PRESCOTT - A recent report that predicted that the Prescott/Prescott Valley area could lose billions in growth revenue without the water from the Big Chino pipeline is "overstated," and "misleading," according to a group of local residents.
Three locals with backgrounds in economics and finance evaluated the Elliott D. Pollack & Company study that the Central Arizona Partnership released this past week on the financial impacts of the Big Chino water pipeline.
According to the study, without the water that the two communities plan to import from the Paulden-area Big Chino Water Ranch, Prescott and Prescott Valley would exhaust the water they have available for allocation to new development by 2014 and 2031, respectively.
This week, Prescott's Water Management Analyst Connie Tucker confirmed that new development likely would deplete the city's water portfolio by 2014, based on current population and development rates.
"If we allocate at the rate we're currently allocating, what we've got in the portfolio would be used by 2014," Tucker said.
She emphasized, however, that those numbers pertain to allocations only, not actual development. Traditionally, property owners do not build immediately after getting their water allocations.
"There is land out there that has water that has not been developed," Tucker said.
Therefore, she said, development using the previously allocated water could continue after the 2014 date.
Pollack's report maintained that a shutdown in growth in 2014 would cause the two communities to lose more than $15 billion in potential building revenue over the next 25 years.
But local residents question both the statistical foundation of the study and its conclusions.
Local resident John Danforth, who has a doctorate in economics, for instance, maintains that the Pollack report "incorporates a large number of major analytical shortcomings that result in estimates of fiscal and economic impacts which I believe are grossly overstated and largely irrelevant to the current citizens of Prescott and Prescott Valley."
In particular, Danforth stresses the Pollack report's lack of attention to the economic impact that local residents would feel from the construction of the 30-mile pipeline, which officials estimate at a cost of more than $170 million.
"The analysis ignores the fact that Prescott and Prescott Valley citizens must pay for the cost of the pipeline construction, and those payments reduce the amount they spend elsewhere in the local economy," Danforth's evaluation states.
Bill Kendig, who has a doctorate in business administration, also emphasized the cost to the community from the pipeline.
"There will obviously be costs related to some of the 'gross benefits' included in the report," Kendig said.
Pollack, in a Friday telephone interview, said the study makes clear that it is a "gross impact study" which looks "at the revenue side, not the cost side."
While he suggested that a cost analysis should take place, Pollack said, "That was beyond the purview of the study."
But even if the study had factored in the cost of the pipeline, Pollack said, "The costs would be nothing near the (lost) revenues."
Along with the concerns about costs, local resident Sidney Moglewer, who has 30 years of experience as a professional analyst, stressed that the Pollack report does not look at the "feasible alternatives to the pipeline," such as water conservation.
Also on the local residents' list of issues with the Pollack study is the lack of consideration of the risk of lawsuits over the Big Chino pipeline.
"For instance, if the public were to expend the monies needed to construct the pipeline and then (Salt River Project) or the Center for Biological Diversity or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service brought suit and substantially delayed or prevented water importation at the projected levels, what would the economic and fiscal impacts be?" asked Danforth.
In response to the threat of lawsuits, however, Pollack said: "Now you're talking imponderables. Those things may or may not be measurable."
And of Tucker's point that the city numbers deal with the time of water allocations, and not the time of actual construction, Pollack said his firm used the numbers it received from the city.
But even assuming that the impact could come later than the study projected, Pollack said, "In general terms, I stand by the numbers, although they might vary a little if you push (the impacts) out a few years."
Prescott and Prescott Valley officials have been working since 2004 on plans for the Big Chino pipeline, which they estimate should be complete by about 2011.
Contact the reporter at cbarks@prescottaz.com
Reader Comments
Posted: Saturday, September 06, 2008
Article comment by:
Not A Friend Of Chicken Head
Oh My Gosh! First they build a white elephant arena that loses money every year, then they want a second Wal-Mart, NOW they want a pipe line at $170,000.000.00 that reads : ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY MILLION DOLLARS!! Guess who will pay for it ( hint = YOU! ) Guess who will stand to make the gazillions? Guess who owns the range land?, guess who owns the town politicians? Its a 4 letter word that starts with the letter "F".
Posted: Thursday, September 04, 2008
Article comment by:
They Need Water To Make Money.!
He proved it! Money buys votes. But the mailings from Pierce were low, mean and nasty. Therefore I would vote for anyone except his higness and the "Queen of Developers" 5 lane Springer. Come on folks try and walk up and ge with it! Goodness.. how they lead you by the nose.
Posted: Thursday, September 04, 2008
Article comment by:
Tom Steele
As Richard stated SOMEONE voted for the "grow or die" crowd. Then again, in addition to the people who owe their income to construction we have the "uninterested" people who are just happy enough now to not worry about the future. I'm sure many if not most people who moved here because they liked what they saw won't like the area Pierce and Springer will promote.
Posted: Wednesday, September 03, 2008
Article comment by:
Richard
Well, unfortunately, in the election yesterday, SOMEONE voted for the mega-GROWTH advocates. Money, apparently, buys votes...and those people need to feed the greed.
Posted: Tuesday, September 02, 2008
Article comment by:
peacenik
I have lived here 33 years and have seen the all-to-familiar "advantages" of growth and development. Why does this area have to rush towards becoming a suburb of L.A.? Do you like all the traffic, the missing mountain mall and the strip-mine entrance to Prescott as well as the hazy skies once azure blue? Thanks, but no thanks. If we pursue this pipeline and diminish the Verde River, the lawsuits will be never-ending. We could conserve millions of gallons of water by not building endless developments and allowing Prescott Lakes to have fake waterfalls. Did the public buy our lakes to secure their future? Money and big development corrupt and make fools of us all. Blue skies, a slower pace, quality of life, the integrity of our heritage and natural beauty- Priceless!
Posted: Tuesday, September 02, 2008
Article comment by:
David
Once again, it is clear that this pipeline water is meant to encourage more growth, not bring us toward safe yield. Pollack ignores the fact that if we push ourselves further into water debt, the cost will go up, discouraging people and businesses from locating here. This is another case of a town hiring a consultant to deliver the conclusion they want to the press and the public. It happened before when Prescott or some water group hired a consultant to say that pumping the chino will not affect the verde river even though real peer reviewed scientists have said the opposite. I'll listen to the scientist before the paid consultant. Where is the mitigation plan? What will we do about safe yield since this water is earmarked for growth? Do you really think that after we spend $170 million to build the pipeline, we are going to politely stop pumping when we find that the verde river has been affected?
Posted: Tuesday, September 02, 2008
Article comment by:
W. Lee Radu
We aren't talking about a "Portfolio" of Water here in REALITY. We're talking about water continuing to be available to drink, wash with and flush our toilets. The stupidity of basing this community's Economic future on "Growth and Contruction" is undeniably a Failure and lack of Vision of the REpublican government that has held this community in it's grip for the last 40 years. They broke it and unfortunately they aren't smart enough to fix it!
Posted: Tuesday, September 02, 2008
Article comment by:
No Fain Pipe Line
So it seems like we need to spend 170 million dollars for a pipe line to gain 15 billion dollars in development. But for whom? The landowners, the developers, the real estate brokers they will make the billions and we will foot the bill. I don't know about the rest of the folks but I am happy not to make P.V. another large city. We already have too much crime,too many radar vans, too much debt, too many incentives and too many politicians that are eager to sell us out to the Land Owner Good Ole Boys . People wake up and lets try and organize a counter attack against these destroyers of our towns and life style come election time. The current gang seems to be totally in the grasp of the land owners you guess the reason!
ArmyVet
