Long-range planning motion on golf water use draws broad opposition and is tabled after amendment fails

The board spent more than an hour debating a Long-Range Planning committee motion asking to be included in discussions on golf-course water-use projects and to aim designs at an Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) 90-acre-foot criterion.

Director Ruff introduced the motion, describing it as a call for greater early coordination. Several golfers and golf-organized speakers opposed the motion in public comment. Cindy Aguilar called it “redundant” and said it would duplicate committee work. Andre Casaban from the SCMGA said “all projects involving golf need to be discussed in the GAC” and objected to what he described as micromanagement. Barry Broomham and Harry Emerson said technical project design belongs with the director of golf and GAC, not LRP.

Board members also debated the technical merits. Secretary Keis said, “The 90 acre irrigated limit... is for new constructed golf courses. It's not for existing courses,” warning that forcing the 90-acre target on older courses would be costly and is not an ADWR requirement for existing facilities. Director Gray and others said they supported better coordination but objected to locking the board into the 90-acre target because of cost implications.

An amendment to remove the 90-acre reference was put forward and failed on a 3–6 roll-call vote. Later a motion to table the LRP proposal passed 5–4, effectively pausing the matter pending possible rework. Board members and public commenters agreed on the need for committee communication; they disagreed on process and where technical authority should sit.

Outcome and next steps: The LRP proposal was tabled. Several directors urged informal coordination between LRP, the Golf Advisory Committee (GAC) and the director of golf; others said any changes should wait until governing board policies are revised to define committee roles.