An Ignorant Attitude

The use of water for many in the Southwest elicits a head in the sand, nearly schizophrenic, reaction from some people.   In the face of naturally occurring water scarcity aggravated by global warming [see Krugman comment, below] there is sentiment that all sectors of the environment are the same.

. The facts, however, bring us back to reality.

The Verde River has toxic waste emptied 
into it at many points along its flow through 
Arizona.

Living conditions in the desert are different than the conditions of living in the Midwest. Concessions must be made for a desert environment where precipitation is below 12 in. per year, water resources that are being over-used, and struggling with a high component of toxic waste.

As a point of reference, the Ogalalla Aquifer in the Midwest forces water upward to within 2 ft. of the surface. It is one of the key reasons for the veto of the Keystone Pipeline and a resource that distinguishes the Midwest environment from that of the Southwest.

A common response from residents of Arizona :

"Yikes! Thanks for speaking up on this, Katie! Just the idea of looking at water as a COMMODITY scares the beejeezus out of me... and i agree, taxing the shit out of those of us who have gardens just seems so wrong. I agree that wasting water is bad, and i try to collect rainwater to water my garden, but for fruit trees and other trees, there's usually not enough. This is a huge issue. Clarkdale doesn't want anybody to water anything so they can continue to grow their population...."

In other words, "C'mon, guys, all I want are a few fruit trees. It's not so bad...I use rainwater for my other plants."

The presence of rivers often gives people the idea that
water is plentiful.

Our "Yikes!" comment continues. . . for "those who can afford to continue watering, the price of water won't matter. So once again, the poorer will suffer... the rich will have their lawns and pools, the poor will be robbed of growing decent food. And yes, there are just too damn many people already for sustainability."

In the column, "This Tribal Nation," by Paul Krugman in the NY Times:". . .having a college degree didn’t appear to make one any more open to what scientists have to say (on global warming). On the contrary, better-educated were more skeptical of modern climate science than their less educated brethren."

Water issues are not social issues, hobby farms and ranches excluded. The availability of water for non-essential uses simply subtracts from the amount that will be available for essential ones in the future.

When Major Rivers Run Low

from the LaCrossTribune.com

The Army Corps of Engineers on Friday began reducing the flow from a Missouri River reservoir, a move expected to worsen low-water conditions on the Mississippi River and potentially bring barge traffic to a halt within weeks.

The Missouri flows into the Mississippi around a bend just north of St. Louis. One result of this year's drought, the worst in decades, has been a big drop in water levels on both rivers.

The corps announced earlier this month that it would reduce the outflow from the Gavins Point Dam near Yankton, S.D., to protect the upper Missouri River basin. That drew an outcry from political leaders and businesses downstream, who warned that allowing the Mississippi to drop more could have devastating economic consequences.

Corps spokeswoman Monique Farmer told The Associated Press on Friday that the reduction began as scheduled that morning. By midday, the flow that had started at 37,500 cubic feet per second had been cut to 35,500 cubic feet per second.

Farmer said plans call for a gradual reduction down to 12,000 cubic feet per second by Dec. 11 because of the drought.

Florence Loses Her Water -- Part 2

Fracking Florence for Copper

Curis Resources is using a controversial "hydraulic fracturing" process, otherwise known as fracking, to obtain copper in an electro-deposition mining operation in a largely residential area of Florence, Arizona. (see previous post)  The fracking process jeopardizes the potability of Florence's water supply.  Although Curis claims that the sulfuric acid/water solution used to dissolve copper is no stronger than vinegar, I'd challenge Curis executives to pour it over their holiday salads.  

Curis Resources Florence Copper Project will use a fracking 

process which has been shown to create misery and severe

 health concerns for nearby residents.

Among the list of players, below, the first two are principals in this drama...the last three are prophetic icons of what may occur if the promises of safety made by Curis Resources go awry. 

Curis Resources Ltd., a Canadian company and subsidiary of Hunter Dickinson Inc., with operations in the United States. The firm is beginning an in-situ copper mining process that entails injecting a water/sulfuric acid mixture into a copper ore body and extracting the mixture through an otherwise pure aquifer. First, however, the ore is pulverized or fracked to make it more available to the acid solution.

 

Florence, Arizona, a quiet small town known for ranching and farming and on the verge of development that would make it as large as Tucson. Florence uses the aquifer through which Curis Resources is drilling/fracking.

_______________________

Silent Spring, written by Rachel Carson, has been out slightly over 50 years.  First published in September, 1962, the book created a sea-change in the ecological infra-structure of America.

Orion Magazine, an eclectic publication with a subtitle of “NATURE / CULTURE / PLACE” used its September/October issue as a loose celebration of Rachel Carson, broad environmental issues, and commentary on the relationship between people, corporations, and their relation to the environment.

BP’s Deepwater Horizon off-shore drilling platform had an unanticipated blowout killing 11 people and subsequently paid the largest fine of its type in US history.

Where will this situation end?  Despite all good intentions, Florence will get fracked, all for a $2.50 / lb. metal.

Florence Loses Her Water

Curis Resources is in the process of exploiting a major copper discovery within a residential area of Florence, Arizona.  The mining company plans to do this with a controversial "in-situ" process that may destroy potability of the aquifer that supplies water to this major community of Arizona.

The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality granted Curis a permit to inject "billions of pounds of sulfuric acid into the subsurface in close proximity to an aquifer that supplies drinking water wells presently servicing approximately 83,000 people, and that will ultimately supply drinking water to thousands of more residents of a master-planned residential subdivision..."

The facts are straight forward; the implications, less so.

Curis Florence Copper Mine Project "in-situ" mine site.
 Curis employee inspects wellheads that inject "recovery 
solution" (sulfuric acid) and retrieve "copper-bearing" 
solution.

As claimed by Florence residents, "...uranium  mining companies using similar extraction methods in Texas, Colorado and other states have never been able to restore the aquifer to pre-mining conditions....There is no enforceable backup plan to save our water aquifer if it is damaged or destroyed and, if the company goes bankrupt, there is no way to get our water back."

Curis employee explains that Curis' mining payroll will 

benefit Florence residents.  Curis will gain copper and the

city of Florence will lose it's water.  

The "Florence Copper" mine project might be more palatable to residents if the activity of the mining company was held, not to design specifications, but to performance specifications.  In other words, if drilling specifications were set out in such terms as, 1. we plan to drill in such a way as not to harm the aquifer or, 2. we will re-mediate any damage we cause. Instead, representations of the well are shown below.

 Probable arrangement of injection/retrieval wells.

Mining activity was triggered when copper reached $2.50/lb. The question is whether copper is worth more than water?

Where Water Meets Sun

This photo of a remarkable project in India was recently sent to me by Richard M. Hileman, a Facebook friend who obtained it from Occupy Wall St. It came with his comment, "This would be good for Arizona."

This solar panel laid on the vast stretches of agricultural channels 

in Gujarat India generates 1 Megawatt of electricity per km and 

prevents evaporation of 1 crore (10,000,000) liters of water 

every year.

While it might prove impractical for the mountainous regions of northern Arizona, it would seem a workable solution for clean power generation and water distribution in the southern part of the state which has higher proportion of largely flat land.

The concept would particularly suit irrigation projects and diversion canals which are already level and suffer high levels of water loss due to evaporation.

Has the Aquifer Run Dry?

In a recent news note in the VerdeNews.com, Tom Whitmer of Cottonwood, Arizona, had been nominated for a position on the Technical Advisory Committee with the Yavapai County Water Advisory Committee.

Photos taken from verdenews.com

His nomination was questioned by Doug Von Gaussig because Mr. Whitmer serves on the board of that organization and the conflict of interest was all too apparent . . . especially with respect to an appointee who would, in effect, report to himself.


I congratulate Mr Von Gaussig whose foresight has otherwise addressed many of his communities difficult problems.


I would like to see either principal in this local scuffle, begin to answer Jerome, Arizona's, water difficulties.
  
Here in this ex-mining, tourist town we drink from an aquifer via a couple of large storage tanks.  But the overflow from these tanks has stopped...which means that 1.) the tanks aren't full or 2.) the aquifer has stopped charging the tanks. 


We've had little rain, the Verde River is at record lows and a Jerome town council member is talking about the installation of water meters.  What if there just ain't any water?

Which Will Win. . . Water or Uranium

You just know it will be uranium because it's worth more...

"Washington’s decision to bar new uranium mining near the Grand Canyon and other federal policies on energy and resource issues," says the Casa Grande Dispatch, "are barriers holding back Arizona and its residents from prosperity," Gov. Jan Brewer told a congressional hearing Friday.

"Further", the Republican governor said, "the January decision by the Obama administration to block new uranium mining near the national park deprives a rural area of needed jobs and ignores that there are safeguards that would protect the environment. She also criticized federal policies and regulatory actions involving forest management and power plant emissions."

"Unlike in decades past when the federal government and the state partnered on dam and aqueduct projects, use of natural resources is at risk due to red tape and overregulation from Washington, Brewer said."

“We all love Arizona. We all treasure the Grand Canyon. We all support clean water and clear skies,” Brewer said. “But Westerners need a federal government that will work with us to achieve our shared goals of a strong economy and a sound environment.”

"Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced the 20-year prohibition that covers more than 1 million acres rich in high-grade uranium ore reserves in the region of the Grand Canyon. Uranium is used in nuclear power plants."

"Salazar said he took the action to protect the Grand Canyon, which he called a natural treasure."


Clever...if she had said "Stop the mining",  her reason would have been the natural requirements of the Grand Canyon...had she said, "Go for the water...," her excuse would have been jobs.  


Gov. Brewer ought to swallow her tongue and make up her mind.

A Canary in the Mine

Not a drop of water that can be imagined.  Not even a trickle of a seasonal or intermittent  stream that might provide water.  Y'know, the kind on topo maps that are designated with dashed blue lines.

Water in Arizona is scarce, often a matter of life or death. 

However, we read this.... 

"Ohio will soon be in the business of selling water to industry throughout shale-gas regions," a blogger claims.  Speaking of native amphibians of the Ohio River watershed, this blogger continues with the thought, "let's not forget who resides in that water."

"Amphibians are the canaries in the aquatic 'coal-mines.'  Their health should be important to us, as they are bio indicators for our future.  We should all be thinking about this a little more," she continues.

If the supply of water in the Ohio River is being questioned because mining operations require water, what solution do we have in Arizona where mining companies are tapping underground aquifers?  Just a thought . . . . .

Price Could Provide Solution to Water Scarcity

While a newbie resident to the Southwest, I've backpacked out here for 30 years primarily in the Superstition Wilderness where I would plan daily segments on a topo map from one spring to another. 

I remember the surprise one day when I found that the local Safeway in Cottonwood was selling gallon jugs of water for less than it was being sold in Cleveland, OH (bottled, of course, in New York).

About that time I read Charles Bowden's Killing the Hidden Waters and realized I wasn't crazy...at least there was one other person thinking as I was.

Water is a diminishing resource and should be taxed or priced as such.

The small town of Clarkdale, Arizona, has restructured its water rates and found that usage dropped by 50%.

Growing population in the state is part of the problem and, candidly, I've thought endlessly for a solution of how one would control population in Arizona.

Part of the problem will have to rest in price or rate structure...not a popular solution these days.

Tax water use to a level that prohibits lush lawns in Phoenix, tax it to a level that prohibits economical establishment of cotton farms in southern parts of the state, tax it to the extent that makes stock/stock tanks uneconomical, tax it so you question flushing the toilet every time you pee.

Charge enough so that makes an 8,000 gallon swimming pool in Phoenix a true luxury

.

The first year or two I was out here, water wasn't an issue.  I've noticed, increasingly, that one water issue or another is becoming a factor in mining or, less so, the weather. 

Realistically, a water inventory for the state needs to be established and maybe the results will point the way to a solution.

The Hard Facts

Ahh...the hard facts. They bring us home to reality. 


The hard facts are that conditions of living in the desert are different than the conditions of living in the Midwest.  Concessions must be made for an unusual environment, an environment  that has little water, water resources that are being over-used.


As a point of reference, the Ogalalla Aquifer in the Midwest forces water upward to within 2 ft. of the surface.  It is one of the key reasons for the veto of the Keystone Pipeline and a resource that distinguishes the Midwest environment from that of the Southwest. 


A common response from residents of Arizona or otherwise in the Southwest takes the tenor of the following conversation:

Yikes! Thanks for speaking up on this, Katie! Just the idea of looking at water as a COMMODITY scares the beejeezus out of me... and i agree, taxing the shit out of those of us who have gardens just seems so wrong. I agree that wasting water is bad, and i try to collect rainwater to water my garden, but for fruit trees and other trees, there's usually not enough. This is a huge issue. Clarkdale doesn't want anybody to water anything so they can continue to grow their population....

In other words, "C'mon, guys, all I want are a few fruit trees. It's not so bad...I use rainwater for other plants."


From a current column "This Tribal Nation" by Paul Krugman in the NY Times:
". . .  having a college degree didn’t appear to make one any more open to what scientists have to say. On the contrary, better-educated were more skeptical of modern climate science than their less educated brethren."


Our "Yikes!" comment continues. . . for "those who can afford to continue watering, the price of water won't matter. So once again, the poorer will suffer... the rich will have their lawns and pools, the poor will be robbed of growing decent food. And yes, there are just too damn many people already for sustainability."


Water issues are not social issues, hobby farms and ranches excluded.  The availability of water for non-essential uses simply subtracts from the amount that will be needed for essential ones in the future.

A Costly Solution

My original premise, posted a while ago, was that increases in Arizona population were aggravating the level of water use.

A response from Dr.Gary Beverly was "How do you control population?  You can't deport people"

The standard response from developers is to demonstrate "100 years assured water supply."

My response to Dr. Beverly was to price (or tax) water to such a level that fewer people would move to Arizona.

He seemed to agree.

In discussions with several friends, this solution was not taken favorably.  The feeling was that the "poor" would bear most of the burden.

Water is a commodity, however...a very limited one with undefined quantities, at least in Arizona.  As a limited commodity it should be priced or taxed according to its value.

As a start to help solve the question the state should probably commission an engineering/consulting firm do an inventory of state water resources. That's just for a start.

IBM, for one, undertakes such huge projects.

As an example, I understand (fr.Beverly) a neighboring town, Clarkdale, has cut per-capita water use by 50% through increasing prices. Commodities are the same as other items in the US economy...luxuries are expensive.  Water in the desert is a luxury.  

I'll stick with my original premise...if you want to know what the desert will support just "look out your back door."  It's not much.

In the future we'll be lucky to consume only our past average of 0.5 acre ft. per person.

Ultimately, the choice will be between the cotton fields in the southern part of the state and water to wash your dishes.  70% of water is consumed by agriculture...your choice.

Population Key to Water Use

It strikes me that we can drown in local legislation while the broader solution is directly in front of us: POPULATION.

We like to think we can beat the numbers.  At least commonly accepted ones.  

The density or concentration of desert flora is a fraction of what it is in
the Midwest.

The density or concentration of desert fauna is, also, a fraction of what it
is in the Midwest.

For example, the density of the deer population in Wisconsin is 30 times,
in a favorable habitat, of what it is in Arizona, a arguably more hostile one.

Why the human animal feels confident it can beat the numbers, I don't know.

We are continually drilling deeper to find aquifers and, frankly, the
handwriting is on the wall.

A developer may be able to demonstrate a "100 year assured supply" until a guy
on the adjoining property drills into the same aquifer and halves the capacity
of a viable aquifer.

I don't question that "Arizona law allows threats to water resources."  I wonder that solutions have not been laid out. 

Water Must Deal with 25 MM Population Increase

The UA’s Water Resources Research Center held its recent conference to discuss the present and future state of Arizona’s water issues.

Not much new was reported but some obvious views were well taken.  Here is a summary from the DAILYWILDCAT.com.

The conference played with ideas to more effectively use water coming into Arizona. Main issues involved choices people make with the water they already have, how not to continue population growth with the little water they receive and more long-term plans for what to do with their water over the next 40 to 100 years.

Joseph Garcia, director of communications at ASU’s Morrison Institute for Public Policy, said about 70 percent of water in Arizona goes to agriculture. The rest of it goes to industries and mining, recreational urbanization or landscape use.

“We are not running out of water,” Gammage said, “but we can’t do everything forever. We can’t support continued population growth and also support agriculture and also support the environment.”

Arizona is allotted about 2.8 million acre feet per year from the Colorado River. Because Arizona doesn’t currently use all of its allotted water, it ends up being dumped back into the environment, Gammage continued.

"If you believe that leaving water in the environment is a use, which lots of people don’t, then we are using it all."

According to Gammage’s report, the population over the next 40 years will grow by 25 million or more, leading to an increase in water demand to about 5 million acre feet of water per year.