6/16/2009 10:07:00 PM ADWR hearings wrap up
with half-day on Tuesday
Continued litigation likely, regardless of hearing outcome
After eight days spent arguing over thousands of pages of documents, the opposing sides appeared to reach virtual agreement on one crucial point Tuesday morning.
During rebuttal testimony, Jon Ford, the main hydrologist for the three local residents appealing a 2008 state decision on Prescott's use of Big Chino sub-basin water, said he believed the "depth to groundwater" after 100 years of pumping by the city and other area uses would be about 550 to 600 feet.
That is not far from the 519 feet of drawdown to the aquifer that the city's main hydrologist William Greenslade earlier estimated would occur after 100 years of pumping by the city and other area uses.
Despite the point of agreement, however, the two sides were still far from concurrence on the amount of impact the pumping would have on the flow of the Verde River - a situation that promises future litigation over the matter.
The drawdown number was crucial to the eight-day hearing, because state groundwater law requires 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.
The depth-to-groundwater figures came up repeatedly during the appeal hearings that took place at Yavapai College during February, April and June.
While Ford testified in February that the depth to groundwater from the pumping by Prescott and other area users would be between 600 and 700 feet, he said this week that he misinterpreted the map, and he adjusted his estimate to the 550-to-600-foot level.
Both Ford and Greenslade acknowledged after the hearing that their estimates were now relatively close.
After the hearing, Prescott Water Resources Manager Jim Holt emphasized the adherence to state groundwater regulations, when he said, "the most important aspect (of the hearings) was whether the Department of Water Resources adhered to their guidelines and policies" in coming to its 2008 decision - a point that he said was apparent during the hearings.
But Gary Beverly, one of the local appellants, called the state law "unfriendly" to environmental concerns about the river, which he said served to "stack the cards" in the city's favor.
Because of that, Beverly said, the issue over Prescott's use of Big Chino water likely is headed for the courtroom, regardless of the results of the eight-day hearing.
"If this decision is not acceptable to us - and the cards are stacked against us - absolutely, we're going to take this to Superior Court," Beverly said this week.
As Beverly sees it, the goal of state groundwater law is to "manage the depletion of a resource to support growth," and he said the environmental community is prepared to continue to fight to protect the Verde.
In fact, Beverly predicts that the Big Chino water matter could be "in the courts for five to eight years," while the entire Verde River protection issue could face decades of litigation.
The case centers on the plans by Prescott and Prescott Valley to build a 30-mile pipeline from the Big Chino Water Ranch to import water.
While Beverly allowed that other projected pumping in the Big Chino area would contribute to the impacts to the Verde, he said, "The pipeline is the immediate issue; it is what's on the plate now."
PRESCOTT - Eight days of debate that pitted local plans to pump water from the Paulden-area Big Chino sub-basin against efforts to preserve the Verde River finally came to a close on Tuesday.
Over the course of the past five months, dozens of attorneys, consultants, appellants, and interested local residents have gathered at Yavapai College for three sets of hearings to review an 2008 decision by the Arizona Department of Water Resources on Big Chino water.
By the time the proceedings ended at about 11:30 a.m. Tuesday, they had taken more than twice the time that officials originally anticipated.
The Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings initially set three days in February to conduct the appeal, but later extended that to three more days in April. When that was not enough time to wrap up, Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden set two more days in June.
Even after the eight days of testimony, however, final resolution of the central question - whether ADWR's decision entitling Prescott to pump 8,067 acre-feet of water per year from the Big Chino should stand - will have to wait for another four or five months.
Although none of the involved officials could say exactly when a final ruling would occur, they outlined a basic schedule.
Shedden set the initial timeframe, when he told the four sides participating in the appeal that he wanted to receive final written closing arguments from attorneys by mid-August, and the subsequent reply briefs by Sept. 4.
That, in turn, will set off a review period by Shedden, who alerted the audience on Monday that his department would be dealing with state budget cuts after July 1, which would limit his time for reading the case information.
Administrative Law Judge Diane Mihalsky, who was on hand to help with the proceedings, estimated after Tuesday's hearing that Shedden would complete his recommendation by late fall.
Once Shedden issues his recommendation, the matter then will go to ADWR Director Herb Guenther for a final decision.
ADWR Assistant Director of Water Management Sandy Fabritz-Whitney said Tuesday that Guenther would assemble a team, including legal and hydrology experts, to go over all of the information from the hearings.
Early on in the process, Fabritz-Whitney said, ADWR had created a "wall" between the officials involved in the original 2008 decision and those who would be responsible for reviewing the decision. Therefore, she said, Guenther's team will include none of the people involved in either the decision or the appeal hearing.
From the time of Shedden's recommendation, Guenther has 30 days under state statute to issue his final decision.
The case stems from an October 2007 application by Prescott asking ADWR to modify the city's assured water supply designation to reflect the water that it plans to import, along with its partner Prescott Valley, from the Big Chino sub-basin.
After reviewing the application for about a year, ADWR issued its ruling in November 2008 that Prescott was entitled to pump 8,067 acre-feet per from the Big Chino Water Ranch northwest of Paulden.
That elicited a host of objections from local residents and area entities and organizations, maintaining that Prescott's pumping would harm the flow of the Verde River.
The objections led to official appeals by 14 local residents, as well as the Center for Biological Diversity and the Sierra Club-Grand Canyon Chapter, which ultimately resulted in the appeal hearing that began in February.
Reader Comments
Posted: Friday, June 19, 2009
Article comment by:
short memory
If SRP prevails and gets to claim the Big Chino water as their own, how long do you think it will be before they build a pipeline to Phoenix? after all it was only thirty years ago the Phoenix wells were at 600 feet and now they're at 900 feet.
Posted: Friday, June 19, 2009
Article comment by:
George Seaman
To Captain Reality and No Name, there are ways to avoid or limit litigation and still be able to deal with the needs we have for water. Conservation and rainwater harvesting are not the only things that need to be talked about, but refusing to talk with people who are threatening lawsuits is short sighted and ignorant. We need to try and figure out how to restart meaningful discussions with parties that we do not always agree with. The main problem is that the lawyers WANT us to end up in court because it is worth millions of dollars to them if we do. Pretty sad don't ya think?
Posted: Friday, June 19, 2009
Article comment by:
No name provided
Beverly says "the pipeline is what is on the plate now". Maybe in his small role as an SRP surrogate, but the pipeline is a side dish not the main course. This about is the water, not about a pipe. It's either SRP's water or it isn't. If the pipeline is stopped it means SRP prevailed in their claim to the Big Chino water...all of it. If they can do that the little Chino aquifer and many, many others are sure to follow.
Posted: Thursday, June 18, 2009
Article comment by:
Frank
Tom, how can you be so "right on" concerning local politics and the corruption therein, but so paranoid and almost fanatical concerning national politics? Locally I agree with just about everything you post, but nationally I pretty much disagree with everything you post. Strange huh?
Posted: Thursday, June 18, 2009
Article comment by:
Tom Steele
Only Mother Nature provides water and snowfall. It's allocation is well known; we live in the desert Southwest. Hard working ranchers see $$$ as they turn grazing land into developments. Development requires an acre foot of water for every three (3) new families or 24,207 new homes could be built with the allocation of "new" water to Prescott and Prescott Valley. Any water for drought periods for people here now? What if in 5 years the Verde flow slows or stops?
That issue needs to be addressed with law; NOW. Later, with 24,207 new families here, the Verde can go dry and most people will not care as long as they have "their" water. This I think is the developer Land Baron's plan that we better resist while there's still time.
Posted: Thursday, June 18, 2009
Article comment by:
Captain Reality
Captain Obvious, what you suggest are grand ideas, and will indeed make a difference, but they are not solutions. Rain harvesting works great in Hawaii where they get 200 inches of rainfall, but it will have limited success with only 15 inches per year. Our rainfall comes a few months out of the year with long dry periods in between. It will not sustain life. Conservation may supply enough water for the next generation, but how about the one after that, and after that. The Big Chino water is not for our benefit as much as it is for people we will never know. The water we drink today is the result of planning for it. The water the City drinks does not come from under us, it comes from somewhere else. It always will. That is a reality.
Posted: Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Article comment by:
Captain Obvious
"George, do you know of another way to acquire water?"
CONSERVATION! RAIN HARVESTING! come on, it's not like these are new ideas. We can use less, and we need to use less. Conservationists (and George) have been saying this for DECADES.
Posted: Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Article comment by:
No name provided
Please help me understand how the experts can say that there would be little to no impact to the Verde River when in recent history we have seen significant changes to the Verde River, Big Chino Wash, and the now dry Lake Sullivan. This recent history includes an explosion of housing on the Wash and surrounding areas as well as an uncommonly long drought period. These occurrences have caused changes... how can pumping water also not cause change?
If you do research on the Verde River, you will read that the headwaters of the river begin at the dam in Lake Sullivan. There are people who grew up in this area boating in Lake Sullivan; a lake that is now dry except in cases of extreme monsoon activity. Big Chino Wash used to have water in it year-round; fish lived there, but now it is dry unless there is extreme monsoon activity. The head of the Verde River has receded significantly from where it was ten years ago. All you need to do is visit the area and you can see this for yourself.
Has anyone tracked how many engineers have been hired by Prescott to conduct studies on this issue? Did anyone notice that they kept hiring (and firing) engineers until they got the answers they wanted? Has anyone noticed that though there have been talk of mitigation efforts, but no real plan has been released (with the exception of telling the sod farm to stop irrigating…)?
Discussing depth to groundwater is all very good, but how can the hired engineers of Prescott look themselves in the mirror when trying to tell us that pumping water from the Wash will not impact the Verde? How can we in good conscience risk the last free-running, year-round river in Arizona?
Posted: Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Article comment by:
PAUL F. MILLER
I rise to ask ... after all these countless hours and years of "posturing" what has been concluded...? Are "we" any closer to an honest and equitable resolution to allocation of Verde River water...? Government personnel and attorneys appear to be the only ones being paid for spending their time attending these never ending hearings. There is a resolution though it requires "we" honestly endorse - CHANGE -
Posted: Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Article comment by:
No name provided
George, do you know of another way to acquire water? No matter how it turns out, and even if any of us are still alive decades from now when it is over and can say "I told you so", there is no greater responsibility the city has to its citizens right now at any price. No matter how you try to spin it, that has to be evident to an educated person. This pipeline is the hand that was dealt to the city, they sure as hell better not throw it away. If it looks like it is getting too expensive for you, maybe you can try helping instead. I for one will remember you for it.
Posted: Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Article comment by:
George Seaman
"...decades of litigation"...is anyone in the city listening to this?
