PRESCOTT - Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden is hoping "the third time is the charm" in efforts to complete the arduous hearings on Prescott's right to pump Big Chino sub-basin water.
As the sixth day of the hearings neared conclusion Wednesday afternoon, it was apparent that all sides were hoping to wrap things up.
But by about 4:30 p.m. - with a rebuttal witness still testifying - Shedden conceded that the proceedings would take at least one more day, and possibly two.
"It is prudent to set at least two days, under the theory that the third time is the charm," Shedden said.
He was referring to the two rounds of hearings that already have taken place. The proceedings began in February, with three days of hearings. When that was inadequate to get through all of the witnesses, Shedden set another three-day round of hearings on April 13-15.
And now, it appears that the community will have to wait until well into the summer to get resolution on the 2008 ruling by the Arizona Department of Water Resources entitling Prescott to annually pump 8,067 acre-feet of water from the Big Chino.
Because of scheduling conflicts, Shedden said the next round of hearings might have to wait until August.
For much of the first two days, this week's round of hearings focused on the position of three local appellants - Gary Beverly, Tom Atkins, and Anthony Krzysik - who protested the ADWR ruling because of concerns about the effect of the pumping on the Verde River.
By Tuesday afternoon, the arguments moved to the case by 11 other local appellants, the Center for Biological Diversity and the Sierra Club, and ADWR.
Wednesday's testimony began with Sandy Fabritz-Whitney, ADWR's assistant director of water management, who stressed that she based her decision on state regulations for such rulings.
While Mark McGinnis, attorney for the three local appellants, brought up numerous past references by ADWR Director Herb Guenther that Big Chino pumping eventually would affect the flow of the Verde River, Fabritz-Whitney said that did not influence her decision.
"We are bound by our rules and law to make the decision," she said of the department's move to modify Prescott's assured water supply designation to reflect water from the Big Chino.
Those rules relate to the amount of "draw-down" in the aquifer that ADWR would allow. The rules require that the city must demonstrate that after 100 years of pumping, the depth to groundwater in the aquifer would be less than 1,000 feet.
Earlier, a geological engineer testifying for the three local appellants maintained that the depth to groundwater - factoring in city pumping and that of other expected growth in the area - would be between 600 and 700 feet after 100 years.
But during rebuttal comments, the city's hydrology consultant William Greenslade countered that the depth to groundwater would be about 520 feet after 100 years.
During cross-examination by McGinnis, Greenslade said that while an impact on the flow of the Verde River is "possible, at some point," he added: "I think Prescott's pumping, because of its distance (from the river) and the volume being proposed, any effects would be relatively small."
McGinnis' questioning included repeated references to U.S. Geological Survey studies by Laurie Wirt, which contended that 80 to 86 percent of the water from the Upper Verde River Springs comes from the Big Chino.
ADWR Chief Hydrologist Frank Corkhill, however, referred to the 80-to-86-percent figure as a "ballpark number" which although "not hugely wrong, it's not perfect."
Corkhill emphasized that - although he was familiar with Wirt's study - it did not enter into his hydrological review of Prescott's application, because "it wasn't relevant."
The Wirt reports also were central to the rebuttal testimony of Prescott's witness Edwin McGavock, a retired USGS employee and current hydrologist with Errol L. Montgomery & Associates, who maintained that no scientific basis exists for the 80-to-86-percent estimate.
After the end of the appeal hearing, Shedden, a judge with the Office of Administrative Hearings, will recommend whether to uphold the ADWR ruling. Guenther will make the final determination.
The debate centers on plans by Prescott and its partner Prescott Valley to build a 30-mile pipeline to import water from the Paulden-area Big Chino.
Reader Comments
Posted: Saturday, April 18, 2009
Article comment by:
Candace McNulty
Show Me The Data: Just for the record, when Mr. Corkhill said "the Wirt report wasn't relevant," he had been asked about and was specifically referring to the Wirt and Hjalmarson report of 2000. I'm not sure he was asked about Wirt's 2004-1411 report, the one that estimated 80-86 percent of the Verde headwater springs deriving from the Big Chino aquifer. When you spoke of "pure speculation and wishful thinking," were you talking about the 2000 report? You might want to specify what you find so fantastical in there, and since Mr. Hjalmarson is kindly, participating in this discussion, you might want to be brave enough to give your real name. For myself, I took Corkhill's "ballpark... not perfect" comment as generally supportive of Wirt's 2004 findings. Dr. A. Springer of NAU testified that it was a reasonable conclusion based on available information. And as Dr. Springer and others repeatedly testified, any pumping in the Big Chino is upgradient from the springs -- meaning it's taking water that would eventually discharge there.
Posted: Friday, April 17, 2009
Article comment by:
No name provided
Win- There are a lot of things that Mr. Corkhill still believes that aren't supported by any factual data. As far back as the early 1980s, there was no question in my mind where the water in the uppermost reach of the Verde originated from. Anybody who had taken the time to walk the river bed would realize that it is fairly obvious where the water has to come from. Chair-bound bureaucrats are unfettered by field observations and factual data (or the absence of data) and are thus free to come to any conclusion they think fits.
Posted: Thursday, April 16, 2009
Article comment by:
Win Hjalmarson
It's interesting the hearings are taking so long even without official SRP participation. I also find it interesting how people become brave when commenting on the work of a deceased scientist. In regard to declining water levels and the base flow of the Verde River, Mr. Ford is correct that the base flow has decreased a few cubic feet per second because of water level declines in the Prescott AMA. The data are there if you look. When I first met Mr. Corkhill in the late 1990s he was saying, along with other ADWR folks, that the Big Chino was not a source of the Verde River base flow. I suppose such idle talk was possible back then. However, we currently have several studies that show the connection between groundwater in the Big Chino and surface water in the Verde River. These particular studies are based on science(science-based law) that goes unrecognized by funny Arizona law. SRP claims historic water rights to the Verde River derived under state law that does not recognize the groundwater-surface water connection. SRP is attempting to apply science-based laws to the Big Chino pipeline issue and other rural issues while maintaining their water rights derived under funny AZ law. SRP is using both funny AZ law and science based law to their advantage as best they can. The Tri-cities does the same and even has created additional funny laws to support their case. I agree with the AZ Supreme Court that the legislature should fix the funny AZ law. Until that time, probably never, we must live with a screwed up water situation in rural AZ. Win Hjalmarson
Posted: Thursday, April 16, 2009
Article comment by:
No name provided
I was very dissappointed in the city's handling of their application for transfer of and increased Assured Water. After six days of hearings they seem no closer to achieving this objective. The Salt River Project attorneys and witnesses are much better prepared and more convincing. The last witness (now on the stand) presented by Prescott is assertive, difficult to understand and unconvincing. The ADWR handling of the application is also below par. They seem to say that anything presented by the applicant is sacrosanct and not subject to review let alone challenge. All witnesses are saying that pumping and transfer from the Big Chino will harm the Verde. Prescott and Prescott Valley, let's mitigate this damage through an aggressive program of recharge to the BC and an enhanced conservation program in the Prescott Active Management Area. Not the timid plan now in place. Follow Chino Valley's proposals for Conservation. I'm sure that the SRP will negotiate with us if we follow this blueprint.
Posted: Thursday, April 16, 2009
Article comment by:
show me the data
I was stunned by the assertion of Mr. Ford in the previous hearing that water levels would decline by so much. There is no place in all of Arizona, for as long as there have been records kept, that exhibit any total decline in water level that is even in the ballpark with that figure. For a local perspective, water levels in the adjacent Little Chino sub basin have only declined a maximum of about 100 feet since about 1940. That said, I dismissed it as sensationalism on his part. I was equally surprised to se Mr. Greenslade quoted as saying that their predictions show a decline of over 500 feet. I recall that Southwest's model showed a decline of less than 200 feet when I first was presented it in 2005. Somebody is missing something here. Lastly, how could Mr. Corkhill think that the Wirt report wasn't "relevant'? There is certainly a lot in the report that is pure speculation and wishful thinking, but on the whole the report is most "relevant".
