2/7/2009 10:52:00 PM Editorial: SRP doesn't look in mirror much
We all had to deal with a classic bully when we were younger. He was the kid who had plenty of marbles to bring to the game but somehow couldn't abide any other kids having theirs.
That experience is good preparation for dealing with the Salt River Project.
This past week, the Arizona Department of Water Resources won court confirmation of its ruling that the mammoth power and water utility could not participate in ADWR appeal hearings on its ruling that the City of Prescott has the right to pump 8,067 acre-feet of water from the Big Chino Water Ranch near Paulden to Prescott and Prescott Valley. The ADWR said the SRP is not a resident of the AMA, and the court confirmed those grounds.
In the wake of that ruling, SRP Associate General Manager for Water John Sullivan vowed the SRP would pursue its goals through other legal remedies and added, "We intend to pursue those remedies at the appropriate time and in the appropriate form."
And the SRP in effect will be at the Monday-through-Wednesday hearings in Prescott anyway.
Three local objectors to the project are Tom Atkins, Gary Beverly and Anthony J. Krzusik. They are using the same attorneys as those representing the SRP. SRP officials admit that the SRP is sharing the expense of those attorneys representing the local objectors. One of the people they are likely to ask to testify is Dave Roberts, an SRP official.
Nothing is illegal about that, but it illustrates how thoroughly this behemoth political force - which reported more than $2 billion in operating revenue in 2008 - injects its tendrils of influence and political clout throughout Arizona.
To be fair, SRP does have a right to some of the water from the Verde River, and no one is trying to deprive it of that water. But the tactics it's employing in this situation indicate it doesn't want any other entities to get any of the rest of that water.
Its artifice for accomplishing that goal is its contention that the City of Prescott and its partner in the pipeline, the Town of Prescott Valley, must come up with a "measurable, legal and binding mitigation" plan should the pumping affect the flow of the Verde River.
We have a number of local citizens who share that view, but at a Jan. 28 public protest they organized on the courthouse plaza, fewer than 100 people showed up to share their opinion.
What most people don't realize is that the Phoenix area within the SRP's territory also is an active management area in a state of groundwater mining and also under a state mandate to reach "safe yield" - where the amount of water it takes out of the aquifer equals the amount it recharges - by 2025. The current water deficit estimates exceed 400,000 acre-feet a year. That overdraft alone would deplete the Prescott AMA aquifer in seven years.
The SRP's namesake river runs dry through Phoenix for part of the year, while the Phoenix area fills swimming pools, irrigates lawns, golf courses and parks and shoots water into air in fountain displays.
That explains why water use in the Phoenix area is 515 gallons per capita per day and in the Prescott area it's 180 gallons per capita per day.
Why is the SRP unconcerned about that situation while it struggles to dress itself in the flag to protect the flow of the Verde?
Reader Comments
Posted: Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Article comment by:
Diogenes
Christopher ---You likely won't trust the answer I give you, but here goes anyway: I have no connection with any water groups whatsoever. But I felt Zambrano twisted what the Editor meant to say for his own purposes. And, I felt that Shelton tried to make the Editor's numbers appear sinister, while using a suspect number herself. Maybe some in these water debates are just too used to blasting away with no regard to fairness, and aren't used to having their own "truthiness" questioned.
Posted: Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Article comment by:
See If It Flies
Joey-- There are a lot of people that have been arguing over reaching safe yield, the fate of the Verde River, etc., right? And all of that is tightly connected with future values of the Prescott AMA overdraft. If, for example, the Prescott overdraft were projected to decrease substantially between now and 2025 (as has been magically claimed in some of these posts for the Phoenix AMA) there would be no need for a pipeline. Prescott could reach safe yield without the pipeline, even with the projected growth in its population. So if the future overdraft numbers weren't worthy of debate then this whole pipeline debate would be pointless because we would have no idea whether a pipeline is needed to reach safe yield or not. I'm afraid that will be a tough sell, but you sure are welcome to give that argument a try.
Posted: Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Article comment by:
Christopher
It might be a good thing for truth to identify whether SRP is funding some of the poster's representations or funds the organizations you speak for. I think we are seeing some of SRP paid for PR reps in the wood pile.
Posted: Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Article comment by:
joey
The present and future overdraft numbers are wild guesses and hardly worthy of debate.
And here's a quote for you: "Mr. Guenther discussed the goals established under the 1980 Groundwater Act of the Active Management Areas (AMA) in Arizona. They anticipate meeting these goals by 2025. These are the areas where the use of groundwater exceeds the natural recharge. The overdraft in the Pinal AMA is at 100,000 acre-feet. They expect this to increase to 250,000 acre-feet by 2025. The overdraft in the Prescott AMA is about 14,000 acre-feet. It is projected to go to 25,000 acre-feet by 2025. The overdraft in the Tucson AMA is at 160,000 acre-feet. It is projected to go down to 50,000 acre-feet by 2025. The Santa Cruz AMA is the only AMA in safe-yield. It will probably continue to be in safe-yield but it is delicate because it has a very small aquifer that is annually recharged. The overdraft for the Phoenix AMA is at 250,000 acre-feet. It is projected to go to 400,000 acre-feet by 2025."
Given the projected population growth in Phoenix and long range drought projections, if you think the Phoenix overdraft is going to decrease, perhaps you would like to buy some Florida swamp land at a high price?
Posted: Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Article comment by:
Nancy Shelton
HERE IS THE QUOTE FROM THAT ADWR SITE: (According to ADWR, overdraft figure will be IMPROVED in 2025 over 1998)
Achieving safe yield: The Phoenix AMA has a statutory goal of achieving safe yield by 2025 (or earlier). All indications are that this goal will not be achieved at our current rate and under our current programs. We registered an overdraft of 251,000 acre feet in 1998. All credible projections for the year 2025 indicate that we will still be in an overdraft situation with some improvement from the 1998 level.
Posted: Monday, February 09, 2009
Article comment by:
Double Standard
Nancy ---I see. The Editor's higher numbers cast doubt on his credibility. But what of your use of an OLD LOW number for the Phoenix overdraft? I suppose that is just fine & dandy, eh?
Posted: Monday, February 09, 2009
Article comment by:
Nancy Shelton
It is my understanding that the overdraft in the Phoenix AMA has gone down since 1998. I just searched the internet and projections for 2025 indicating 350 - 400K af were made many many years ago. How do you explain that 515 GPD figure? At any rate, obviously the highest figures found were used whatever their source and it casts doubt on the credibility of the writer.
Posted: Monday, February 09, 2009
Article comment by:
Ten Year Old Number
Nancy: Your figure of 251,000 af per yr for the Phoenix AMA is OLD ---from 1998 (see the very website that you cite). The Phoenix area has grown enormously since then. The 400,000 af number is an estimate for 2025. Perhaps splitting the difference is in order. However, the Editor's only point in using that figure was that the Phoenix overdraft is huge, and its hard to argue against that, right?
Posted: Monday, February 09, 2009
Article comment by:
Nancy Shelton
Although it can be argued that water use in the Phoenix AMA is immaterial to this discussion, the Editorial provides figures that are false. Per Capita gallons per day water use in Phoenix is actually around 200 (not 515), down from 250 through conservation measures, as referenced in this article:
http://siswebs.org/water/story.php?title=Phoenix_water_use_down_20_over_15_years_education_easy_reforms_credited
Overdraft in the Phoenix AMA is estimated at 251,000 af per year (not 400,000 af), as shown on the ADWR website:
http://www.azwater.gov/dwr/WaterManagement/Content/AMAs/PhoenixAMA/default.htm
I would have to question many of the contentions made by this editorial based on gross exaggerations of the statistic. If there is a legitimate argument, why is there a need to “punch up” the numbers?
Posted: Sunday, February 08, 2009
Article comment by:
Paulden-ite for Paulden
I still can't believe anyone from Paulden or PACO thinks SRP is trying to champion our cause. Do you not hear SRP saying that our wells are pulling their water out of the ground? No one is doing any of this for Paulden, and we are going to be collateral damage no matter who prevails. If SRP has their way, our wells becomes theirs, so be careful what you wish for. We may not like the idea of Prescott's pipeline, but even the worst case scenario would take generations to draw down our wells. SRP aside, has no one else heard CWAG claim that any and all groundwater coming out of the Big Chino aquifer is stealing water from the river. You think all these efforts are just going to go away, or pass over the residents of Paulden? We are next. We need to set ourselves apart and make our stance now. Let's not be foolish enough to believing either side has Paulden's best interests in mind. Neither side is even pretending they do.
Posted: Sunday, February 08, 2009
Article comment by:
Lighten Up
To John Zambrano: I believe the Courier Editor intended to say that the Phoenix area water deficit is about 400,000 acre-feet per year. And, if the Prescott AMA had this deficit (which it obviously doesn't) it would deplete our AMA aquifer in about 7 years. That is a legitimate, if round about, way of illustrating the magnitude of the Phoenix overdraft. True, the Editor could have been clearer. But when you reread his statements in their full context, it does not strike me as an egregious error.
Posted: Sunday, February 08, 2009
Article comment by:
Gary Beverly
Since the Editor has "outed" me as objecting to Prescott's application for modification to their assured water supply certificate, I'd like to explain why I'm proud to accept some legal support from SRP. My primary concern is the long term viability of the Upper Verde River. SRP has proven to be an excellent environmental citizen, so I'm quite happy to accept SRP as an ally to save the Verde River. An example of SRP's environmental citizenship is their Habitat Conservation Plan for the operation of Horseshoe Dam and Reservoir, costing $5 million to prepare, and many times that to implement. They built a HCP that would protect the habitat and species well beyond the minimum requirements. Why? Because it made business sense to have a long term stable operations plan. This is a wonderful example showing that environmental protection is consistent with good business. I could list many other examples of environmental responsibility for SRP. No one should fault SRP for being responsible to their shareholders.
Editor, as you are recklessly casting aspersions about "artifice", note that a primary component of an HCP is mitigation. SRP is spending millions on mitigation as part of their Horseshoe HCP. SRP has suggested that Prescott behave as they have - by implementing an HCP for the pipeline. Is that "bullying"? No. Is that artifice? No. Is that greed? No. I can give many other examples of other businesses that do operate in an environmentally responsible, MORAL, manner. So why can't Prescott do that?
Posted: Sunday, February 08, 2009
Article comment by:
Rancher up north
I'm neither a scientist nor a biologist. I was taught that it was imperative to respect and to be a good caretaker of the land and its creatures, as their survival meant our survival, by a wise grandfather. Perhaps the best individual response I can contribute to this wrongdoing on the part of Prescott and PV is to not conduct business or buy products in their communities. I spend tens of thousands of dollars in the local communities each year, but there are other options. It's a small inconvenience to truck over to Cottonwood or up to Flag or down to Phx to buy what I'd normally get in Prescott or PV. The Prescott communities always smile, shake my hand, remind me how important my business is to them, and ask me to keep coming back. But, if it's really only my money and how they benefit from it that interests them, so be it. They may wind up with the water. Time will tell. But, I don't have to contribute another dime to their coffers to help them with that or any other endeavor.
Posted: Sunday, February 08, 2009
Article comment by:
Richard Clark
Who is the bully in these matters? It depends on whose "ox is being gored!" Are the errors in the article (as already pointed out by who know better) a matter of misinformation (the author doesn't know the facts) or disinformation (the author knows the correct facts but is intentionally putting in erroneous information to mislead. Don't they call that lying?
Posted: Sunday, February 08, 2009
Article comment by:
Gary Beverly
Editor: You have completely twisted the facts to fit your own preconceptions. First, you attack SRP tactics that "indicate it doesn't want any other entities to get any of the rest of that water". SRP's tactics are to have their concerns heard by ADWR. What's wrong with that? Plus, your statement is a tacit admission that pumping the Big Chino will diminish the Upper Verde. Thanks for admitting what we have been pointing out with scientific evidence for years. Secondly, SRP's position as described by you is that the pumpers must "come up with a... mitigation plan". That's not artifice, it's a reasonable (admittedly difficult) step to protect the Verde River, and all parties to this dispute have stated that they intend no harm to the Verde. By arguing against a mitigation plan, you are essentially expressing the willingness and intent to destroy the base flow of the Verde. Third, you misspelled Tony Krzysik's name; at least give him fair credit. Editor, you've got some seriously fuzzy thinking and absurd logic. You did have one good point: I do agree that per capita water use in Phoenix should be decreased. Prescott too! Both cities should adopt rigorous conservation plans. Some Prescott residents live very nicely on 35 gall/day!
Posted: Sunday, February 08, 2009
Article comment by:
It's not their water
Good editorial. This issue with SRP is very easy to understand. SRP is in the business of taking and selling water. Anyone who attempts to take water from the ground or from a river will incur their considerable wrath in the form of lawsuits, which is all they really have anymore. Not because they care at all about riparian ecosystems and the green issues. They've ruined enough of them to write a book about. This is about money and profits. If you take water, they consider it taking what's theirs to sell. Well guess what: it ain't theirs anymore. It's ours.
Posted: Sunday, February 08, 2009
Article comment by:
Leslie Hoy
The official position of the Citizen's Water Advocacy Group, one of the sponsors of the Jan. 28 event cited above, is that "A workable and scientific mitigation plan must be in place in advance of pumping to prevent the Upper Verde River from eventually suffering a debilitating loss of baseflow." See our complete pipeline position at http://www.cwagAZ.org. The Courier reported that 60 - 70 people attended the Jan. 28 rally and "at least 150" people attended the evening panel discussion on Big Chino Pipeline issues. Read the complete Courier article with links to supporting documents at http://www.dcourier.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=64171&SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&S=1.
Posted: Sunday, February 08, 2009
Article comment by:
George Seaman
Editor, As usual you have twisted the facts and added things to this discussion that are simply not pertinent to a solution. Misinformation can be a very powerful form of propaganda and you are using this with this editorial. You ought to know better, but if you think statements about a dry Salt River, and fountains etc in the Phoenix area have anything to do with this issue you should do more homework! SRP doesn't use any more water today than it has traditionally used in its service area. The fact is that SRP has SENIOR water rights to the Verde, and it is legally trying to protect those rights. As proponents of "Private Property Rights" it would seem like the Courier would be on their side in this debate? This issue is confusing enough without the paper confusing it even more.
Posted: Sunday, February 08, 2009
Article comment by:
John Zambrano
Today's editorial states "The current water deficit estimates exceed 400,000 acre-feet a year. That overdraft alone would deplete the Prescott AMA aquifer in seven years." This is a gross mistake. The last determination of the water deficit or overdraft by the Arizona Department of Water Resources is 11,300 acre-feet per year. The error in the Courier's editorial will cause considerable alarm and confusion and should be corrected both quickly and noticeably.
Posted: Sunday, February 08, 2009
Article comment by:
Without mitigation, everybody loses
SRP can do nothing to curb the 515 gal/day appetite in Phoenix. But it does have rights to Verde water and the problem is that pumping of the Chino could infringe on that right. Because there is no mitigation plan, there is no assurance that SRP's right will not be infringed. When the pumping does show an effect on the river, it's too late to tell anybody to stop, thanks to ADWR. Without mitigation, it's then a strong lawsuit against Prescott & Prescott Valley while the river runs dry and SRP is out the water it rightfully owns. Then nobody wins.
Posted: Sunday, February 08, 2009
Article comment by:
P.O.'d in Paulden
SRP may be a "bully" by your standards, but so are Prescott and Prescott Valley. I'm happy to see that SRP is paying part of the legal fees for the three people fighting this theft of water, and I hope they prevail. I used to live in the Phoenix area and I have no quarrel with your assertions about golf courses, and swimming pools. They are a waste of precious resources. But what is Prescott and P.V. going to do with the water ? There wont be any new construction to justify that pumping for many years to come, if ever. I haven't read anything that says the cities are running out of water for the population that they service now. And what do I and the rest of us on wells out here in Paulden do, if our wells go dry ? Where will we get our water ? Will the cities be only too gracious and offer to sell it back to us ? There are many types of "bullies", and you are supporting one of them.
Posted: Sunday, February 08, 2009
Article comment by:
Paulden Protector
SRP is a bully, huh? Well, Prescott, PV and Chino are the "classic bullies" to all of us living in Paulden. These towns and cities have no regard at all for those of us living in Paulden. Even our county official Carol Springer and state representative Andy Tobin, (who lives in Paulden) do not represent us. They have completely failed us. We have no representation or voice at all. There has not been one iota of concern or assistance offered to any of us except by SRP and the Center for Biological Diversity. We face the very real possibility of our well levels declining, eventually drying up and our wells being contaminated by their "injecting" of so called "treated" wastewater. The groundwater mining of the Little Chino is proof a mitigation plan MUST be done. They won't do it because a real mitigation plan would require they stop pumping and start using water from another source the moment they start drawing down the aquifer. They have no intention to ever stop pumping. For those of you that believe there is an endless supply of water in the Big Chino, consider this: Prescott will have the ability to pump 8,067 acre feet per year. One acre foot of water equals 325,851 gallons. If you multiple 8,067 acre feet by 325,851 gallons of water it equals 2,628,640,017. That's over 2.6 BILLION GALLONS OF WATER A YEAR! We only record a few inches of rain water a year. There will not be anywhere near that much being recharged back in the aquifer folks. It will only be a matter of time before the Big Chino is drained and the Verde River dries up. For those of you that rely on unsubstantianted past use of water for farming as proof there will be no effect, please provide the scientific proof of that. I don't know of any monitoring that took place back in those days to back up the assertion farming had no effect.
Posted: Sunday, February 08, 2009
Article comment by:
No name provided
