

Meeting Minutes 
City Council Work Session 
 
February 3, 2025 | 4:00 p.m. 
Council Chambers Conference Room 
88 E. Chicago St., Chandler, AZ 
 
 
Call to Order 
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Kevin Hartke at 4:02 p.m. 
 
Roll Call 
Council Attendance 
 
 
 
 
Appointee Attendance 
Mayor Kevin Hartke  
 
 
 
 
Joshua Wright, City Manager 
Vice Mayor Christine Ellis   
 
 
 
Kelly Schwab, City Attorney  
Councilmember Angel Encinas   
 
 
Dana DeLong, City Clerk 
Councilmember Jane Poston 
 
 
 
  
Councilmember Matt Orlando   
 
 
*Councilmember OD Harris 
 
 
 
 
Councilmember Jennifer Hawkins 
 
*Councilmember Harris attended virtually. 
 
Staff in Attendance 
 
Tadd Wille, Assistant City Manager  
Dawn Lang, Deputy City Manager / Chief Financial Officer  
Andy Bass, Deputy City Manager 
Simone Kjolsrud, Water Resources Manager 
Jeremy Abbott, Public Works & Utilities Assistant Director 
Kevin Mayo, Planning Administrator 
Ryan Peters, Strategic Initiatives Director 
Dawn Gingerich, Assistant City Attorney 
Jenny Winkler, Assistant City Attorney 
Micah Miranda, Economic Development Director 
Matt Burdick, Communications & Public Affairs Director

Page 2 of 13 
 
Discussion 
1. 
Presentation and Discussion of the City of Chandler’s Water Resources, Water Allocation 
Policy, and Drought Management Plan 
 
MAYOR HARTKE called for a staff presentation.  
 
JOSHUA WRIGHT, City Manager, introduced the discussion item. 
 
SIMONE KJOLSRUD, Water Resources Manager, presented the following presentation.  
• Chandler Water Resources & Policy Update: Protecting our Water Future 
• Agenda 
o Chandler’s Diverse Water Supplies 
o Salt & Verde System Update 
o Colorado River System Update 
o Phoenix AMA Groundwater Management 
o Water Policy Update 
o Sustainable Water Allocation Policy 
o Drought Management Plan 
o Next Steps 
• Where does our water come from? 
o Surface Water: Snow and rain runs off into rivers, lakes and streams. The water is 
stored in reservoirs behind dams. 
o Groundwater: Water stored underground in the space between sand and gravel. 
• Diverse Water Supplies 
o Drinking Water 
▪ Colorado River 
▪ Salt & Verde Rivers 
▪ New Conservation – Raised Roosevelt Dam 
▪ Roosevelt Flood Control Space 
▪ Roosevelt Water Conservation District 
▪ Groundwater 
o Reclaimed Water 
▪ Gila River Indian Community Exchange 
▪ Direct use – over 400 customers 
▪ Aquifer recharge 
• Salt & Verde Rivers 
o Delivered via Salt River Project (SRP) canals 
o 2025 Reservoirs ~ 70% full 
o Chandler’s SRP water ~ 57% of annual supplies 
• Colorado River 
o Delivered via Central Arizona Project (CAP) Canal

Page 3 of 13 
 
o 2024-2026 Tier 1 Shortage 
o Chandler’s CAP water 
o 37% of annual supplies 
• Groundwater 
o 33 active wells 
o 72 MGD capacity 
o Groundwater 
o 6;10% of total annual use 
• Water Demand Trends 
o Chandler Water consumption: 57% residential, 43% non-residential 
o Since 1998, population has nearly doubled residential gallons per capita per day 
(GPCD) declined by 20% 
o Improvements in water efficient appliances and xeriscape landscaping can lower 
residential GPCD 
o Chandler total consumption is roughly the same as 10 years ago (excluding 2020 & 
2021) 
 
VICE MAYOR ELLIS asked about the source of water used in a residential capacity. 
 
MS. KJOLSRUD explained the slide displays total water supplied through the municipal water 
distributions system to residential customers.   
 
VICE MAYOR ELLIS suggested it would be helpful for residents to know where their water is 
sourced.  
 
MS. KJOLSRUD clarified that the water is 57% sourced from the Salt and Verde Rivers, 37% from 
the Colorado River, and between 6-10% groundwater.  
 
MS. KJOLSRUD continued the presentation. 
• 1980 Groundwater Management Act (GMA) 
o Created groundwater regulation for “Active Management Areas” or AMAs.  
o Goal is a balance between well pumping and aquifer recharge 
o Recharge & Replenishment 
o The GMA requires water providers (in AMAs) to replenish the water they pump or 
recharge CAP water (or effluent) prior to pumping and accrue underground storage 
credits. 
 
VICE MAYOR ELLIS asked if Chandler would participate in the recharge and replenishment plan.  
 
MS. KJOLSRUD said Chandler does participate in this plan. The goal is for the entire Phoenix Active 
Management Area (AMA) to participate. There are many types of water users involved in the AMA 
such as agricultural, mining, and municipal users.

Page 4 of 13 
 
 
MAYOR HARTKE commented that Chandler has a robust recharge program and asked how many 
other communities have a similar plan.  
 
MS. KJOLSRUD said most Phoenix metro cities use some form of aquifer recharge replenishment, 
but not all cities have recharge facilities within their boundaries and must utilize regional recharge 
facilities located outside of their water service area.  
 
MAYOR HARTKE said Chandler conducts this process within city limits, encouraging the 
replenishment of groundwater for future use.  
 
MS. KJOLSRUD said Chandler has prioritized local recharge processes.  
 
MS. KJOLSRUD continued the presentation.  
• Colorado River Post-2026 
o Jan. 2025 – US Bureau of Reclamation published the Post-2026 Alternatives Report, 
excluding each of the alternatives proposed by the upper basin and lower basin 
states. 
o The Basin States have recently resumed negotiations. However, the increasing 
likelihood of litigation over compact compliance is concerning. Absent a consensus 
solution, Central Arizona Project has junior priority rights and may receive no water.  
o Spring 2026 – Reclamation will publish a preferred alternative and develop any 
federal legislation needed to grant additional authorities required to implement the 
preferred alternative. 
o Summer 2026 – June / July deadline for final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 
and August deadline for a Record of Decision. Implementation for calendar year 
2027. 
• Colorado River Post-2026 
o Hope for the best and plan for the worst… 
o Best Case Scenario – the seven Basin States reach a consensus solution by May/June 
2025, the US Bureau of Reclamation accepts the consensus-based alternative as the 
“preferred alternative” and proceeds with an environmental review. The impact to 
Chandler will likely result in CAP reductions between 20% to 50% of contract 
volumes.  
o Worst Case Scenario – the seven Basin States are unable to reach a consensus 
solution, the US Bureau of Reclamation proceeds with a “preferred alternative” that 
can be implemented under their existing authorities and implements shortage 
reductions according to a strict interpretation of the priority system. The impact to 
Chandler would likely result in CAP reductions between 75% to 100% of contract 
volumes.  
• Colorado River Post-2026 
o Planning for the best (and the worst)

Page 5 of 13 
 
o Best Case Scenario – CAP reductions in the range of 20% to 50% of contract volumes. 
Chandler would rely on alternative water supplies to make up for the reductions in 
Colorado River water. 
o Worst Case Scenario – CAP reductions in the range of 75% to 100% of contract 
volumes. Chandler would rely on groundwater supplies to meet customer demand. 
Groundwater supplies provide a short-term solution to mitigate against the impacts 
of Colorado River reductions. However, this is not a long-term sustainable solution 
because groundwater is a finite resource.  
 
MAYOR HARTKE asked if the alternate water resources are finite. 
 
MS. KJOLSRUD said that is correct. 
 
MAYOR HARTKE asked if the contracts Chandler has would continue despite potential shortages. 
 
MS. KJOLSRUD said there is uncertainty surrounding the post-2026 operating guidelines, it is 
unknown how this may affect tribal settlement water resources.  
 
MAYOR HARTKE asked how other municipalities who rely heavily on Colorado River water are 
handling potential shortages. 
 
MS. KJOLSRUD answered that other municipalities are looking at options for augmentation 
supplies and alternative non-groundwater supplies. Some cities are working on advanced water 
purification projects.  
 
MAYOR HARTKE asked if the reason why Chandler is not working on advanced water purification 
is because the city has already been assigned for use.  
 
MS. KJOLSRUD said that is correct, the way that wastewater systems were planned in the past 
means that the wastewater supply is already in use. The portion of wastewater supply that is not 
contractually obligated for users, is put to direct use through Chandler’s customer base.  
 
COUNCILMEMBER ENCINAS asked if the CAP reductions in the range of 75% to 100% were to 
occur, how long could groundwater be used to supplement.   
 
MS. KJOLSRUD said that it depends on how many other entities draw groundwater at the same 
time. Chandler is geographically located over a regional aquifer, but it is a finite resource. The 
aquifer needs to be managed in a sustainable way. Sustained aquifer drawdown may be cause for 
concern.  
 
COUNCILMEMBER HAWKINS asked how long a preferred alternative set by the US Bureau of 
Reclamation would be in effect for.

Page 6 of 13 
 
 
MS. KJOLSRUD said the goal would be to match the prior guidelines – an agreement term for about 
20 years. The intention is to select operating guidelines that are adaptable and responsive for the 
users.  
 
MS. KJOLSRUD continued the presentation.  
• Regional Partnerships and Infrastructure 
o Regional projects provide additional operational flexibility 
o Bartlett Dam Modification 
▪ Funding a feasibility study which evaluates the potential to restore lost 
capacity due to sedimentation and modify Bartlett Dam height to increase the 
available storage space 
o SRP/CAP Interconnect Facility 
▪ Allows for delivery of water stored in the SRP system into the CAP canal for 
delivery to Chandler’s Santan Vista Water Treatment Plant (adjacent to the 
CAP canal) 
o Roosevelt Dam Flood Control Space 
▪ Five-year pilot program to optimize the use of Roosevelt flood control space. 
Opportunities for planned deviations from normal operations, extending 
from 20 days to 120 days.  
 
MAYOR HARTKE asked if SRP has a prescribed area where they can sell water.  
 
MS. KJOLSRUD said that is correct. The current rules are for the water stored in the original 
reservoirs only used in the SRP watershed service area that have historic rights. The water store 
in the reservoirs is pertinent to the land. This would not change the SRP prescribed area, however 
there are alternate supplies that can be used outside the service areas. 
 
MAYOR HARTKE asked if this is expected to change. 
 
MS. KJOLSRUD said Arizona water law has SRP’s rights entrenched to the land itself.  
 
KELLY SCHWAB, City Attorney, agreed.  
 
MS. KJOLSRUD continued the presentation.  
• Bartlett Dam Modification 
o Restore lost capacity due to sedimentation and add height to increase available 
storage space 
o The feasibility study is scheduled to be completed in 2026. The project team will seek 
congressional approval in 2026/2027 if the project meets the criteria for financial, 
environmental, technical and economic feasibility. 
o Chandler will benefit from the construction of a new dam in two ways:

Page 7 of 13 
 
▪ Restoration of capacity lost due to sedimentation (SRP rights) 
▪ Up to 14,000 acre feet of storage capacity in the new storage space 
• SRP/CAP Interconnect Facility 
o Provides operational flexibility to deliver supplies to stored in the Salt River Project 
system into the Central Arizona Project Canal system 
o The project design and environmental compliance are scheduled to be completed in 
2027, with construction to begin in 2028. 
o Chandler benefits from construction of the SRP/CAP Interconnect Facility with 
additional operational flexibility during a severe CAP shortage. The facility allows for 
delivery of water stored in the SRP system into the CAP canal for delivery to 
Chandler’s Santan Vista Water Treatment Plant (adjacent to the CAP canal). 
• Roosevelt Dam Flood Control Space 
o Temporary Deviation from the Flood Control Manual extends to 120 Days 
o The US Army Corps of Engineers has approved a request for a temporary deviation 
period, expiring in Sept. 2028. The goal of this project will be to request a permanent 
change to the Flood Control Manual after the initial pilot phase.  
o Chandler will benefit from this project by gaining access to a new water supply that 
can be stored in the SRP system and used to meet customer demand in portions of 
our service area that currently receive Colorado River water.  
• Water Conservation Successes 
o Since increasing our grass removal rebates in October 2023, all programs have seen 
a significant increase in participation. 
o Single Family Grass Removal – total participation has increased 234% since 
increasing the incentive to $2 per square foot (sq. ft.) of grass removed and lowering 
the minimum from 1,000 to 500 sq. ft. 
o Commercial/HOA Grass Removal – total participation has increased 260% since 
increasing the incentive to $75,000 per project. Nearly 300,000 sq. ft. of grass 
removed since October 2023, with roughly $600,000 paid out since Oct. 2023 
($18,000 in same period prior to change) 
o Smart Controller Rebate – residential smart controller rebates nearly doubled to 216 
rebates ($14,500 since Oct. 23, compared to $7,700 in the prior period) 
o Water Efficient Technology Rebate – Actively working with roughly a dozen 
customers on projects not yet complete. Four rebates complete since Oct. 2023, 
totaling $13,500.  
 
MAYOR HARTKE asked if there is any update on the Governor renewing this program in the state 
budget.  
 
MS. KJOLSRUD said there is expected to be a general fund appropriation to this program.  
 
MS. KJOLSRUD continued the presentation.  
• 2024 Water Infrastructure Investments

Page 8 of 13 
 
o Upgrades to Chandler’s water treatment capabilities and replacement of wastewater 
and reclaimed metering infrastructure 
o Reclaimed Water Interconnect Facility (RWIF) – First deliveries, in Oct. 2024, to a new 
membrane treatment facility constructed to increase Chandler’s aquifer recharge 
deliveries, as well as provide additional water for industrial cooling at Intel’s 
expanded facilities. 
o Two new aquifer injection wells at Tumbleweed Park for Aquifer Storage & Recovery 
(ASR) and improvements to the reclaimed water conveyance infrastructure between 
the RWIF and Tumbleweed. 
o Pecos Water Treatment Plant upgrades to improve water quality – new Granular 
Activated Carbon (GAC) filters 
o Wastewater and reclaimed water metering infrastructure upgrades 
 
RYAN PETERS, Strategic Initiatives Director, continued the presentation. 
• 2024 Legislative Session 
o Focus on Assured Water Supply Program and solutions to address unmet demand 
for groundwater in the Phoenix AMA 
o 2024 Session Summary – 95 total water related bills, 8 were signed by the Governor, 
15 vetoed 
o Bills Signed – Douglas Ama, ADWR licensing timeframes, ADEQ, WIFA Conservation 
Grant 
o Bills Vetoed – wildcat subdivisions, assured water supply, brackish groundwater, 
physical availability credits (Ag-to-urban), well measuring, stormwater recharge, 
groundwater model 
o Alternative Pathway to Assured Water Supply Designation – Provides a new option 
for undesignated water providers to become designated and resume subdivision 
development. Those expected to utilize this path include Queen Creek, Buckeye, 
Arizona Water Co. and Epcor. 
• Water Policy 
o Work with lawmakers, stakeholders and other leaders to support policies that: 
o Long-term planning – promote the ability of municipal water providers to ensure the 
long-term viability of their communities 
o Sustainable aquifer management – protect our stressed aquifers and support the 
sustainability of finite groundwater supplies 
o Conservation – encourage water conservation and efficiency programs 
o Continued investment – make wise investments in water supplies, water 
infrastructure, and water conservation 
o Colorado River – support the long-term sustainability of the Colorado River system 
and protect Arizona’s rights 
o 100-Year Assured Water Supply – support the 100-year Assured Water Supply 
Program, the Phoenix AMA groundwater model and the management plan goal of 
safe yield.

Page 9 of 13 
 
• Water Policy 
o Water security is vital to ensure our community and economy continue to thrive 
o Long-range planning and investments in municipal water systems have had a direct 
impact on water security in Arizona 
o The state is facing intersecting challenges that are putting pressure on our water 
security 
o Investments in new water supplies are key to ensuring preservation of the aquifer, 
sustainability of finite groundwater supplies and long-term water security 
 
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO commented that Council should receive more detail on policies to 
support or oppose as the legislative session begins.  
 
MR. PETERS agreed and invited Council to participate in advocacy activities.  
 
MS. KJOLSRUD continued the presentation.  
• Preparing for Shortages 
o With increasing pressure on our local aquifer and uncertainty of future Colorado 
River availability, it is a good time to review the steps we are taking to prepare: 
o Water Allocation Policy – update the policy to include redevelopment, high density 
residential and reclaimed water 
o Colorado River Shortage – continue to invest in aquifer recharge and advocate for 
state policies to protect groundwater supplies and water stored underground 
o Water Conservation – Encourage xeriscape landscaping by offering grass removal 
incentives and water budget evaluations 
o Drought Management Plan – update drought plan triggers to match more current 
water supply expectations and further evaluate demand management strategies 
• 2015 Water Allocation Policy 
o Tier I Base Allocation – Sufficient Water for most projects 
o Tier II Quality of Life Allocation – new user needs more water, allocated by City’s 
Water Resource Mgmt. Strategy 
o Tier III Market Based Allocation – new user purchases a new 100-year water supply 
• Allocation Policy – Proposed Amendments 
o As Chandler approaches build-out, changes in water availability and land use may 
require amendments to the sustainable water allocation policy: 
o Redevelopment – add redevelopment to the definition for “multiple of large meter 
users” (MLM users). The new proposed use can not exceed the Tier I water allocation.  
o Tier II water – update the definition of “Tier II water” to be allocated to an MLM user 
based on the water and wastewater Master Plan 
o HDR & Mixed Use – add applicability for high density residential (HDR) and mixed-
use developments that exceed 12 dwelling units per acre and include a 70% return 
flow credit

Page 10 of 13 
 
o Reclaimed / Landscape Water – add applicability for *all* types of water use, 
including reclaimed and landscape meters 
 
COUNCILMEMBER ENCINAS asked how this would affect current and proposed residential and 
commercial developments slated for Chandler. 
 
MICAH MIRANDA, Economic Development Director, said the allocation policy which was 
introduced in 2015 was controversial at the time, there was pushback from the business 
community. However, business attraction projects gave companies investing in Chandler 
confidence that Chandler was investing in long-term resources. State and local policies let 
Chandler look into the future and protect investments in that way.   
 
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO asked if developers using water conserving fixtures and features 
would receive credit or incentives.  
 
MS. KJOLSRUD said the credit included in the proposed amendments was the return-flow credit 
specifically for high-density residential developments. However, an addition to these 
amendments could require water conservation plans to be submitted by developers.  
 
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO said developers with a higher density development would want to 
stay under Tier 1 usage of water through water efficiency practices.  
 
MS. KJOLSRUD said there is a natural incentive to try to keep water use as efficient as possible.  
 
MAYOR HARTKE asked if there is any potential crossover for water conservation and housing and 
development efficiency in the state legislature. 
 
MR. PETERS said some criticisms are about materials which adds to cost of property. This could 
be an indirect way of addressing cost of property. This could demonstrate to other states as well 
in Colorado River water negotiations that is the state is acting on water conservation. There have 
been criticisms that the designs municipalities require add additional costs, but the marketplace 
also demands it.  
 
MS. KJOLSRUD continued the presentation.  
• Allocation Policy Procedures 
o Implementation of Chandler’s Sustainable Water Allocation Policy requires early 
coordination between multiple city departments - Public Works & Utilities, Economic 
Development, and Development Services (Planning, Civil Engineering, and Building 
Safety). 
o Policy amendments will involve updates to the timing of when a proposed project is 
asked to submit a sustainable water use application. 
• Allocation Policy Amendment Goals

Page 11 of 13 
 
o The 2015 policy was designed to address non-residential development of vacant 
land. As redevelopment becomes more prevalent, amendments are needed to 
ensure Chandler’s finite water resources are allocated as planned. 
o Redevelopment – if the new proposed use will exceed the Tier I allocation, the city 
will review the proposed use to ensure consistency with water demand planning. 
High volume water users may be required to purchase Tier III water. 
o Tier II water – anticipated Colorado River shortages have reduced the volume of 
available “Tier II water”. Future allocations of Tier II water should be consistent with 
planning assumptions for each parcel. 
o HDR & Mixed Use – adding high volume residential uses ensures water and sewer 
needs are considered early in the development entitlement discussions and includes 
water efficiency and conservation. 
o Reclaimed / Landscape Water – the current policy excludes reclaimed water and 
water served through landscape meters. These are valuable and limited water 
supplies which require careful management.  
• Drought Management Plan – Proposed Updates 
o Update drought plan triggers to match current water supply expectations, remove 
reclaimed exemption and update outdated language 
o Stage Triggers – Update to reflect new shortage projections for post-2026 Colorado 
River reductions and modify triggers to evaluate supplies based on all surface water 
supplies 
o Reclaimed Water – remove reclaimed exemption and add language to clarify the 
availability of reclaimed water during a shortage. Reclaimed water uses may also be 
asked to conserve during shortages. 
o Update Language – Update references to more current resources available online. 
Existing text refers to outdated unavailable resources. 
o Expiration of Drought Stage – one year after issuance or January 1st of a normal 
water supply year. Current plan does not address procedures to determine when a 
drought stage expires.  
• Drought Plan Triggers- Proposed Updates 
o Current triggers for Stage 2 and Stage 3 are no longer appropriate 
• Next Steps 
o Water Allocation Policy – amendments to city code will be proposed on the February 
20th city council agenda 
o Drought Management Plan – proposed updates to Chandler’s Drought Management 
Plan 
o Water Conservation – evaluate effectiveness of existing programs and submit 
recommendations for additional actions (summer 2025) 
o Regional Infrastructure – participate in feasibility of Bartlett Dam Modification, 
construction of the SRP/CAP Interconnect Facility, and maximize investments in the 
temporary deviation for Roosevelt Dam Flood Control Space

Page 12 of 13 
 
MAYOR HARTKE thanked staff for the presentation and commented that Chandler has been 
forward-thinking on water and these ideas and procedures provide certainty and clarity for the 
future.  
 
• Thank you! Questions?  
 
COUNCILMEMBER ENCINAS asked if there are any municipalities with the same drought plan 
triggers.  
 
MS. KJOLSRUD said there is some alignment between Phoenix-area cities. These new triggers 
outlined are in line with Mesa’s water plan. The Phoenix-area cities mostly have similar sources of 
water, it is the percentage makeup of each of the water resources that is different. Some cities 
have more general language in the drought plan triggers.  
 
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO commented that the drought trigger numbers are subjective. 
 
MS. KJOLSRUD said that is correct. The recommendation of combining the supplies in the 
calculation of surface water is to look at how does this impact Chandler’s ability to meet 
customers' demands. 
 
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO said having an objective number makes it easier to understand for 
us and the residents. He asked about voluntary water reductions for businesses and residents in 
Tier I and Tier II.  
 
MS. KJOLSRUD said part of the request in a Tier I and Tier II shortage is the voluntary water 
reductions including skipping overseeding for common areas in HOAs. Tier III would request other 
voluntary reductions through public messaging campaigns requesting specific actions.  
 
MR. PETERS added that part of this is part of public messaging campaigns, the impact of moving 
between stages affects users differently.  
 
MS. KJOLSRUD said along with the proposed amendments, staff will bring forward potential 
options for voluntary water reductions and public messaging.  
 
Public Comment 
None. 
 
Adjourn 
The meeting was adjourned at 5:41 p.m.

Page 13 of 13 
 
 
 
 
ATTEST:  _______________________  
______________________________ 
                       City Clerk                                                   Mayor 
 
 
Approval Date of Minutes:  February 20, 2025 
 
 
Certification 
I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Work 
Session of the City Council of Chandler, Arizona, held on the 3rd day of February 2025.  I further 
certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. 
 
DATED this _______ day of February, 2025. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
__________________________ 
                                                         
           City Clerk