PRESCOTT - A flood of protests has swamped Prescott's effort to increase the amount of assured water available to the city.
The Arizona Department of Water Resources reported this week that dozens of individuals, governmental entities, and other groups have objected to the city's request to increase the amount of its assured water supply to reflect future importation from the Big Chino Basin.
Local officials say the protest count stood at 51 Wednesday, with the possibility of still more to come.
ADWR Assistant Director Sandy Fabritz-Whitney said the high number of protests is unusual. While the department annually processes three or four similar requests for water designations from around the state, Fabritz-Whitney said protests are relatively uncommon.
"We rarely get any," she said.
Among the objectors to the modification application that the city filed in October 2007 was local resident Leslie Hoy, who has long questioned Prescott and Prescott Valley's plans for importation of water from the Paulden-area Big Chino Basin.
While Hoy's main objections center on the impacts the pumping would have on the flow of the Verde River, she said she also voiced concerns in her protest about the financing for the pipeline, which city officials estimate at a cost of upwards of $170 million.
"I actually don't understand how the city would be able to pay for the pipeline," Hoy said Wednesday. Local contractors, she said, "all want the pipeline, but they don't want to pay the impact fees."
Hoy was just one of about 40 individual objectors - many of whom used as its template a letter that the Center for Biological Diversity sent out earlier this month, urging people to voice their concerns.
Michelle Harrington, rivers conservation manager for the Center for Biological Diversity, agreed that a number of the objectors appeared to have used the sample letter that the center e-mailed out. Even so, she said, the level of interest is an indication that area residents are becoming more concerned about the prospect of the city's plans to build the 30-mile pipeline.
"All of this is really coming to a head," Harrington said. "It looks to me like the gauntlet has been thrown down. I think there should be a hearing."
Indeed, Fabritz-Whitney noted that a hearing is one of the possibilities that could come out of ADWR's review of the objections. She said the department has about 45 days to review the matter before coming to a decision on how to proceed. A hearing could come either before or after ADWR's director makes a decision on Prescott's application.
Meanwhile, officials from the two involved municipalities, Prescott and Prescott Valley, question the validity of many of the protests.
"A lot (of the objections) came from a form letter that people filled out and sent in," City Manager Steve Norwood said Wednesday.
And others came from cities and other governmental agencies from outside the Prescott Active Management area, which Prescott and Prescott Valley officials say makes them ineligible for participation in the process.
"A half-dozen or more really don't have standing, because they don't live in the AMA," Norwood said.
Along with the individuals, other objectors to Prescott's application include: Arizona Game and Fish; the City of Phoenix; the City of Tempe; the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation; the Salt River Project; the Nature Conservancy; the Town of Camp Verde; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and the Yavapai Apache Tribe.
Contact the reporter at cbarks@prescottaz.com
Reader Comments
Posted: Saturday, September 20, 2008
Article comment by:
Anonymous
To SWAMI, are you actually saying the FIX is already in? Do you have inside info?
Posted: Friday, September 19, 2008
Article comment by:
Dan S.
Hmmmm... my last post didn't quite meet the requirements of The Courier Editorial Review Board. Was it the "free dinners and whiskey-soaked back room dealings" comment referencing a popular (and not untoward) perception many Prescott citizens have about how deals are made at City Hall with developers? Was it the query as to why "form" letters are unacceptable to Mr. Norwood, when they may just somehow actually address the issues in the minds of those who send them? Or, was it simply calling the City Manager to task on his obvious "Good ol' Boy" approach to spinning up some lame rationale against those who contest such water pipe dreams, and ramming another developer-driven process down the throats of local taxpayers? Good gravy, we wouldn't want to really admit who is providing such spin and say what's on people's minds... would we?
EDITOR'S NOTE – Actually, your comment was great ... until near the end you included a libelous statement for which we have no proof.
Posted: Thursday, September 18, 2008
Article comment by:
Swami says...
To someone that has followed this issue over the years this article is pretty old news. The "protest" letters were basically manufactured and guaranteed. The legal issue Mr. Seaman refers to will probably be settled against SRP so the assured water guarantee will probably come to pass. Whether/when Prescott/PV come up with the funds to build a pipeline is another matter entirely. That will probably take a lot longer than you think. Growth here has died for awhile anyway, companies like (home builders) have gone under and our economy will be bad for a couple of years to come. So forget about growth for now folks.
Posted: Thursday, September 18, 2008
Article comment by:
Marty Strika
As usual, the Courier's tone is critical of those who question these cities "right" to water that is far from their locations. I would be curious to see how the paper would react to a request from, say, Skull Valley, for a pumping station in Prescott in order to meet its needs for water. It is time for the editorial staff at this paper to recognize that many of us who live here do not share their expansionist perspective.
Posted: Thursday, September 18, 2008
Article comment by:
George Seaman
Interesting that the paper is still not reporting what the major objection is all about! The major complaint in all of these letters is that it would be premature to give a designation of "assured" when there is a serious, and pending, legal question about whether the enacting law which allows for the inter-basin transfer is even constitutional. The Salt River Project has brought this challenge and it is still not resolved. Until this question is answered it is premature to say that the towns actually have an "assured" water supply from the pipeline. Regardless of the position you take on whether the pipeline would be a good thing or not, it would seem to be a basic requirement to have this question answered BEFORE asking the ADWR to rule that the water which would be pumped is "assured".
Posted: Thursday, September 18, 2008
Article comment by:
PO'd in Paulden
Range wars have been fought in the past over water rights, but now we're a bit more "civilized" ! Prescott and P.V are bullies that use imminent domain now to take our water without firing a shot.
Posted: Thursday, September 18, 2008
Article comment by:
tongue-in-cheek
From this point forward ANY water Prescott struggles to obtains is going to be very MUDDIED water since the bloviating agenda driven ANTI human life groups are on the prowl. All these cheap blocking tactics will accomplish is driving UP the cost for Prescott to overcome the naysayer's reckless arguments.
Posted: Thursday, September 18, 2008
Article comment by:
Tom Steele
A variety of readings on rivers and wells and high volume pumping show the inter-connection between stream flows and surrounding water tables. Like a siphen a deepening water table will begin drawing from streams in the area. At some level, the amount of water pumped by the pipeline will have to be "limited" to a specific amount per month and some months very little will be allowed. That is to say unless the developer led politicians and their lawyers have their way. Hopefully, stream flows will be maintained to allow a healthy habitat along the Verde. Greedy developers must be blocked from over drawing from the Verde and charging existing water customers in Prescott for their development gains.
Posted: Thursday, September 18, 2008
Article comment by:
Prescott is not L.A.
Whether folks used a form letter or not is unimportant. What the city should note is that not everyone wants to underwrite big developers and pay for that pipeline. And that is the bottom line. The city needs water for NEW DEVELOPMENT and GROWTH. The citizens who currently live here don't need the water. If you want Prescott to look exactly like Los Angeles, keep pumping the water.
Posted: Thursday, September 18, 2008
Article comment by:
Dan S.
The editor has removed this comment because it violates the Terms of Use agreement for dCourier.com.
Posted: Thursday, September 18, 2008
Article comment by:
JonSE
Norwood is spinning the official line, but standing and validity are not his call. Each ultimately will be decided by the court system. I wouldn't be starting up the pumps just yet if I were the developer-driven government entities.
