PRESCOTT - An easement dating back to 1967 is central to a pre-annexation agreement that could set the stage for Prescott to take as much as 1,900 acres of ranchland into city limits.
According to information from the city, a 42-year-old agreement with the Deep Well Ranch obligates the city to provide water to the land west of the airport and north of Pioneer Parkway.
The city identified the water service aspect as an important objective to the pre-annexation agreement that currently is under consideration by the Prescott City Council.
Regional Program Director Craig McConnell reported to the council this week that Prescott struck a deal with the Deep Well Ranch decades ago that gave the city the right to cross the ranchland with its 18-inch Chino Valley-to-Prescott water transmission line, "in exchange for making water available."
Even so, McConnell emphasized that owners of the James/Deep Well Ranch would have to pay all fees and costs associated with the water.
"It's not free water; it is available water," McConnell said.
In addition, the agreement distinguishes between water that the city currently has available to it, and water that would be available only if plans to import water from the Paulden-area Big Chino Water Ranch are successful.
A city memo noted that, "Recognizing the scarcity of water in this region, and limitations of the city's water portfolio, Deep Well Ranch has agreed to...settlement quantities," including:
• 950 acre-feet of water per year not contingent on the Big Chino project, which the city would make available to Deep Well in two increments: 450 acre-feet available upon approval of the pre-annexation agreement; and 500 acre-feet available after resolution of the Arizona Department of Water Resources modification of Prescott's assured water supply.
• 900 acre-feet of additional water available when the Big Chino Water Ranch pipeline is "online."
While the pre-annexation agreement will deal with 1,900 acres of land, McConnell said the actual annexation likely would occur in "a series of incremental annexations," and not all at once.
McConnell also stressed that the pre-annexation agreement would simply set out the steps for annexation and would not approve the annexation itself.
"This sets the stage for bringing in the land," McConnell said of the proposed agreement. "A procedural pre-annexation agreement is not an agreement to annex the property."
Local resident Howard Mechanic urged the city to make the agreement more specific regarding its obligations for water.
"They're entitled to the availability of water; they're not entitled to free water," Mechanic said. "However, the agreement does not state that."
Councilman Jim Lamerson stressed that the 1967 pact obligates the city to provide the water to the Deep Well, regardless of the council decision on the agreement.
"If we don't annex them, we still owe them the water," Lamerson said.
The council will consider the pre-annexation agreement again at its voting session at 3 p.m., Tuesday.
Reader Comments
Posted: Saturday, November 21, 2009
Article comment by:
Could this happen here?
Or is it already in the works? It's a long article but you could almost use Arizona instead of California in the article. Yeah, yeah, I know it's from a liberal website but if you can get past that and actually read what's involved you should be very concerned about what's happening here.
http://www.alternet.org/water/144020/how_limousine_liberals%2C_water_oligarchs_and_even_sean_hannity_are_hijacking_our_water_supply/
Posted: Saturday, November 21, 2009
Article comment by:
Paul G.
James can not have any city zoning at all, commercial or not.
Posted: Saturday, November 21, 2009
Article comment by:
Tom Atkins
If the COP is currently draining the Little Chino aquifer's water level at a rate of ~1.5 feet per year, by pumping out millions of gallons more than are being replaced by the annual rain and snow that falls in our area. How can annexing 1900 acres stem or reduce this flow? How can this annexation help to reach Safe Yield, balance with our water resources? The answer... It can’t. Our city council are “friends” with the wealthy and powerful developers in our community and are thus a rubber stamp for any project that they wish to place on the council’s agenda. These annexations are what are driving the push to drain still another aquifer, the Big Chino. This outrageously expensive pumping station and pipe line will be paid for by the current water users in the COP and PV cities. Moreover, this pumping will cause the Upper 23 miles of the Verde river to turn into a dry lifeless wash and a wonderful ecosystem will be unavailable for our children. Finally this annexation will help turn our area, already overcrowded, into a Phoenix-like mess, something that we all tried to avoid by moving here... Check out ADOT’s 2050 projection for our area www.bqaz.gov/PDF/RTAT_Meeting_Presentation_021508.pdf If this annexation is approved and is built out it means just that much less water for us folks that are already here. It means a future of a very expensive, very scarce water resource. More about our water situation: www.prescottslastoasis.com
Posted: Friday, November 20, 2009
Article comment by:
Much ado about ...
This isn't a real big deal. James has zoning for commercial on the land, it would use water no matter what the agreement said, it's just getting things straight in the present. It changes nothing really.
Posted: Friday, November 20, 2009
Article comment by:
No name provided
Does the agreement specify how much water Prescott needs to make available? Supplying water to a ranch is very different than supplying watre to a 1900 acre subdivision. The city needs to give the public more information, like what is the minimum amount of water Prescott is obligated to supply and what is the consequence of the agreement if there just isn't enough water because the Chino pipeline fails? The city always gets itself obligated for supplying water yet we still don't have an assured water supply sufficient to stop the mining of the water table. We need to stop the over-development of Prescott.
Posted: Friday, November 20, 2009
Article comment by:
George Seaman
I guess the city has just forgotten to include this huge water debt in any of its discussions about its water budget for the past 40 years! It's no wonder no one knows how much water the city actually has to use for its own growth, casually giving away almost a thousand acre feet of annual water way back in 67, when they didn't even have it to give! I just love this stuff, don't all of you?
