The Arizona Department of Water Resources administrative review hearing of the City of Prescott’s application to modify its assured water supply designation concluded in June 2009.
Listed below are the top five myths that have been perpetuated by opponents of the Big Chino Water Ranch project during the hearing, featuring links to exclusive YouTube clips highlighting testimony by those involved in the hearing.
1. Myth: Pumping will negatively impact the upper Verde River.
Fact:
There is no conclusive evidence that groundwater pumped from the Big Chino Water Ranch will reduce the flows of the upper Verde River. To ensure against any impacts on the upper Verde River from pumping on the Ranch, a monitoring program will be part of the Big Chino Water Ranch Project. Both Prescott and Prescott Valley have publicly committed to taking the steps needed to remedy any demonstrable, adverse impacts on the upper Verde River associated with their pumping.
Arizona Department of Water Resources [ADWR] Assistant Director of Water Management Sandy Fabriz-Witney testified in the Prescott’s assured water supply administrative review hearing that water from the Big Chino aquifer does not constitute sub flow of the Verde River.
The Big Chino Water Ranch is about 20 miles away from the Verde River. By contrast, local resident objector, environmental activist and Salt River Project [SRP] surrogate Gary Beverly testified in Prescott’s assured water supply administrative review hearing that SRP’s dams on the Verde River do not constitute “excellent environmental stewardship.” Beverly also admitted his agriculture well is located 15 miles closer to the Verde than the Big Chino Water Ranch, and that he is “part of the problem.”
2. Myth: USGS and other reports prove that about 80 percent of the upper Verde River comes from the Big Chino aquifer.
Fact:
The referenced studies have been shown to be flawed. It is not known exactly how much Verde River water comes from the Big Chino Sub-basin. More importantly the studies do not support a scientific conclusion that water pumped from the locations proposed on the Big Chino Water Ranch will impact the Upper Verde River springs.
In fact, ADWR Chief Hydrologist Frank Corkhill testified in Prescott’s assured water supply administrative review hearing that the hydrology study submitted to ADWR by Jon Ford, a SRP consultant, was flawed at best. Furthermore, Prescott resident objector and SRP surrogate Anthony Krzysik even testified that he could change his mind on this fact if presented with better evidence.
3. Myth: The state law that grants Prescott the exclusive right to transfer Big Chino groundwater annually to its neighboring basin is unconstitutional.
Fact:
Although opponents claim the 18 year old state law maybe unconstitutional, others believe the law is constitutional and clearly gives Prescott the right to pump and transfer as much as 14,000 acre-feet of groundwater from the Big Chino Sub-basin. They believe this water belongs to the people of the Prescott-area, not to opponents like SRP. The statute was approved by the Legislature in 1991 with the express understanding that Prescott needed an alternative water supply similar to the supplies previously provided to the Phoenix area. The need to defend this law against claims that it is unconstitutional is an unfortunate use of public resources in response to obstructionist tactics.
Fabritz-Witney testified in Prescott's assured water supply administrative review hearing that Prescott met all the criteria required under state law to transfer groundwater from the Big Chino aquifer.
4. Myth: The Big Chino Water Ranch Project will only benefit developers and contractors and is not necessary.
Fact:
First and foremost the pipeline is necessary to achieve safe-yield in the Prescott Active Management Area [PrAMA] by 2025. Also water from the Big Chino Sub-basin is vital to ensuring the long term needs of current and future Prescott-area residents.
It is the only source large enough to support responsible growth in the area and to limit the negative results of proliferation of wildcat subdivisions; “exempt” wells; and individual septic tanks within the county (including the Big Chino Sub-basin). Strict AMA rules will apply to the use of this water, and the communities in the AMA are committed to adopting and implementing policies that ensure conservation and reuse in connection with this water supply.
In fact, Fabritz-Witney testified in Prescott’s assured water supply administrative review hearing that ADWR could potentially revoke Prescott’s assured water supply designation if the pipeline project does not move forward.
5. Myth: SRP is not participating in the ongoing ADWR hearings.
Fact:
In February, a Maricopa Superior Court judge denied SRP’s request to participate in the ongoing administrative review of ADWR’s decision to allow Prescott to modify its current assured water supply to include water from the Big Chino Sub-basin. SRP does not have standing because it is not a resident of the PrAMA. However, SRP was able to skirt the ruling. SRP recruited surrogates, several local residents who have standing, to challenge the finding. They are being represented in the hearings by attorneys who also work for SRP and they have admitted that they are not paying for all of their own legal fees.
Local resident Krzysik testified in Prescott’s assured water supply administrative review hearing that SRP officials met with him in his home to discuss legal strategy. Krzysik also admitted he is not paying his own legal bills.
