MSUS Culminating Experience Final Report
April 28, 2017
Amanda (Toohey) Jordan
An Intervention Manual for Implementing Water Savings Design Strategies for Community Food
Hubs: A case study of the IRC Aquaponics Incubator
International Rescue Committee

Abstract
The International Rescue Committee (IRC) is a non-profit organization that prides itself in
“responding to the world’s worst humanitarian crises”. (IRC, 2016) Through its New Roots
program, IRC is using an aquaponics urban garden incubator site “to train refugee farmers in
aquaponics agriculture and good business practices in the United States.” Entering into the next
development phase of the incubator, IRC is using the site as an opportunity for demonstrating
some of the most innovative approaches to water reuse while contributing to a sustainable food
network in the neighborhood and in the Phoenix Metropolitan Area.
One component IRC wanted to create in support of this goal is an intervention manual
identifying water-sensitive design strategies and ways to scale or transfer to other IRC affiliated
sites. As such, my project goal was to identify and frame guidelines for the selected strategies to
use in addition to steps for scaling, transferring, and creating a “location” where all of this
information could be held for future reference.
From August – December 2016, several design charrette processes were held to help
determine the most crucial strategies to implement on site per the interests and concerns
expressed by stakeholders and community members. Once this process was complete, the
selected strategies were rainwater capture and harvesting, and stormwater management. With
these identified, I was able to create the manual content around each strategy. This included
identifying general legal practices in Phoenix relates to each strategy, defining key
terminologies, water budgets, and research gaps to overcome. This manual is important
because it demonstrates how the site is converting from brownfields into “healthfields” and aids
in achievement of IRC’s sustainability and resilience initiatives including the Year of Healthy
Communities Program-2017, the Maricopa Food System Coalition, and other community health
initiatives that involve major partners including the City of Phoenix.

2017-04-10

Page

1

IRC Intervention Manual

Table of Contents

Introduction
Context
Project Approach
Findings
Conclusion
Future Directions
Appendices
References

Introduction
Water Issues in Arizona, and Central Phoenix

2017-04-10

Page

2

IRC Intervention Manual

As we entered into the 21st century, water supply and demand in the Southwestern United
States approached a critical juncture. (Zamora, 2015). Management of changing water supplies
needed to contend with traditional demands as well as new values that were not explicitly
identified in current practices for water resource management. The Southwest was becoming
vaster and urbanized. Cities were built on the promise of a bountiful river (the Colorado)
propped up by monumental dams (the Hoover). Resources were over-allocated on already
strained supplies and are now threatened by warming climates. To support fast-growing urban
populations and simultaneously protect water supply, the region was—and still is—due for rapid
and revolutionary changes at the local, regional, and even national level.
Arizona is well known for its dry climate and desert basin region. The winters are mild and the
summers extremely hot. The average annual rainfall in the Valley is a mere 12.7 inches, the
majority of which occurs during two key rainy seasons: the Pacific Ocean cold fronts during
winter and monsoons in the summer. (U.S. Climate Data, 2017). In the densest metropolitan
area in the state, Phoenix, the majority of days are over 100 degrees Fahrenheit making it
difficult to meet basic needs locally since water is scarce and farming practices nearly
impossible.
A majority of the land in Arizona is part of the Sonoran Desert. Two of the largest cities, Phoenix
and Tucson, are located within the Sonoran Desert. Phoenix, the larger of the two, has a total
metropolitan population of roughly 4.3 million. It’s the 6th largest city in the United States and
one of the fastest growing cities in the country. (U.S. Census Bureau, 2016). In 2007, it was
reported that the desert was losing ground to urban sprawl at a rate of roughly 4,000 square
meters per hour! (Weaver, 2014). With no end in sight to urban growth and development, we
can expect our food and water supplies to be increasingly strained. Decision makers, industry
professionals, and local communities are all going to be forced to change their habits and way
of thinking when it comes to resources and how we interact with them.
International Rescue Committee
The International Rescue Committee (IRC) is an international humanitarian aid, relief, and
development nongovernmental organization established in 1933 at the bid of Albert Einstein.
(IRC, 2016) Working in over 40 countries and 29 U.S. cities, the IRC offers emergency aid and
long-term assistance to refugees in addition to those displaced by war, persecution, or natural
disaster. (IRC, 2016). Services provided include emergency response, health care, programs
fighting gender based violence, post-conflict development projects, children and youth
protection and education, water and sanitation systems, and more. (IRC, 2016). The IRC also
advocates for the oppressed and displaced, often campaigning for legislation that promotes
their cause.
New Roots is an agricultural program launched by IRC in 2005 that provides opportunities for
refugees and immigrants to produce fresh food and increase their economic stability while also
celebrating their heritage. (Zuckerman, 2015). It is an essential part of IRC’s broader
resettlement efforts and focuses on healthy families, secure communities and creating a more
sustainable future. (Zuckerman, 2015).

2017-04-10

Page

3

IRC Intervention Manual

Since last spring 2016, IRC has been planning and developing an aquaponics incubator farm to
serve as an expansion of the New Roots program. Meant to equip refugee farmers with
aquaponics agriculture and business skills, the incubator serves as a platform for establishing
themselves in the community while also supplementing incomes. As the incubator continues to
develop and evolve, focus has shifted to transforming the land the incubator resides on into a
more sustainable, productive, and welcoming space.
International Rescue Committee’s Core Project Goal
In August 2016, the IRC joined forces with the City of Phoenix, Arizona State University
Herberger Institute for Design and The Arts, School of Sustainability, and School of
Engineering, The Nature Conservancy, Osborn School District, and the Watershed
Management Group to explore how to enhance the landscape and multiply water savings at the
incubator site. A series of design charrettes—collaborative, intensive planning sessions—were
held with key stakeholders and community members to identify the best elements to be
incorporated into the site in terms of land and water use. Students were recruited via the project
partners and I elected to join the project when other faculty and students from the School of
Sustainability began to get involved. The project was a chance to combine interests in urban
land planning, policy and governance, design, and water infrastructure by elevating the site from
a standard community garden into a full-fledged community food hub. As the only graduate
student participating, I was able to bring leadership and guidance to my peers as well as my
prior project management experience in addition to knowledge about design, water
infrastructure, and public policy.
The IRC’s core goal is to use the incubator site to demonstrate to the community the most
innovative approaches to water and resources efficiencies while discussing tradeoffs associated
with creating a more sustainable, self-sufficient food network in the Phoenix Metropolitan Area.
The hope is to create a focal point for local community engagement ( i.e. refugee farmers,
residents, studens) through capacity building, knowledge creation, and accountability. One key
component they would like to construct, to supplement the site and its work, is an intervention
manual. The manual will help to guide internal and external practitioners such as the incubator
site coordinator and the refugee farmers in the implementation of sustainable water solutions
approaching water self-sufficiency in projects similar to the main incubator site that recognizes
the socio-technical nature (interaction between complex infrastructures and human behavior) of
the solutions chosen.

Context
The Problem
Arizona, like many states in the Colorado River Basin region, is currently experiencing a longterm, sustained drought that’s been deemed one of the worst in centuries. (Loomis, 2015). The
drought is exacerbated by climate change and rising demands due to the population and
economic growth; water supply stress alone is expected to increase over the next 30+ years. At

2017-04-10

Page

4

IRC Intervention Manual

a time when we see many regions struggling to meet water demands, it is imperative to find an
integrated solution to the problem. This can often be done through the incorporation of watersensitive design strategies.
In the case of the IRC incubator, the site location was selected specifically due to its
neighborhood characteristics. The 1-acre site is an area within the light rail corridor but lacking
other quality of life-enhancing amenities. This is important as it’s situated in the Alhambra
Village within Phoenix where approximately 15% of the 6,572 people residing in the area are
low income and have little to no access to a nearby supermarket. (U.S.D.A., 2016). The site
was selected specifically because of its potential to reach those residents affected by lack of
affordable, fresh resources.
An Integrated Solution
Some of the major problems residents in the Southwestern United States are facing result from
the effects of climate change, such as drought and flooding, practitioners must take into account
all components of the problem before an effective solution can be determined. Often, the best
course of action requires use of an integrated solution. IRC acknowledges this and has elected
to focus these next phases of site development on integrated techniques.
When discussing integrated solutions, we refer to the definition as outlined by Arnim Wiek and
Nigel Forrest in their Framework for Inventorying, Analyzing, Evaluating, and Extrapolation
Sustainable Integrated Water Solutions. According to the authors, an integrated solution is one
that “achieves (significant) positive (and negative) outcomes at the water-food-energy nexus.
Appraisal should include specific consideration of effects on the other elements of the nexus.
The evaluation of [solutions] should specifically include consideration of how they will positively
and negatively affect [other systems]” (Wiek, A. and Forrest, N., 2016).
Information & Research Gaps
A collaborative design planning process from August – December of 2016 was initiated to
provide stakeholders with an opportunity to participate in a design process led by two key
stakeholders—Watershed Management Group and The Nature Conservancy. The goal of the
design process was to launch supporters into a collaborative and productive process that would
prepare this network of stakeholders to implement, monitor, and engage the broader community
around sustainable solutions related to water and other natural resources. Research for the site
revolved around how to demonstrate innovative approaches within water and resources
efficiencies while also determining tradeoffs associated with creating sustainable food networks
in the Phoenix Metropolitan Area. At the end of the planning process, it was determined that the
best course of action was to pursue water-sensitive design strategies to transform the incubator
into a community food hub.
Throughout the collaborative design planning process, I played the role of organizer, planner,
participant, and facilitator. I assisted The Nature Conservancy with research and preparation
prior to design charrettes and was selected to facilitiate a portion of the third design charrette
where I gave an overview of the Sustainable Cities Iniative’s SITES criteria and how it would be

2017-04-10

Page

5

IRC Intervention Manual

used to evaluate design proposals for the site. The SITES criteria was the key evaluative
framework we utilized throughout the process.
Water-Sensitive Design
Water-sensitive design techniques are gaining in popularity as a strategy to conserve water and
minimize use in daily life. (Melbourne Water, 2016). Techniques are commonly used in dry, arid
regions like Arizona and the Southwest to help supplement the limited rainy seasons and limit
groundwater extractions. Although many of the techniques relating to water-sensitive design
such as rainwater harvesting or effluent re-use date back to ancient communities, they are
experiencing a sudden revival as a means to adapt and/or mitigate effects of climate change.
Because this strategy is a relatively new addition to today’s landscaping techniques, there is a
gap in research pertaining to how these strategies can benefit local communities in gardens and
food hubs.
Community Food Hubs
Food hubs, at the most basic level, create a bridge between food producers and consumers
while providing a mutually beneficial relationship across both ends of the food system. The
National Food Hub Collaboration defines “food hub” as “a business or organization that actively
manages the aggregation, distribution, and marketing of source-identified food products
primarily from local and regional producers in order to satisfy wholesale, retail, and institutional
demand.” (Rutgers, 2012). Often overlooked when compared to traditional distributors or the
ever-popular farmers’ markets, food hubs shine light on an opportunity for communities to take
advantage of similar tactics to make healthy food sourcing profitable and improve access to
local foods. Because this strategy has not been extensively explored in terms of community
level food hubs, there is a gap in research pertaining to what these hubs are and how they can
benefit communities.

Project Approach
A design charrette was the key tool used to advance this project. This was selected by The
Nature Conservancy and IRC to be the best tool to help drive the development process. Some
key advantages to utilizing design charrettes are that they provide a forum for ideas, offer
unique advantages of giving immediate feedback to designers, and promotes relationship
building and collaboration between varying stakeholders. From August – December 2016 a
total of five charrettes were held to facilitate input from key stakeholders and provide an
opportunity to launch supporters into a collaborative and productive process that would prepare
this network of stakeholders to implement, monitor, and engage the broader community around
sustainable solutions related to water and other natural resources. Two of the five charrettes
were internal only conducted with the project team while the other three were conducted with
outside project members like the refugee farmers, students in the Osborn school district, and
residents near the site.
The design charrettes with approximately 20-30 participants were conducted through the course
of the project. Participants were chosen for the proximity of their work, home, or school to the

2017-04-10

Page

6

IRC Intervention Manual

incubator site and potential for utilizing the space once design is complete. Weekly meetings
between key partners from each leading organization (WMG, TNC, and ASU) were held on site
or by phone to track and advance progress. Meetings with student groups and Watershed
Management Group Project Manager, Ryan Wood, and site manager, Tristan Dunton, were held
on numerous occasions to integrate water resource management effectively into the site.
Design charrette 1 included only project team members. It took place August 2016 on-site at
CamelBackyard. The charrette was an opportunity to tour the site, identify areas for
development opportunities, meet and greet, establish project goals and prep for design
charrette 2. Participants wrote responses to questions like “what does success look like?” and
conducted a role mapping exercise to determine each team members role going forward.
Design charrette 2 included the project team and some key stakeholders i.e. Osborn School
District and the City of Phoenix. It took place in September 2016 on-site at CamelBackyard. The
charrette was an opportunity to gather input from stakeholders on what they felt was important
to include in the site as well as listen to their concerns. A tour and short meet and greet with the
refugee farmers also occurred. Initial design renderings were created per design charrette 1
feedback and presented during this charrette to obtain stakeholder feedback. The SITES criteria
was introduced during this charrette and was used to review potential for site sustainability.
Design charrette 3 included the project team, key stakeholders, and some members of the
community. It took place in October 2016 on-site at CamelBackyard. This charrette was an
opportunity for the design and engineering teams to share drafts of planned site design and
solicit feedback for further developments. Attendees were split into groups of 4 and each team
member had a “station” where the group would meet with them to review the drafts, ask
questions, and make suggestions.
Design charrette 4 included the project team, key stakeholders, and members from the
community as well as those generally interested in the project. This charrette was nearly
identical to charrette 3 aside with the exception that the solar team also shared drafts in addition
to design and engineering teams. During this charrette, the Nature Conservancy team member
and I presented the SITES criteria and used it to assist with identifying which design aspects
were most important to attendees.
Design charrette 5 only included IRC and the design, engineering, and solar teams as well as
the student advisors. It was held at the World Bazaar & Phoenix Community Market in
December 2016. I did not attend, as my presence was not needed so my information on what
occurred is limited. Most likely, the same process as the third and fourth charrettes with more
feedback from those that live and work in the community.
Design charrette 6 was originally scheduled for January 2017 but IRC and team leads felt that
enough information had been gathered and thus cancelled the final charrette.
Techniques used during the charrettes detailed above included utilization of the Sustainable
SITES Initiatives criteria to determine the most important aspects to the site (according to

2017-04-10

Page

7

IRC Intervention Manual

stakeholder viewpoints), Q & A sessions and site tours, sketching and mapping of strategies,
and design reviews with community members among other things.
This collaborative process intended to and achieved:
1. Leverage existing and emerging relationships in the community in the design charrette
and planning process.
2. Build relationships for scaling sustainability and conservation concepts to other sites.
3. Create ownership by multiple community members during the initial design phase.
4. Invite stakeholders, neighbors, and other community members to visit, use, and
participate in caring for the site.
5. Develop a shared vision for optimizing social and ecological use of the space.
It is from the charrettes that the final water-sensitive design strategies were selected using the
SITES criteria participants voted to be most important to incorpate into the site. These strategies
became the foundation for the intervention manual.
The objectives for my manual as a supplementary component to the larger project initiated with
the design charrettes, were to research the feasibility of implementing the water solutions being
proposed for the project, identify the barriers, design effective strategies for overcoming the
barriers, and make recommendations that would support transfer and scaling of the solutions. I
accomplished these objectives by first drawing from scholarly and grey literature on the subject,
conducting informal interviews with experts from the project team including landscape
architects, planners, environmental health professionals, end-users and decision makers to
understand technical, social/cultural, economic, policy, and political aspects of the solutions,
and conduct expert reviews of the manual as it developed.

Findings
The IRC incubator site, also known as “CamelBackyard”, has a goal to be as sustainable as
possible for people and planet. With respect to water, this means using water as effectively as
possible on the site in ways that benefit the community and the environment.
After the series of design charrettes, it was determined that strategies to pursue would be a
comprehensive, integrated sustainable water system that aims to achieve complete water selfsufficiency for the site based on the SITES criteria most cited by participants. As the larger
project shifts into the next phase of development and implementation, an ASU Engineering
Projects in Community Service (EPICS) team will be working on detailed design for an initial
rainwater harvesting system, collecting and storing water from the greenhouse roof and using
the water for the aquaponics and raised bed irrigation. The team will also develop a
comprehensive conceptual design for the larger water system, which is discussed in detail
below.

2017-04-10

Page

8

IRC Intervention Manual

Rainwater Sources
Initially, rainwater will be collected from the greenhouse roof, which will yield an estimated
10,000 gallons per year. Future plans include collecting rainwater from the roofs of other
buildings on-site and possibly from adjacent properties.
Rainwater Collection
Rainwater is harvested from roofs and fed into a storage tank for later use. Water is collected b y
gutters and channeled through a leaf trap (rain head) and first flush to reduce particulates and
foreign objects entering the tank. An on-demand pump delivers water for use when needed.
Water Uses
Aquaponics System
While the aquaponics system uses much less water than conventional growing, based on visual
measurement not actual metered use, the current growing beds consumes approx. 12,900
gallons per year with an additional 9,000 gallons a year for the wet wall used for cooling the
greenhouse 90 days during the summer months. The total yearly water use for the Aquaponics
Greenhouse is estimated to be approx. 22,000-24,000 gallons a year.
Washing Station
A washing station will allow growers to wash produce for sale and consumption. To lessen
public water usage, we may supplement the washing station’s supply with treated rainwater.
Based on an estimate water use of 30 gallons a day, approx. 10,950 gallons of water a year will
be needed.
Outdoor Irrigation
Rainwater from the tank will also be used to irrigate outdoor raised beds through a drip system.
Based on 40 gallons per square foot, a 4’x8’ garden bed area will require approx. 1,280 gallons
a year. The 32 garden beds shown in the “Undetermined community garden space” area will
require approx. 40,960 gallons a year. If additional garden beds are to be added in other
“Undetermined community garden space” areas the water use will need to be added to the
water demand budget.
Greywater Reuse
Drainage water from the washing station and some indoor water uses can be diverted for
outdoor non-potable reuse, including growing fruit trees and other landscaping. Based on an
estimate water use of 30 gallons a day, approx. 10,950 gallons of greywater a year can be
utilized as a beneficial resource in the landscape.
Blackwater
Composting toilets can be used to reduce or eliminate the need for potable water for flushing
toilets. After an efficient compost time, the compost can be spread in mulch basins around
shrubs, vines or trees. Composting Toilet Reference Plans and Designs Approved by Arizona

2017-04-10

Page

9

IRC Intervention Manual

Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) - https://watershedmg.org/document/compostingtoilet-reference-plans-and-designs-approved-arizona-department-environmental
The Intervention Manual
All of the above are strategies are currently being pursued by the various project teams within
the core project per the results of the design charrette feedback and criteria selections. The
project will be entering into a third phase this fall and the intervention manual was created as a
means to streamline planning, design, and implementation of the selected strategies. The
preferred water-sensitive design methods chosen were to installation of a stormwater capture
system and a rainwater harvesting system. The manual serves to frame and communicate
these on-site water use strategies while also giving insight into what exactly “water-sensitive
design” and “community food hubs” are. The manual also details all possible design restrictions
for implementation at the national, state, county, and city levels ranging from policies &
standards to required permits and regulations or laws that may inhibit progress if not addressed
at the start. The manual discusses how these strategies work, potential setbacks that may be
incurred, and steps for scaling and transferring similar strategies to other IRC afficliated sites.
An image of the manual’s table of contents is included for reference on the complete content
covered within the manual.
As my manual is a supplementary component in the grander scheme of the core project, there
are no finite outcomes/results. The manual is simply providing information to practitioners in a
singular location formatted in an easy to follow manner. It is meant to be used to guide the third
phase of the project which initiaties in the fall. The core project is still ongoing and therefore it is
also unclear what the final results/outcomes will be.

2017-04-10

Page 10

IRC Intervention Manual

Table of Contents for Intervention Manual
Amanda Jordan, 2017

2017-04-10

Page 11

IRC Intervention Manual

Conclusion
The IRC’s “CamelBackyard” incubator demonstrates the issues found at the nexus of foodwater-energy in a desert city. With a vision for demonstrating the most innovative techniques to
water and resource management, the incubator acknowledges the tradeoffs often associated
with creating sustainable food networks and attempts to address them in a meaningful way that
benefits the community. The organization set out to leverage existing and emerging
relationships, build new relationships with other sites, create a sense of ownership for the
community members (farmers/gardeners, refugees, residents, etc.), create an inviting space for
stakeholders, and to develop a shared vision for optimizing social and ecological use of the
space. The design charrette process was essential in attaining these goals as they identified the
water-savings design strategies most important to community members and charrette
participants. This information paved the way for the intervention manual to be formed.
When setting out to start development and implementation of the identified strategies, IRC
determined that the creation of an intervention manual as a supplementary component would be
beneficial. Using the manual, IRC and I worked collaboratively to identify the best watersensitive design strategies for the site, discussed how the strategies would work on-site,
outlined general practices and policy limitations in Phoenix, described maintenance needs of
each strategy, and discussed adaptation, scaling, and transfer strategies.

Future Directions
While the intervention manual does not in and of itself address the entire sustainability
challenge presented, it supports the larger project that does. The next steps within the larger
project will revolve around development and implementation of the new water system, which will
include rainwater collection, greywater reuse, blackwater, stormwater management, and
irrigation methods. This work began spring 2017 and will likely carry on into the next academic
year allowing for other students to participate and help the project evolve.
With regards to the manual, next steps would be for IRC to distribute it in print and digital
format, expand the case study section highlighting other sites that are pursuing similar
sustainability oriented methods, and working with students or whomever might be interested to
actually attempt the scaling and transferring methods outlines

2017-04-10

Page 12

IRC Intervention Manual

Appendices
Appendix I

By Josh Greene, Nicole Bone, Brandon Ramirez, Student Design Team
CamelBackyard Design Renderings, Pre-Final Selection

2017-04-10

Page 13

IRC Intervention Manual

Appendix II

By Josh Greene, Nicole Bone, Brandon Ramirez, Student Design Team
Design Rendering, Final Selection
2017-04-10

Page 14

IRC Intervention Manual

Appendix III

Manual Cover
Amanda Jordan, 2017

2017-04-10

Page 15

IRC Intervention Manual

Appendix IV

Sample of Manual’s Interior Content
Amanda Jordan, 2017

2017-04-10

Page 16

IRC Intervention Manual

References
Loomis, B. (2015). As the River Runs Dry: The Southwest's water
crisis. AZCentral.com. Retrieved from
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/arizona/investigations/2015/02/27/southwestwater-crisis-part-one/24011053/#chapter2
Melbourne Water. (2016). Introduction to Water Sensitive Urban Design.
MelbourneWater.com, Retrieved from https://www.melbournewater.com.au/Planningand-building/Stormwater-management/WSUD-intro/Pages/default.aspx
Rutgers University, Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy. (May
2012). Community Food Hubs. Community Food Security and Economic Development.
Retrieved from http://rwv.rutgers.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2013/07/FoodHubFinalReport.pdf
International Rescue Committee. (2016). Who We Are. Retrieved from www.rescue.org.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2016). QuickFacts- Phoenix, Arizona. Retrieved from
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045216/0455000
U.S. Climate Data. (2017). Climate Arizona- Phoenix. Retrieved from
http://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/arizona/united-states/3172
U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. (2016). Food Access.
Retrieved from https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-choices-health/food-access/
Weaver, F. (2014, February 1). The unprecedented water crisis of the American
Southwest. The
Week. Retrieved from http://theweek.com/articles/451876/unprecedented-water-crisisamerican-southwest
Wiek, A. and Forrest, N. (2016). A Framework for Analyzing, Evaluating, and
Extrapolating Sustainable Integrated Water Solutions. Transformational Water Solutions
Research Lab, Decisions Center for a Desert City, Arizona State University.
Zamora, Amanda et al. (2015). Californi’a Drought is Part of a Much Bigger Crisis,
Here’s What You Need to Know. Propublica. Retrieved from
https://www.propublica.org/article/california-drought-colorado-river-water-crisisexplained
Zuckerman, J. C. (2015, October 28). International Rescue Committee Helps Refugees
Plant New Roots. Retrieved from http://modernfarmer.com/2015/10/internationalrescue-committee-new-roots/

2017-04-10

Page 17