Does the Prescott area have water for the future?? (Phoenix: how much, houses) - Arizona (AZ) - City-Data Forum

Den Mathias · 05-28-2009, 08:27 PM

Hello! I'm considering the Prescott area. It is a wonderful area with the interesting scenery and Ponderosa Pines.

Previously, I was considering Sedona, but was concerned by the water supply issues. I know Arizona has drought concerns. Any locals know if the Prescott area has water rights/supply issues that might make water scarce in the next few years?

I have noticed that the area does have other issues and am trying to sort those out.

Any info with regards to this would be appreciated.

BriansPerspective · 05-30-2009, 08:53 AM

Water in the west has always been fought over and has a very extensive history. I will try to encapsulate the Prescott issue. First off, Prescott is in no danger of running out of water what-so-ever. That said, here is the deal...

In 1980, under pressure from the federal government, Arizona passed the Water Management Act which created five Active Management Areas (AMAs). Four of the AMAs are situated around the Phoenix-Tucson areas. The remaining AMA is around the Prescott area. To convince AZ to pass the act, the feds agreed to subsidize the Central Arizona Project which is a canal that was built to transfer water from the Colorado river to the Phoenix-Tucson area. Since Prescott was nowhere near the canal, the AZ legislator passed a law that specifically allowed Prescott to import 14,000 acre-feet per year from the Big Chino aquifer, which is a HUGE aquifer north of Chino Valley.

The AMA laws state that each AMA must be in a state of "Safe Yield" by the year 2025, which means that the AMA cannot extract more water from the aquifer than is being recharged each year. The Phoenix-Tucson areas have significantly lowered their aquifer levels for years and years before the AMAs were created. The lowered water table in the Phoenix area has resulted in sink-holes and fissures. In Prescott on the other hand, the aquifer has not been significantly lowered at all. In 1999, the Prescott AMA was declared out of Safe Yield. The Prescott and Prescott Valley town councils recognized that growth would continue and began efforts to import the legislated amount of water from the Big Chino aquifer. This made two groups of people angry.

The two groups are the anti-growth people and the Salt River Project (SRP). The SRP is a deep-pocket corporation that supplies water to the Phoenix-Tucson area. SRP has revenues of $2.7 billion per year and delivers 1 MILLION acre-feet of water per year. Keep in perspective that Prescott is trying to import 8,500 acre-feet per year, which equates to about 30,000 houses in water usage. The anti-growth group's motives are obvious. The SRP's motive is to control all water rights in Arizona for the benefit of the Pheonix-Tucson areas (and SRPs revenue as well).

Legally, SRP had no judicial standing to file a lawsuit against Prescott, because SRP does not reside within the Prescott AMA. So, SRP contacted some anti-growth people in Prescott and told them that SRP would fund their legal battle if the anti-growth people would file a lawsuit. So Prescott and Prescott Valley are now caught in a legal battle with a corporation that has $2.7 billion per year in revenue.

Neither the anti-growth people nor SRP can sue based on their real motives, so they are trying to use the environment as a surrogate. Their latest argument is that withdrawing 8,500 acre-feet of water per year from the aquifer will impact the Verde River. The argument is a complete farce. The aquifer contains 15 MILLION acre-feet of water. Prescott and Prescott Valley purchased a ranch 30 miles away from the Verde River. The water table at the pump site is 300 feet above the Verde River. Ground water moves incredibly slowly. There is no chance that removing 8,500 acre-feet out of 15,000,000 acre-feet is going to have any effect on ground water 30 miles away. To give another example, imagine your parents gave you a trust account with $15 million. You want to take out $8,500 per year and your siblings sue you for depleting your trust account.

shoni · 05-30-2009, 08:09 PM

Check out this website

Citizens Water Advocacy Group

Short term there are no concerns. Long term there are serious issues.

BriansPerspective · 05-31-2009, 10:35 AM

Also check out this website:

Big Chino Water Ranch Project

shoni · 05-31-2009, 04:22 PM

The Big Chino Water Ranch Project is funded by the city of Prescott and Prescott Valley. The website is biased and written by pro-pipeline interests.

smilinpretty · 05-31-2009, 06:12 PM

Hi Biggs,

Thank you for the valuable information, as I hear so many versions, I was quite confused. What I don't understand is why SRP is involved in Prescott area when Prescott is out of the jurisdiction? What would be of their advantage?

I went to a gathering the other night and one gentleman was on the water board of where we live. Our development has their own water well. He said we are using a small percentage of the water from the well. I asked if any of that water is coming from the Big Chino aquifer. He said, "no".

This gentleman mentioned that Prescott has spent $230 million dollars trying to extract water from the Big Chino Aquifer and that water has high levels of arsenic in it.

Again, many thanks for all the information you provide Biggs, with great due respect.

BriansPerspective · 06-01-2009, 10:35 AM

Hi Smilin',

Quote:

Originally Posted by smilinpretty

Hi Biggs,

Thank you for the valuable information, as I hear so many versions, I was quite confused. What I don't understand is why SRP is involved in Prescott area when Prescott is out of the jurisdiction? What would be of their advantage?

You're welcome. That was confusing to me as well. As far as I understand, since SRP owns all of the surface water rights in AZ, they are trying to make the legal jump to say that since a portion of surface water originates from groundwater seepage out of springs, then if municipalities extract groundwater, which might affect the water coming out of the springs, then SRP should therefore have the right to control who extracts groundwater and how much they can extract. I understand that SRP is in similar legal battles throughout the state trying to make similar arguments.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smilinpretty

I went to a gathering the other night and one gentleman was on the water board of where we live. Our development has their own water well. He said we are using a small percentage of the water from the well. I asked if any of that water is coming from the Big Chino aquifer. He said, "no".

I'm not sure where you live, but the Big Chino aqufier is north of Chino Valley. So it is unlikely that you would be in the Big Chino. You are more likely in the Little Chino, which sits underneath the Prescott, Prescott Valley, Chino Valley areas.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smilinpretty

This gentleman mentioned that Prescott has spent $230 million dollars trying to extract water from the Big Chino Aquifer and that water has high levels of arsenic in it.

I believe the gentleman is mistaken. Arsenic is a localized issue. Lots of tests were done before Prescott purchased the land where they intend to pump. Even if high levels of aresenic existed, the cities would have to filter the water to get the arsenic level down to 10 PPB per federal law.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smilinpretty

Again, many thanks for all the information you provide Biggs, with great due respect.

Thank you.

Den Mathias · 06-01-2009, 06:33 PM

Thank you all for the good information.

sherryheath · 10-16-2009, 09:47 AM

Thank you everyone for all the information. It has been very helpful.

allenwoll · 10-23-2009, 03:45 AM

Here in the Town of Payson, we recycle about 1/3 of the water taken from our localized "aquifer" (we do not actually have one of the sort usually meant by the term). Our wastewater (graywater) is further cleaned, pumped into a lake and allowed to percolate back to the aquifer. Unfortunately, some idiotic previous City Fathers sold the other 2/3 or so to local Golf Courses -- otherwise we would be salvaging much more of our water. Some local nuts now want to import water.

The point is this : There is NOWHERE today on this planet any practical or necessary shortage of water for domestic, light industrial and commercial interests NOT involving open-field irrigation. What IS scarce -- really scarce -- is really cheap throw-away water. Google "NEWater".

Thus, the scare-tactic of water-shortage used by anti-growth folks is an underhanded lie, pure and simple, true for a long time into the future if not forever. I am NOT pro-growth, I just favor normal growth. Just because I made it to here, I do not automatically want to close the door behind me to everyone else.

Guess my politics !
.