PRESCOTT - Now about $34.5 million into their $170 million Big Chino water pipeline project, officials from Prescott and Prescott Valley gathered this week to hear an update on the progress to date.
Nearly 100 staff members and interested residents joined town and city council members at the Hassayampa Inn Tuesday for the workshop discussion, which was the two councils' first joint meeting in decades.
And throughout the meeting, officials expressed optimism about the project, as well as the two communities' working relationship.
Michael Pearce, an outside water attorney, set the tone for the discussion during his report on the status of Prescott's application to the Arizona Department of Water Resources for a modification of designation of assured water supply.
The modification was necessary in order to include the water that the city plans to import from the Paulden-area Big Chino Basin in the amount that the state department deems is "physically available" to Prescott.
Pearce reported that the application for modification, which the city filed in October 2007, is nearly ready for the necessary public review process.
And he maintained that the city's case looks good for approval by the state department.
"Our ecological study is well-done," Pearce told the two councils. "It shows that the water is available to us." He added: "At the moment, the regulatory atmosphere is showing kindly on us."
Within 10 days, Pearce said he expects ADWR to complete its extensive review of the application, and kick off the public comment period.
Doug Dunham, ADWR's deputy assistant director for water management, agreed on Wednesday that the department is in the final phases of review.
Even so, Dunham was uncertain when ADWR would begin the public comment phase. He explained that the department still must review additional information from Prescott, which the city submitted in the past several days.
Depending on the results of that review, Dunham said it was possible the public review period could begin in 10 days. But if, for instance, ADWR has further questions for the city, Dunham said the department could halt the process to allow for a response.
Once ADWR deems its review complete, Dunham said the department would advertise the public process for two weeks, after which the public would have 15 days to comment.
On the matter of possible legal challenges to the pipeline, the city's water attorneys also appeared confident.
For example, water attorney Norm James emphasized that nearly four years have gone by since the Center for Biological Diversity's 2004 threat of a lawsuit over the pipeline, and so far, he said, "No suit has been filed, and I doubt if there will be a lawsuit filed."
James contended that the language in the Endangered Species Act, which the Center for Biological Diversity cited in its initial intent to sue, would not lend itself to a lawsuit over the pipeline.
"We don't see the basis for a lawsuit," James said during a press conference that took place after the joint council workshop. Even so, he allowed, "Does that mean that a frivolous lawsuit won't be filed? No."
On Wednesday, Michelle Harrington, the rivers conservation manager for the Center for Biological Diversity, said the organization "remains in a position to file a lawsuit, should that be necessary."
She pointed out that the Center has long pushed Prescott and Prescott Valley for a mitigation plan to avert possible future negative impacts from the pumping to the flow of the Verde River. If such a plan occurs before the two communities begin construction of the pipeline, Harrington said a lawsuit might not be necessary.
But, she added, "The best available science indicates that the cities' pumping in the Big Chino will eventually lead to a reduction in stream flow in the upper Verde River."
And so far, Harrington said, "I have seen no indication" that the two communities are doing anything beyond their assertion that they plan to move forward with pumping.
Local officials have stated that they want to have ADWR's designation of assured water supply in hand before moving forward with construction contracts for the pipeline.
Prescott Big Chino Project Manager Jim Holt has reported that the city is still about a year away from awarding contracts for the 30-mile pipeline - a construction project that he said would take about two years to complete.
Contact the reporter at cbarks@prescottaz.com
Reader Comments
Posted: Friday, August 15, 2008
Article comment by:
Optional
As a Prescott resident, I am forced to contribute to a pipeline project that I strongly believe will have negative effects on my way of life, as it will fuel new development without taking care of our current and future aquifer overdraft. Do not sacrifice Prescott or the Verde for unsustainable growth. The pipeline is a problem, not a solution.
Posted: Friday, August 15, 2008
Article comment by:
Dave
Considering Wirt's findings, it's no surprise she'd join the CBD. I'm much more inclined to believe Wirt's work because several other reputable and peer reviewed scientists agree with her. Prescott & PV have their lapdog consultants but are their "findings" reported in peer reviewed journals? Always remember that politicians with an agenda will manufacture doubt or support as it suits them. This pipeline project is being pushed forward in the hopes that details like SRP's likely ownership of the water, the non-existent mitigation plan and who knows what else will be cleaned up at the 11th hour or later, just so the project is done and not reversible. All this to support a bigger and bigger population and the developers that want it. This is a poor way to handle this project and the people of this county deserve better because it could get terribly expensive for all of us.
Posted: Thursday, August 14, 2008
Article comment by:
Conflict of Interest
Gabrielle...you say that the "clay plug" concept has been "scientifically refuted". I assume you are talking about the study completed by Laurie Wirt of the USGS. Everyone should know that Laurie was a CARD CARRYING member of the Center for Biological Diversity. Doesn't that call into question the entire study? You can say that those studies were reviewed by her peers at the USGS, but obviously they are all friends and aren't going to refute each other's studies.
Posted: Thursday, August 14, 2008
Article comment by:
Brian Biggs
I attended the meeting yesterday. Here are some other important items to note:
1. This article makes it appear that Michelle Harrington spoke at the meeting. She did not. Perhaps a reporter spoke to her individually after the meeting.
2. There are two provisions in Arizona law that allow pumping and transport of water from the Big Chino aquifer: A) Any city may convert historically irrigated land into a water farm. For every 1 acre of converted land, the city may pump 3 acre-feet of water per year. B) In addition to any converted land, Prescott may pump up to 14,000 acre-feet of water from the Big Chino aquifer, because Prescott was unable to participate in the Central Arizona Project which brought water from the Colorado River. The 14,000 acre-feet is contingent on settlement agreements with two local Indian tribes. One of those tribes has reached a settlement agreement and one has not. Of the 14,000 acre-feet, Prescott is only currently asking for 9,500 acre-feet.
3. With regard to affecting the Verde River: A) More water was historically pumped from the irrigated land than Prescott and PV are proposing. That historic pumping did not affect the Verde River. B) The location of the water farm was specifically chosen to be outside of the location where ground water feeds the river.
Posted: Thursday, August 14, 2008
Article comment by:
Gabrielle
At Tuesday's meeting, we were told that SW groundwater consultants know EXACTLY how much water is in the Big Chino aquifer and EXACTLY what will happen when the sought-after water is removed. It is impossible to EXACTLY know this! Please consider there may be other inconsistencies in the statements made by the pipeline planners, like existence of "clay plug" effectively separating pumping locations from water supplying Verde springs (stated by John Munderloh and scientifically refuted)and that protection is in place for the Verde River(pumping some distance from the Verde Headwaters only possibly delays impact). Let's demand a plan, and not accept denial.
The Center for Biodiversity remains silent as the pipeline goes on. What is going on? has the ecology lobby sold out? leaving the contributors to their site swinging in the breeze? I fear greed may have won but I would love to be proved wrong.
Lets us know WHEN you are stepping up to the plate Biodiversity, if ever.
ArmyVet
Posted: Thursday, August 14, 2008
Article comment by:
Tom Steele
Any challenges will be " frivolous"? While the project may be "legal" in the end, it does not make a change in "assured water supply" as a benefit or relief to the citizens of Prescott and Prescott Valley. As a PV councilman I was the ONLY vote against the agreement because there was NO legal requirement to provide reserve water for the people living here now. With all the "approved" experts on the side of development first, we the people can only hope that rational law suits from interested parties will prevail in the long run.
