3/14/2009 11:45:00 PM Wilson argues in favor of Big Chino pipeline despite CWAG concerns
Matt Hinshaw/The Daily Courier
Prescott Mayor Jack Wilson speaks to the Citizens Water Advocacy Group Saturday morning at the Granite Peak Unitarian Universalist Congregation about why the city needs the Big Chino Water Ranch pipeline.
PRESCOTT - Prescott Mayor Jack Wilson Saturday staunchly defended his position that the city needs the Big Chino Water Ranch Project to reach safe yield in the Prescott Active Management Area by 2025.
In an occasionally contentious discussion in front of the Citizens Water Advocacy Group, or CWAG, Wilson maintained that Prescott and Prescott Valley must build a pipeline from the ranch near Paulden so both municipalities can meet the state's requirements for recharging the depleted Big Chino Aquifer.
"Safe yield" is a state in which water users in the Prescott Active Management area restore as much water to the aquifer as they draw from it.
However, members of a CWAG panel remain concerned that pumping water 23 miles from the Verde River's headwaters will reduce the river's flow and endanger wildlife while significantly drawing down the water table.
Since 1999, the Prescott AMA has been mining groundwater, or drawing more water from the ground than it is putting back into the aquifer.
CWAG membership argues that the city has enough water in its portfolio to continue at the growth rate it has had for the past decade for an additional 16 years.
"For our children's and our grandchildren's future, we need a long-term water supply," Wilson said during a 45-minute presentation about the proposed pipeline project. "The water ranch is one small part of that."
The trouble for Prescott and PV is that negotiations for a pipeline have stalled between the communities and the Salt River Project, which owns senior water rights on the river.
For 5-1/2 months, Wilson said the tri-cities' mayors tried to negotiate with SRP officials, to no avail. Prescott is asking for 8,063 acre-feet of water from the ranch.
"The city believes in this site (Big Chino Water Ranch)," he said. "There is no perceivable impact on the Verde River. Prescott and Prescott Valley have both said we will not harm the Verde."
Added PV Town Manager Larry Tarkowski, "SRP had a number of negotiating points. At some point, we may be back at the negotiating table."
Bill Meyer, a retired U.S. Geological Survey hydrologist and CWAG member, said the city should look at the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's groundwater flow model for the Verde before considering a pipeline.
Meyer and CWAG vice president John Zambrano think pumping from the ranch would harm the river's flow.
"The impact of the pumping is obvious," added Chris Hoy, a CWAG member.
Said CWAG member Howard Mechanic, "The Big Chino project is being sold to the public as a way to solve the safe yield problem, but we're over-drafting half of what we pump. Since 1999, not one drop has been committed to safe yield."
Wilson said that with water supplies dwindling in the AMA, the city must import water from the ranch to meet the state's mandate for safe yield, which essentially means putting as much water back into the aquifer as what is removed.
The city also is looking for additional water supplies for what the mayor calls "economic viability."
Decades ago, Wilson said Prescott tried to get Central Arizona Project water, but it had no way to get the water up to Prescott and the City of Scottsdale bought it instead.
He added that the Groundwater Transportation Act of 1982 states that water from the Big Chino Aquifer could act as a replacement for CAP water so Prescott could reach safe yield. The city then would be able to import 14,000 acre-feet of historically irrigated water.
An acre-foot is the amount of water needed to cover an acre of ground one foot deep, or 325,851 gallons.
"Prescott has been looking at alternative water supplies for a long, long time," Wilson said.
In 1988, the city bought the Dugan property, which it still owns, with hopes of building a pipeline there, but officials determined it was too close to the Upper Verde Springs.
"We also looked at Williamson Valley in 2002 and did measurements there," Wilson said. "We paid $260,000 for studies, but we had problems with land ownership and gave up on that option."
Wilson says the Big Chino Sub-basin, which is only a portion of the Verde River groundwater basin near Paulden, has 15 million acre-feet in storage.
However, Wilson estimates it will cost Prescott and PV $170-$200 million to build a pipeline from the water ranch to the City of Prescott's pump station in Chino Valley.
So far, the municipalities have spent $35 million.
To pay for it, both municipalities would look to municipal bonds or public-private partnerships.
"The market will determine whether we can afford this," Wilson said. "We have met face to face with eight partners, and they're all interested in proceeding forward. But no one will finance this project until we get through major litigation."
(Editors Note: Two figures in this article were corrected for the online version.)
Posted: Saturday, March 28, 2009
Article comment by:
Debra kaukol
You all must remember Jack is from Chicago, he wants everything to be a big city, the bigger the better. Widen Williamson Valley for more development out north, more people, more money. Jack has missed the boat here in the west. We out here like our small towns just the way they are, Prescott was fine before Jack arrived, now he wants to bring Chicago out here to Prescott. Vote him out, recall him, before he does more harm. He will only get us deeper in debt, between SRP lawyers and $200 million for water, god help us. Time for him to leave.
Posted: Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Article comment by:
Nancy Shelton
The Mayor claims there is "scientific proof" pumping will not harm the Verde. I think if there was such proof, SRP wouldn't be able to sue the municipalities nor would there be a reason for them to do so.
Also, if such proof existed, it could be laid out easily in an EIS, and the municipalities would have legal "cover" for not doing a mitigation plan.
These are obvious points it seems the general public can easily understand when viewing the veracity of the Mayor's/Municipalities/UVRWPC/PR Campaign/CAP position on the Big Chino.
More subtle, but also easily understood, are that the USGS reports that point to damage caused by pumping were conducted by an entity with no "stake" in the game. The hydrologist hired by the municipality groups was given a "scope" to find mistakes/critique the USGS Report.
Also more subtly understood, the pipeline has been designed, at additional cost, to geographically skirt "federal nexi" that would require and EIS. Why do this if an EIS would reveal no harm to the Verde?
Posted: Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Article comment by:
Creagan McConnell
Mayor Wilson, the PACO Board is meeting this Thursday evening and we will discuss Mr. Munderloh as a speaker for our general meeting.
In my previous comment, I was addressing the lack of coverage by the Daily Courier in regard to water issues in Paulden. Will Mr. Munderloh be able to address a mitigation plan that takes into account the affect the pipeline may have on Paulden Area wells?
Posted: Monday, March 16, 2009
Article comment by:
Mayor Jack D. Wilson
Creagan McConnell;
John Munderloh has asked you on two separate occasions for the opportunity to present the communities’ side of this issue to PACO. On both occasions (1-8-09 and 2-25-09), you took his card and promised to schedule a meeting with your executive committee. So far, John Munderloh has not heard back from you.
Posted: Monday, March 16, 2009
Article comment by:
William Wallace
Dear Leslie Hoy, Thanks so much for keeping track of those legal fees. I have believed for a while that those fees and who approves them should be more thoroughly understood.
Posted: Monday, March 16, 2009
Article comment by:
Creagan McConnell
I appreciate your coverage of this subject yet no where do you cover the very real concerns of the people of Paulden.
We will be the first to be affected by pumping of the Big Chino Sub-basin. No where in Mr. Wilson’s Presentation is there mention of what the municipalities would do to offset negative impact to Paulden's wells? The Paulden Area Community Organization (PACO) is working to preserve and protect the water quality and resources of Paulden residents. We need to be at the table when mitigation is discussed, the people of Paulden deserve and rightfully should be considered in all dealings considering the "pipeline'. The Prescott AMA is reaching outside their boundaries into our backyard. In future articles, I respectfully request the position of Paulden Residents and the Paulden Area Community Organization be considered and referenced in regard to the pipeline discussion.
Posted: Monday, March 16, 2009
Article comment by:
Ron R Harvey
Mr. Wilson, in your presentation you failed to address your abrupt reversal of stance regarding the construction of this pipeline, and since you have failed to provide us with a mitigation plan based on sound science, how are we understand this situation any other way? This pipeline clearly benefits new development, and though I appreciate the work that Prescott has done to reduce water use and abuse in our area, so much more can be done before we resort to the legal and financial minefield that is this pipeline. So yes, I intended to step over that line, in the hopes that you will explain yourself to your constituency, and convince us that you represent our interests over those of out-of-state developers. Your presentation did no such thing. What else are we to assume from your actions? Our state has a long and storied history of elected officials siding with developer interests once they have a secured position in office. the pipeline has profound opposition from legal, scientific, and economic angles, and it has become clear that this battle will cost Prescott an inordinate amount in the years to come. We elected you to represent us, but an explanation is in order. Until an explanation is given, you will continue to find your motives questioned.
Posted: Monday, March 16, 2009
Article comment by:
P.O.'d in Paulden
"Wake up USA", ... What in the heck are you ranting about and what does it have to do with the pipeline ?
Posted: Sunday, March 15, 2009
Article comment by:
To the Editor:
Are you still editing for relevance or is this now a free for all about conspiracy theories? I could talk about UFOs all day, but didn't think this was the place. The random anti-Obama tirade simply seems inappropriate.
Posted: Sunday, March 15, 2009
Article comment by:
wake up USA
ttp://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Find-Freedom.htm?EdNo=001&At=047161
The Obama Deception is a hard-hitting film that completely destroys the myth that Barack Obama is working for the best interests of the American people. The Obama phenomenon is a hoax carefully crafted by the captains of the New World Order. He is being pushed as savior in an attempt to con the American people into accepting global slavery. We have reached a critical juncture in the New World Order's plans. and only by exposing the con can we help to save freedom in America. The Obama Deception is not about Left or Right: it's about a One World Government. The international banks plan to loot the people of the United States and turn them into slaves on a Global Plantation. Covered in this film: who Obama works for, what lies he has told, and his real agenda, and how his initial appointments and actions prove he serves the corporate oligarchs, not the American people. If you want to know the facts and cut through all the hype, this is the film for you.
Posted: Sunday, March 15, 2009
Article comment by:
It's Not About No Growth
Not me and all other pro-growthers: Don't you know that it is impossible for a city to continue to grow into infinity? At some point it will run out of land and/or resources. At that point the city must learn to support itself with what it has. Cities all over the world have reached build-out and have NOT died. In fact, most continue to thrive and many have been built-out for hundreds of years. Non-stop growth is not the answer. It's growing smartly so you grow in a way that will support government services and the population. Prescott AND Prescott Valley have made huge mistakes in how they have grown in that they have done nothing but provide a bunch of low paying jobs in an area with expensive housing and a high cost of living. Maybe you are one of the lucky ones who has a home that is paid for but most people are not that fortunate. Now that banks have been forced to come to their senses and will now only be loaning money to people with a 20% down payment AND enough income to actually pay for the loan, how many young people do you think will be buying homes? The average price of a home in PV is about $250,000. That would require a $50,000 down payment with loan payments of about $1,500 a month with taxes and insurance. The majority of jobs in PV and Prescott only pay $8 to $15 bucks an hour. Not enough to save up for the huge down payment and then make huge mortgage payments. It's not about no growth, it's about smart growth.
Posted: Sunday, March 15, 2009
Article comment by:
Mayor Jack D. Wilson
Mr. Ron R. Harvey;
The City of Prescott has taken the lead with its Water Conservation program: http://www.cityofprescott.net/services/water/conservation.php and we have seen good results from this effort. I assume you missed my CWAG presentation as I discussed the science. Your comment that "Politicians bought and paid for by big stucco is the tool" is over the line, but I assume you meant it to be, I am sorry for you that you went there.
Posted: Sunday, March 15, 2009
Article comment by:
Not Me
I have the answer for all the people that want no growth. Elect your slate and when sworn in pass a requirement. NO MORE Building Permits of any kind to be issued in Prescott, never any more. Close the permit and planning and zoning, plus inspection dept, no need for them . Then watch as business leave and buildings are deserted, people die ,those left watch the town have a slow and horrible death. You want it,You will love the sight, not me.
Posted: Sunday, March 15, 2009
Article comment by:
No name provided
It's a little funny that the same old people are saying the same old thing, and complaining about others not having anything new to say.
Posted: Sunday, March 15, 2009
Article comment by:
Ron R Harvey
Still no mention of cutting back and conserving the water that we use in the Prescott area, in order to avoid the expense of the pipeline and legal battles that will ensue. The reason? conserving water is not the interest here, getting water for new development is. Politicians bought and paid for by big stucco is the tool, a dry wash in the Verde River Canyon is the result. Mr. Wilson, put real science and mitigation behind your proposals, until then, we aren't buying it. Communities all over the world subsist with less water, and no pipelines. We can do it as well.
Posted: Sunday, March 15, 2009
Article comment by:
More political lies and deception?
So, if Mayor Wilson says it will cost $35 million to build the pipeline then where did the $170 million + come from that we have been hearing and reading about and where did the already $35 million that has been expended go? Something does not seem right here folks, we are getting the run a round and someone is not telling the truth of the matter. So who do we believe, the politicians, who may or may not be in the pockets of the large land barons or these CWAG folks that have done a lot of research and have some real scientists on board? This appears to be nothing more than the usual political snafu that we get from all governmental agencies.
Posted: Sunday, March 15, 2009
Article comment by:
No taxpayer money
If the land barons and developers want/demand this pipeline let them cough up the millions to pay for it.
Posted: Sunday, March 15, 2009
Article comment by:
Connie
Re: the $35 million figure quoted by the reporter in the following sentence:
"However, Wilson estimates it will cost Prescott and PV $35 million to build a pipeline from the water ranch to the City of Prescott's pump station in Chino Valley."
What I heard the mayor say (and his powerpoint demonstration is supposed to posted at the city's website some time soon) was that the investment thus far in the project is $35 million...please check estimated cost for entire project---isn't it closer to the $200 million figure?
Posted: Sunday, March 15, 2009
Article comment by:
Steven Ayres
Even if you don't buy the argument that large-scale pumping will hurt the upper river, you can look at the pipeline strictly in economic terms and see that it doesn't make much sense. We can solve the 100-year water supply problem by using a little bit less of it in our homes and businesses, and putting in place substantial disincentives for using too much. Anyone can reduce their household water use by 20 percent, it's just not that hard. Having Prescott and PV spend $35 million (ha! I'd bet on $150 million) to build thirty miles of pipeline and pumping stations is brute-force, 20th-century thinking. We can do better.
Posted: Sunday, March 15, 2009
Article comment by:
Leslie Hoy
The above article cites an incorrect amount for the future cost of the pipeline. Prescott and P.V. have already spent $35 million, including $630,000 in legal fees. Projected cost of the pipeline is $200 million. At CWAG's April 11 meeting, a panel will continue to discuss pipeline issues and alternatives. For more information and a wealth of educational resources, visit http://www.cwagAZ.org.
Posted: Sunday, March 15, 2009
Article comment by:
Howard Mechanic
I'd like to clarify one point:
I said "The Big Chino project is being sold to the public as a way to solve the safe yield problem" but explained that neither Prescott or Prescott Valley has dedicated one drop to safe yield from what they want to pump from the Big Chino. In addition, even though our overdraft is over 10,000 acre-feet per year (and about half of what we pump is overdraft), neither Prescott or Prescott Valley has dedicated one drop to safe yield since we were declared out of safe yield in 1999. All new water supplies have gone to growth, rather than allocating some to safe yield.
Posted: Sunday, March 15, 2009
Article comment by:
George Seaman
This was a sad day for the city and for the mayor. Invited to explain why he has changed his position so dramatically since being elected, he chose instead to give a primer on the AZ laws governing water in our area. These are topics which the members of CWAG have actually taught HIM about over the past 5 years. It was a powerpoint presentation directed at people who do not already know what is going on, even this reporter missed some of the issues,the pipeline will not cost $35 million dollars, but well over $170 million. I found it most interesting that the mayor would not give up the "new" information that he says he has received since being mayor, but instead made a boring, outdated and misinformed presentation that could have been made two years ago by any member of either council, nothing new was brought forward. Mr. Wilson has botched probably the only opportunity he will get in this election cycle to explain himself on this issue to his former supporters. It boiled down to this: either there is no "new" information and therefore there is some other reason that he has changed his position (his denials of this fact not withstanding) or it is as he has told members of CWAG before, the lawyers are preventing him from telling us about this information. In either case the situation is problematic for the mayor, either he is intentionally misleading the public about this issue using old and disproven "facts" (as he liked to call them yesterday), or he is allowing the lawyers to prevent him from giving us the information which would stop all of this infighting and litigation. I am not sure which is worse? In either case he has certainly lost the support of the very people who got him elected in that very close race two years ago. Like I said in the beginning, this was a sad day for both the city and the mayor.
Posted: Sunday, March 15, 2009
Article comment by:
P.O.'d in Paulden
As a family on a well that will be depleted by your theft of our ground water, I hope that the "major litigation" bleeds you as dry as my well is going to be if you win.
Posted: Sunday, March 15, 2009
Article comment by:
No name provided
Jack Wilson sure has changed his tune on the Big Chino situation since he was elected. He used to debate the former mayor and council members on this subject and was always against pumping. The guys with the money must have gotten to him!
Posted: Sunday, March 15, 2009
Article comment by:
No name provided
Safe yield project? If that were really true, Prescott wouldn't be annexing thousands of acres of land into the city. Prescott has indeed been looking at alternative water for a long time. However, in the meantime Prescott has been actively seeking large scale growth at the same time. That does not speak of any intention to reach safe yield. I firmly believe Prescott and Prescott Valley are very dangerous to the survival of the Verde River and Paulden residents. Once the straw is in the ground, the cities will never stop pumping regardless of the irreversible damage they will ultimately cause. The Little Chino aquifer is undeniable proof of that. When told the cities were mining groundwater, what was the reaction? It was grow, grow, grow! And I mean paying millions upon millions of dollars to feed the growth. These town officials won't be happy until they have completely destroyed everything within their path. All for the sake of thousands of stucco boxes. Mayor Wilson's speech is just more doublespeak. You have done nothing to give credibility to your cause.
