Is it a waste of water to bring a bit of the ocean to metro Phoenix?

Why on earth, when metro Phoenix is already facing Colorado River water shortages, are there three water parks planned in Glendale, Mesa and Gilbert?

This is a common question in my inbox, and I get why. On first blush, mimicking the ocean in the desert doesn’t exactly scream “we’re trying to save water!”

But are these parks really an abomination, compared to other municipal water uses?

What we know about Glendale's water park

Crystal Lagoons, the planned water park in Glendale, will feature a 10-acre lagoon, complete with white sand and islands, surrounded by a hotel, retail and restaurants, office space and, in a more recent announcement, a Mattel theme park with a Hot Wheels roller coaster.

For some, that’s the end of the debate. This sort of water use is frivolous and therefore has no place here.

But the development is projected to generate more than $700 million in sales, property and bed taxes over 25 years – much more than the site would have produced if it had remained farmland.

Glendale estimates a lagoon of this size will require about 19.5 million gallons, or roughly 60 acre-feet, to fill. That should be less than what the site had previously used to grow crops, and roughly what it takes to supply 180 homes a year, based on what the average Glendale home uses.

It’s not an inconsequential amount of water, but also probably not enough to stretch Glendale’s available supplies.

Should all recreational use be verboten?

Crystal Lagoons says that because the water will be filtered in a closed circuit, the only losses will be due to evaporation, and that it will use an additive in the water to minimize such losses. A company representative insists the lagoon would consume half the water of a grass- and tree-filled park of the same size.

It’s a similar story for The Strand @ Gilbert, a 25-acre facility planned for previously undeveloped land in a town park. It is expected to use 200 acre-feet of water a year, which Gilbert contends is less than half of what an average golf course might use (granted, an average golf course is much larger).

But, unlike Crystal Lagoons, the project is not using town-owned water. Gilbert says it required the developer to secure its own supply, though it will be delivered via the town’s water system.

Revel Surf in Mesa, a 3.3-acre surf lagoon in a 37-acre development that also is slated to replace farmland, is more of a question mark. Though the larger Cannon Beach project broke ground in March, it’s unclear how much water it is expected to use, much less where water for the lagoon will come from.

The city says it is still negotiating those details.

That certainly doesn’t help the debate, which (based on the emails I receive) rarely moves beyond the contention that any sort of recreational water use should be strongly verboten, given our growing need to conserve.

That may be the case for some projects. But should it be for all?

If it's not a waste, tell the skeptics why

Is a water park worth it, for example, if it uses less than the previous use for the land, particularly if the water it consumes is a small portion of a city’s designation?

What if it is projected to generate significant revenue? Or there are measures in place to make it more efficient? 

Does that make it a less “wasteful” use?

Ditto for grass. Are golf courses worth preserving, given their economic impact, particularly if they can find ways to ditch more turf?

Does the same go for a large turf area in a public park, which doesn’t necessarily generate revenue but could be considered a public amenity? And if so, what about grass in lawns or medians?

This debate isn’t about to go away. In fact, it will probably only intensify as uses compete for water, precisely because there are valid arguments on both sides.

On the one hand, grass and water are what make metro Phoenix livable, and personally, I have no problem with using them strategically to help cool areas and people, particularly as we grow hotter and drier. 

Put grass in a park? Great. In a median? Not so much.

But I also can appreciate that image is everything, particularly when we should be encouraging folks to conserve. If it’s not wasteful to build beaches in the desert, make that case to residents much earlier in the development process – and with much greater detail.

Reach Allhands at joanna.allhands@arizonarepublic.com. On Twitter: @joannaallhands.

If you love this content (or love to hate it – hey, I won't judge), why not subscribe to get more?