What’s the Problem? State Law, that is, our Legislators. I could tell you 101 horror stories about water management in Arizona, but one will suffice. When the legislators passed the Groundwater Code in 1980, it was because there was a 2.5 million acre foot deficit in the state. They did absolutely nothing about that deficit—they told the farmers and miners, keep on pumping, and then conspired with the Feds to bring in 2.5 million acre feet of Colorado River water for the rest of us. And, please note, money was only provided for the main pipeline, not for pipelines to outlying areas. Second problem : Who was told when they bought their home that the water table was going down 3 feet per year and there was no one who was doing anything about it? Third problem : The government agencies think that paying up to a million dollars to produce a report is solving the problem. And U of A is just as bad—I’ve gotten plenty “we don’t do that” from them—they do research, not projects. Who has sold us out? State legislators from this district. What have they done about water supplies? Jonathan Patton never returned even one of my messages about water here. The Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR ) provides no management at all. For example, they just rubber stamped a permit for Rosemont for 6,000 acre feet of water for 20 years—subject to additional water any time they ask for it (show need). They issued the permit without any regard for wells or water levels in the region—that’s not water management. ADWR is a regulatory agency that follows the dictates of Arizona law. County —always say they could do nothing that it is a state issue. But last year when they did make a suggestion that new developers help pay for a recharge basin down here, officials from State Trust Land and a representative from GVCCC, the board for Green Valley HOA’s that promotes development, showed up to shoot down the idea. An idea that even the Southern Arizona Home Builders Association had not opposed. Two GVCCC Presidents did honestly say privately, we don’t deal with water. But did they tell us? Then we had a local group “PUG” who were going to work on the water issue. After meeting for a year, they came up with the same numbers I had posted on the Groundwater Awareness League website three years before. No help there. So how does it affect us? Many of us were issued a 100-year water supply certificate from ADWR when we bought our new home. The problem is that the certificate is a piece of paper that is not based on any scientific/hydrological reality. The criteria for their “scientific” modeling: if the water companies pump down to 1,000 feet, there will be water at the current user rate for 100 years. But what will happen when the aquifer is dried up down to 1,000 feet? Subsidence! How many of you have already noticed cracks in the foundations or walls of your homes? No one has bothered to calculate how much the land will settle. No one has bothered to calculate the cost to the public to repair roads and other infrastructure. No has calculated how much it will cost home owners. As a matter of fact, in the subsidence graphs that USGS is producing, Green Valley is not included. And if new high quantity water user come in—obviously, our certificates become null and void. What can we do? If you don’t realize it is an outrage and crime against the public that a mining company can come in and put in huge supply wells in a rural residential area, then you have not read the Arizona Groundwater Code which specifically states that groundwater is a public resource. First, we must demand that the law be changed so that all new industrial water users have to be subjected to mandated hydrological criteria and well-spacing rules. So we have to elect legislators who will go to bat for scientific water law in Arizona—and have the intelligence to understand water law. Second, the 100-year water supply certificate scam started in 1995. It was created for one reason—to help developers develop more homes. To compensate for the new development, the home owners, not the developers, had to pay for replenishment of the water they use through an assessment on their property tax to the Groundwater Replenishment District. The home owners—not the high water users of agriculture, mining or golf courses, only home owners—would have to pay for replenishment. Again, for the sake of the developers, the legislators slipped in a little gem. The replenishment can be anywhere in the active management area—even miles down-stream with no chance at all that it will affect the water supply of the person who is paying for the water. The plot thickens when you realize that the Groundwater Replenishment District (GRD), which enables the developers, does not have allocations for the renewable CAP water themselves, so the state has initiated a search for new water (not admitting it is for GRD), their ADD water project. They are contemplating various sources, including pumping dry a couple of aquifers in low populated areas of western Arizona. The price tag will be high for the electrical stations, pipelines, and pumping stations. Another solution they are contemplating is setting up a nuclear power plant on the Sea of Cortez to run a desalination project to pipe the water up to Lake Havasu and over to Phoenix and Tucson. The billion dollar Federal project 15 years ago in Yuma should tell us something about high price tags for desalinization. And who is going to pay for this jockeying around of the water supplies? Yes, all of you who bought homes built after 1995—and, of course, nature: our wild life in western Arizona and the Sea of Cortez. So I suggest open rebellion: First, a law suit against the state that demands that the renewable water supply be replenished in the exact water table where it is being used. Second, start subtracting the GRD replenishment assessment on your property tax bill. You are not getting legitimate GRD service. Third, there is a huge flooding area over in eastern old Sahuarita, as everyone knows who travels Sahuarita Rd. Pima County Flood Control refuses to do anything and even though approved developments have augmented the problem. What about a recreational lake! Fourth is more an ultimatum: Water is a public resource. If there is to be a CAP pipeline, it must be a public project so that any entity with legitimate CAP allocations will be able to buy in at a set price.
Bring your best ideas! Contact Nancy Freeman, nancy@g-a-l.info, 207-6506 |