PRESCOTT - Mayor Jack Wilson encountered some friction as guest speaker at the Williamson Valley Community Organization's (WVCO) monthly informational meeting.
About 40 residents, including some from Prescott, listened to Wilson's short presentation Thursday about the Prescott 2050 study, the Big Chino pipeline and the Williamson Valley Road project. After his presentation, he answered questions for about 45 minutes.
Ken Mino, WVCO president, appreciated Wilson's direct, and sometimes blunt, answers to the audience during the Thursday evening event.
"I think it went well," Mino said. "You get straight answers from him (Wilson) and you know exactly where you stand with him."
Some members of the audience did not appreciate Wilson's direct style, and others thought he was dodging their questions.
Attendees peppered Wilson repeatedly to explain why he thought that he did not see a need for a mitigation plan with regards to the Big Chino pipeline project. That pipeline eventually will carry water from the Big Chino aquifer to Prescott and Prescott Valley.
"Hydrologists say we do not need a mitigation plan," he said. "If we did one, that would delay the project three to five years."
"That is a stupid answer," Williamson Valley resident Wayne Mailhiot said. He told Wilson that in his career as project manager on similar projects, "We were always required to write a mitigation plan."
Wilson said a mitigation plan is not needed because the risk to the aquifer is not from the pipeline project, but from the increasing number of exempt wells that are drawing an unknown amount of water from the aquifer.
"That's exactly why you do need a mitigation plan," a woman shouted.
Several people asked Wilson why he wanted to continue with Prescott's joint venture with Yavapai County on widening the southern portion of Williamson Valley Road after Wilson said that the city does not have any money to build it. Wilson said he supports the City of Prescott's portion of the road, which includes Sidewinder Road to Shadow Valley Ranch Road.
"Seventy percent of Williamson Valley voters voted against Carol Springer (who supports the widening project and won re-election for District 1 Supervisor that includes Williamson Valley residents)," Linda Weatbrook said. "Have you or the City of Prescott thought about if we decide to vote with our feet and take our business elsewhere?"
Wilson said that the benefit to widening Williamson Valley Road is its connection to other roads. He added that Prescott has no plans to annex any land along the Williamson Valley corridor.
In regards to the Salt River Project's lawsuit against Prescott because of the Big Chino pipeline project, Wilson said, "We will prevail over SRP."
He said that he found the situation ironic because SRP donated money to his mayoral campaign, "And now they are suing me."
Wilson acknowledged Prescott's financial problems, and said, "Pay as you go does not work" in regards to large projects.
"The real issue is the one-cent sales tax," he said. "We have to ask (Prescott) voters to extend that tax so we can bond for the money."
On a lighter note, he declined to debate the pronunciation of "Prescott." "There are a lot more important issues than whether to pronounce it like 'biscuit'," he said to chuckles from the audience.
UPDATE - CLARIFICATION, March 24: Prescott Mayor Jack Wilson wants to clarify a statement he made Thursday evening about Salt River Project attorneys suing him, which Saturday's Daily Courier quoted in a story titled, "Wilson meeting with Williamson Valley group not without conflict."
"They (SRP) are suing the City of Prescott, not me personally," Wilson wrote in an e-mail to The Daily Courier.
Reader Comments
Posted: Sunday, October 18, 2009
Article comment by:
Some who likes Prescott as is
Thank goodness that Prescott and Arizona is FINALLY without Mayor "CHICAGO JACK" He has done but hurt everything he touched.
Posted: Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Article comment by:
Richard Clark
An Addendum: In case anyone is wondering further about the water use data ... the average for Yavapai County for the years 1985, 1990 and 1995 the only time periods for which data is available from that website.
Posted: Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Article comment by:
Out with Wilson and keep Blair out
Wilson should savor this moment in time as a small-town mayor for his time in that job is playing out one vote at a time. His support for large landowners and corporate developers radiates from his every comment and action. Like he needs to go and it cannot be too soon, I too voted for him and also share the blame. I too will correct that mistake in the fall.
Posted: Monday, March 23, 2009
Article comment by:
Richard J. Clark
"Hydrologists say we do not need a mitigation plan," That is of course Mayor Wilson's opinion. It has already been pointed out that those hydrologists, would of course, be those hired by the City. Is there some bias there!? That also implies that either a) drawing down the water from the Big Chino Aquifer (BCA) will not affect the base flow of the Verde River (it has been shown by independent hydrologist studies that the BCA supplies from 80 to 85 percent of the Verde's base flow), or b) so what if the Verde's base flow does decline after Prescott and Prescott Valley do start to pump from the BCA (should they ever start!) they might claim that is a coincidence and the burden of proof that it was their pumping that caused the decline falls upon someone else, and there are numerous other possible scenarios. Wayne Mailhoit was correct in pointing out that mitigation plans are insurance policies should the consequences of their proposed actions be wrong. It is, in essence, a "safety net" to protect the Verde. On another matter I asked Mayor Wilson about the Verde River Basin Partnership which he had worked hard and effectively to bring about and his answer was that he had told people in the Partnership that they should merge with the WAC. That has been examined and the WAC rejected the idea. One of Mayor Wilson's slides said the City was interested in being inclusive rather than exclusive. Another organization was formed, when several publicly elected officials balked at joining the Partnership, that involves only elected officials as the decision-makers for their activities. Thus it excludes others, which have been labeled "special interest groups" from any decisions that they make. I would suggest to Mayor Wilson that he remove that statement from his slide as it is false advertising. Finally Mayor Wilson brought out those "whipping boys;" i.e., the exempt well water users that pose the risk to the aquifer. Examining estimates from the national water-use data sets maintained by the U.S. Geological Survey (see http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/) the average water use per capita for "self supplied" domestic water users was 100 gallons per day while water users for "public supplied" water was 126 gallons per day. To imply that the "real" risk to the Verde is posed by exempt well water users is a diversion, at best. As the Center for Biological Diversity has pointed out monitoring is not a mitigation plan. Perhaps P/PV are planning on using the monitor well data to parcel out how much of the blame for drawing down the Verde can be attributed to their pumping from the BCA? When one considers the possible role of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (under the Endangered Species Act), the U.S. Corps of Engineers (under the Clean Water Act), and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (under the National Environmental Policy Act) amongst the Federal agencies and the Center for Biological Diversity and the Salt River Project as non-governmental organizations, can play in this proposed project it would seem prudent to prepare a mitigation plan sooner rather than later.
Posted: Monday, March 23, 2009
Article comment by:
Valerie Jensen
Question for Tom Steele, and Nancy Shelton. If Prescott did the ground work to get the previous legistlation approved to transport water from the Big Chino Basin to the pumping station to Chino Valley and on to Prescott and Prescott Valley, should'nt they have also worked for legislation to prohibit development in the region, Specifically Paulden,the Big Chino Valley? Over the last 15 years I have been living in Paulden, Yavapai County has approved zoning splits from seven acre minimums to now down to 1 acre lots. Current law allows each of those parcels 2 well heads per parcel. In order to protect the Verde, and supply the private wells, small water Companies such as ABRA, Antelope Lakes Water Co. and Adler, naming a few, and a much LARGER stakeholder, SRP, I beleive they lost their piece of the Water Pie. There is now too many straws feeding real life residents now to share with Prescott's proposed new Growth. I'm sorry if they need that greater tax base to pay for this project. From what I understand Mayor Wilson say, the pipeline will only be in use for 50 years, and then Prescott will have to have another source. I was born in 67 in Prescott, it's time to put a Cap on Growth in Prescott and across Yavapai County. Less has got to be Enough. Valerie Jensen
Posted: Monday, March 23, 2009
Article comment by:
Creagan McConnell
Mayor Wilson, the Paulden Area Community Organization (PACO) is currently discussing presentation plans with John Munderloh of the Prescott Valley Water Resources Department, for an upcoming PACO General Meeting. The people of Paulden are eager to understand the reasoning for; the pipeline and the lack of mitigation plan. We are neither dodging nor disrespecting Prescott and Prescott Valley’s position but are aware of our member’s participation history. PACO membership is more likely to attend meetings in the springtime and we want as many residents as possible to be present at this important appearance by Mr. Munderloh. We will gladly announce the time and location of this meeting when we have worked out scheduling with him. Thank you for your public reminders that PACO needs to make this presentation happen.
Posted: Sunday, March 22, 2009
Article comment by:
Grueny
Please Mr. Wilson tell me it's not true that you believe pumping water out of Big Chino and sending same 25 miles away won't effect the water table! As far as the exempt wells, they send more water back to the our under ground water supply than sending water through a treatment plant and pumping it into holding ponds/lakes and letting most evaporate.
Posted: Sunday, March 22, 2009
Article comment by:
Mayor Jack Says It Like It Isn't
Oh come on Mayor Jack, the exempt wells are the only reason a mitigation plan is needed? The fact that Prescott would be able to pump billions of gallons of water a year wouldn't affect the aquifer. Huh? It will only be a matter of time before Prescott's pumping will dry up all the private wells and then the Verde River. Exempt wells are not the problem, the City of Prescott is. I've come to the conclusion that Mayor Jack will say anything, true or false, right or wrong, just to convince the public that everyone else is the problem, not Prescott. As for pay as you go not working...well of course it doesn't work when the city gives away millions upon millions of dollars to private development rather than spending it on the road work it is supposed to fund.
Posted: Sunday, March 22, 2009
Article comment by:
Tom Steele
The city of Prescott has state law on its side as to the right to import water from outside the Prescott AMA. However, all contested projects require mitigation to allow projects to go forward. Prescott Valley's town manager, Larry Tarkowski's position 5 years ago was, "If the Upper Verde is affected; we will act on it then". In my opinion,"then" may be too late. Ironically, in the summer when Verde flows are the lowest; Prescott and Prescott Valley will be pumping the most. Mayor Wilson is wrong on this issue.
Posted: Saturday, March 21, 2009
Article comment by:
No name provided
Looks to me like most of those that were there took there MEDS.
Posted: Saturday, March 21, 2009
Article comment by:
Mayor Jack D. Wilson
Nancy and George:
I sent the following e-mail to the reporter that wrote this asking for a correction:
Bruce,
In you story today about my presentation to the Williamson Valley Community Orgnization, you said:
"He said that he found the situation ironic because SRP donated money to his mayoral campaign, "And now they are suing me.""
SRP was a sponsor of the 2050 Prescott Visioning Project as I noted in both my PowerPoint presentation and my remarks. They are suing the City of Prescott, not me personally.
Thanks
Mayor Jack D. Wilson
Posted: Saturday, March 21, 2009
Article comment by:
He needs to go and it cannot be too soon
We have a mayor that does not even know how to pronounce the name of our city. Not a critical issue by itself but it says a lot about Mayor Wilson. He will not admit an error (ever) and he is on the wrong side of every significant issue (the mitigation plan, worrying about 2050 when we have a crisis today, illegal immigration, throwing tax money to developers to develop, like to Bill Lee for the Conference Center off 69, and almost every other issue facing the city). He was a huge mistake. I voted for him and share the blame. I will correct that mistake in the fall.
Posted: Saturday, March 21, 2009
Article comment by:
Deb
The Mayor stated that budget shortfalls as a result of the recession would stop improvements to Prescott's streets, but apparently the expansion of Williamson Valley Road is a priority because he stated it would be completed as soon as funds are available. However, the Mayor could not recall the rationale for expanding Williamson Valley Road when asked; but he was sure it was in the best interest of ALL Prescott citizens. It is the old "I don't know why I'm doing it but I'm sure it is a good idea" argument.
Posted: Saturday, March 21, 2009
Article comment by:
George Seaman
1) SRP is NOT suing Mayor Wilson and it is unbelievably ego-centric for him to say so! SRP is suing the City of Prescott, and we will all have to pay for the lawsuit simply because of this arrogance.
2) It is not "ironic" that SRP now finds itself at odds with a politician it supported two years ago when that politician has betrayed the principles, and the people, tha got him elected. Furthermore, the mayor has continually refused to give even a modest explanation as to why he has changed his position. The only reasonable consequence for these betrayals is to do everything possible to make sure he does not get re-elected.
3) "Hydrologists say we do not need a mitigation plan", the ONLY hydrologist who have said this are the ones that have been paid by the City to say it!
4) "We will prevail over SRP", even if this could be true (which is clearly a statement of "conjecture") the questions that people need to ask are "When and for how much money?" And then when SRP is gone what about the federal lawsuits that are still waiting in the wings? SRP is not the only dog in this hunt. These lawsuits could go on for 20 years or more and cost well over ten million dollars in lawyer's fees, and by then the city won't consider a contiingency plan to be either "long or expensive".
5) "Prescott has no plans to annex"...I am under the impression that an annexation of any kind is something that the landowners request and not something that the City can "do" without such a request.
All in all, these recent talks seem to be a continuation of a political campaign designed to mislead the public and stoenwall them on what they actually need to hear from the mayor which of course is a simple explanation about why he has so radically changed his positions since his election. Without such an explanation it is very difficult to voice support for the mayor or his political aspirations. If he would give us this explanation it might be an entirely different discussion. Instead he continues to say that he "has not changed his position" which is an obvious untruth.
Posted: Saturday, March 21, 2009
Article comment by:
Ron R Harvey
There is no irony in SRP's lawsuit. Wilson said one thing to get elected, and has made an about face, insulting everyone who supported him. Without a mitigation plan, the pipeline is doomed to failure, and SRP will inevitably win, costing our community millions.
Posted: Saturday, March 21, 2009
Article comment by:
Nancy Shelton
It's not "ironic" that SRP supported Jack's campaign. At the time, he held a point of view that was in line with SRP's. Now he doesn't.
