Scottsdale, Ariz. — Scottsdale has abandoned plans to deliver highly treated recycled water directly to household taps after political candidates promoted unsubstantiated claims that the supply was contaminated “poop water.”
The affluent Phoenix suburb primarily uses purified wastewater to replenish underground aquifers, which can provide a backup supply when other sources are strained. But amid growing criticism, the City Council voted in June to remove funding for the recycling project and several other water initiatives, replacing it with a broad $100 million allocation for developing new water sources and supplies.
The dispute over recycled water has emerged as a central issue in a three-way contest for two City Council seats in November. One candidate supports adding purified wastewater to Scottsdale’s drinking-water system. A former Republican state lawmaker and a conservative incumbent, however, have expressed doubts about the program’s safety and questioned the expense of complying with new state requirements.
AP Photo / Ross D. Franklin
Scottsdale officials say the candidates’ repeated use of phrases such as “toilet to tap” and “untested poop water” misrepresents the science behind the city’s advanced treatment system. Water officials note that less than 1% of Scottsdale’s liquid waste comes from toilets.
The budget decision effectively ended a plan to introduce purified wastewater into the city’s drinking supply by 2027—water that officials said would have surpassed federal drinking-water standards.
Some residents and water experts warned that the funding reversal, combined with a council majority skeptical of wastewater reuse, could leave Scottsdale less prepared for future shortages. The Southwest is already confronting prolonged drought and the prospect of deeper cuts to Colorado River allocations.
Scottsdale has been a national pioneer in wastewater recycling since launching its system in 1998. The city’s treatment facility is capable of supplying enough recycled water for roughly 60,000 households.
That experience has made Scottsdale an important model for water managers across Arizona, where officials are exploring similar systems at at least four other facilities.
“It’s so important to protect and reuse water in the Southwest,” said Bryan Cassens, an assistant senior director for Scottsdale Water, the department overseeing the recycling program. “Here we already know it all. We’ve been doing it for 28 years.”
AP Photo / Ross D. Franklin
Scottsdale, home to about 250,000 people, receives 70% of its water from the Colorado River. That is a larger share than any other Arizona or California city with a similar population or a bigger one.
Scottsdale Water employees say the city’s dependence on the river, coupled with decades of growth, made recycling wastewater an important drought-protection strategy. Every gallon is subjected to multiple advanced processes, including ultrafiltration, reverse osmosis and ultraviolet photolysis, according to officials.
Some of the purified water has been provided to breweries for beer production. About 7,500 people have sampled it during facility tours and other public events, although it has never been delivered to residents’ home taps.
With the expansion now on hold, Scottsdale Water officials say they expect to bring new options before the City Council in October.
Political lines drawn
Michelle Ugenti-Rita, a former state lawmaker and current City Council candidate, has emerged as the most outspoken critic of Scottsdale’s advanced water purification plans.
In a campaign advertisement released in May, Ugenti-Rita appeared with actor Rob Schneider while holding a glass of clear liquid beside one filled with brown fluid. The ad accused her opponents of wanting Scottsdale residents to drink sewage, a characterization those opponents rejected.
The council approved the $100 million budget shift the following month.
Councilman Barry Graham, an incumbent, has called the recycling project too expensive and described it as an “alarmist” response to drought conditions.
Water officials in Scottsdale, Phoenix and Tucson have also criticized portions of Arizona’s new rules governing the addition of purified water to public drinking supplies. They say requirements to monitor chemicals and contaminants not regulated at the federal level could drive up costs without clear benefits.
Randall Matas, director of the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality’s Water Quality Division, said the agency is working to simplify compliance with the regulations. The revisions are not expected to be completed until early 2027.
Despite the political controversy, Cassens said the recycling facility continues to operate normally.
“I can’t just assume that every visitor and resident is going to trust the experts and is even going to listen to the experts,” Graham said.
Concerns rise as water levels fall
The criticism in Scottsdale comes as two key barometers of the Colorado River’s health — Lake Mead and Lake Powell — hit record lows this summer.
A federal proposal for the Colorado River outlines combined water cuts for Arizona, California and Nevada that could serve more than 25 million people annually through 2036.
“It’s not really a good time to start being selective,” said Cynthia Campbell, a former water resource management adviser for Phoenix. “Are you really going to play political games with the one thing that makes it possible to live in the desert?”
Since last year, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation has committed to investing more than $300 million in advanced water purification projects in the arid West.
In Arizona, just over half of voters in the 2022 midterm election said they were “very” or “somewhat” confident that the state would have enough water over the next 10 years, according to AP VoteCast, which surveyed more than 3,000 Arizona voters. The other half, 47%, said they were “not too” or “not at all” confident.
Communities shouldn’t abandon long-term investments in public health and sustainability for short-term gain, said Ben Grumbles, the executive director of the Environmental Council of the States, a nonpartisan group of state and local environmental agency leaders.
“It can be frustrating when there are politicians scoring a cheap, fast point,” Grumbles said. “I hope that over time, the facts will bear out.”
