Price Will Provide Solution to Water Resources

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 on 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.

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 . . . . .

Environment and Jobs

In a recent column titled, “Party of Pollution”, Paul Krugman writing in the October 20, 2011, NY Times remarks that current thought among some Republicans wants environmental laws defanged for the ostensible purpose of creating jobs.

 

Krugman, concludes that suspending or eliminating environmental laws will simply make us sicker and poorer.

In a coincidental presentation to the Cottonwood City Council, Andy Groseta, head of the Arizona Cattle Growers Association, took a cue from some of the positions of Republican presidential candidates and initiated an attack on the National Environment Policy Act (NEPA) calling for a five-year moratorium on legal challenges under the Act. He singled out federal environmental regulations as standing in the path of the Arizona Cattle Growers Association plans to place thousands of cows in the federal forests. 

Without cattle eating more of the government grass, he says, calamitous fires will continue to ravage the Southwest and future famine was imminent. He claimed, also, his plan opens up the prospect of future jobs. 

"We need a 'time out' from the environmental process to harvest more trees and get more cattle out there," he said.

 
He called the measure a "jobs creator bill."

Job creation, as a concept, has become the new enabler.  Despite the temporary change created in the name of jobs, longer lasting effects will affect the environment, rivers and water resources in particular.

Without trees and grass rain impacts the ground directly and in this hilly region of the Southwest run-off, or just simple erosion, becomes a problem.  Run-off loads rivers with silt as topsoil is washed away.

Clear cutting was implicit.  Selective cutting of trees to clean out years of undergrowth and neglect was not mentioned. 


In this desert environment trees such as Douglas Fir and Ponderosa Pine take decades to mature. 

A moratorium on EPA Regulations is, in effect, a permanent solution in the desert.  

In contrast, for example, trees in the Northwest reach harvestable size in 15 years because of the abundant rainfall.  Cottonwood, Clarkdale, and Jerome don’t get abundant rainfall.  

Obviously, we all have a stake in this public position and ranchers should not hold a special position that alters our water resources because of queer, uneducated, special interests.

Our water resources are more important than Arizona Cattle Growers Association interests.

Water Use Threatens Colorado River & Arizona

On a particularly frightening note, a Climate Central article written July 13, 2011, by Tom Yulsman (climatecentral.org), pointed out that for the first time withdrawals from the Colorado River outpaced supply and future water consumption is likely to continue this desperate trend.

The Colorado River supplies water to almost 35 million people in 7 states including Arizona.  The shortfall has been made up through increasing draws from Glen Canyon and Mead Reservoirs.  The reservoirs, however, are having problems of their own.  Facing a “worst case scenario” the reservoirs are going through an 11 year drought, the worst in recorded history.

This shortfall is occurring despite a snowpack of huge proportions this year in the Colorado Rockies which is the primary supplier to the river.

It’s also occurring in the face of decreased per capita use in the Colorado Basin.  In a study measuring use over 20 years it found that while the per capita use dropped a whopping 20% … the total people using water from the Colorado River grew by 10 million. 

As their study concludes, this is unsustainable.

Drink Your Pool

Coming from Chicago and later Cleveland I’ve always lived around the Great Lakes where water is plentiful. 

It used to surprise me, however, on business flights to Phoenix to see the glint of light from all the swimming pools on the approach to SkyHarbor Airport.  Later, as I drove to appointments, it was difficult not to notice the lush yards of homes and businesses.

My folks lived in south Florida at the time and the lawns of Phoenix always reminded me of the lawns in Florida.  As I would enter Phoenix and drive through the city forty years ago I remember thinking, “If these folks want to live in Florida they should just move there.” 

I wondered vaguely if the Florida wannabes living in the desert will ever wish they could drink their pool.

Out here now I marvel at the flora and fauna that thrive in this desiccated environment, a unique beauty…and a challenge of adaptive change .

For the Verde Valley and its close neighbors, the consideration is different.  Temperatures are more moderate and there are few pools. Ultimately, however, water is just as scarce.

The Northern Arizona Groundwater Model, a computer tool developed by the Water Advisory Council in conjunction with the USGS, provides the capability of guiding water management of the Verde River basin. 

According to Steve Ayers of Verde News, the computer program is “a numerical groundwater model that allows for the simulation of recharge to, and withdrawals from, the system, be they natural or man made.”

Further, he points out, “it means that by sitting behind a computer, loaded with the calculations of a numerical groundwater model, you can simulate the effects caused in one place, when you begin pumping groundwater from some other another place.”

Organizations can attach any number they want to water supply issues, but the result will be disappointing – there ain’t much there.  Just look out your back door.

If people living in the desert are counting on "adaptive change" they may have to wait hundreds of generations as did the cacti.

Underground Water Issues

From the 6-29-2011 New York Times:

With uranium prices rising, the number of mining claims (has) jumped sharply over the last few years. There have been about 3,500 claims in the Grand Canyon-area alone. If developed, they would generate toxic wastes that would threaten the Colorado River — the source of drinking water for roughly 27 million people — the aquifer and the Grand Canyon ecosystem in general.

This excerpt is not taken from a scientific journal nor is it a hydrologists’ more or less educated opinion.  It’s just common sense:  What happens on the surface has consequences in the aquifer below it.

Little wonder that Native Americans push against this project. . .they’ve been around for a while and may have a different perspective than we Anglos.

Water Use Slowing but Rates Increase

Water use in at least one Arizona metro area seems to be slowing according to a news item reported several times on KJZZ, an NPR radio station in Tempe, and the Arizona Daily Star in Tucson.  

Despite an increasing population in the Tucson Water Service Area, served by several utilities, water use is only slightly higher than a decade ago.

Use is even less when calculated on a per-person basis.  That number has dropped from 164 to 133 gallons per day since the year 2000.

Reasons for this decline are only speculative but range from the slower economy to residents’ changes in income, household water bills, their attitudes about their financial future, and even their mortgage situation asserts Gary Woodard, an associate director of hydrology and water resources at the University of Arizona.

However, the water utilities want the economics to cut two ways. 

When supply is adequate and demand drops as it has in some communities, prices should decrease . . . at least according to our laws of supply and demand.  Because demand has dropped, the water utilities shouldn't cry poor because of sliding revenues and shouldn't charge higher rates to remedy their problem.

But, that’s exactly what they’re doing by proposing an 8.2% increase for fiscal 2011 – 2012.

The solution, says a friend with former ties to Ohio’s Public Utilities Commission, is to establish a similar organization in Arizona that would regulate rates, not with an eye to profit but what utility rates are necessary to cover costs.

That may be too much to expect short term but what we can count on, long term, is more expensive water.

To review background on this, click on the following link:

http://azstarnet.com/news/science/environment/article_8853849a-c86c-5d67-b81d-bd5ab53946e9.html

Water Resources and City Economics

The growing risk of water shortages in the Verde Valley and throughout the state of Arizona will have a direct effect on the bond ratings of the cities involved, says an opinion piece in the October 20, 2010, New York Times. 

Snowmelt is regional  and usually doesn't reach the broader environment

While lowered bond ratings are not currently a problem for many communities in this area, it likely could be in the future.

Part of this liability is due to local squabbling for this resource, commonly referred to as “water wars”, and the attendant legal costs that drain municipal budgets.

“Municipal bonds are bought and sold on the basis of their credit ratings,” the NY Times article reminds us, “yet today these ratings take little account of utilities’ vulnerability to increased water competition.”

Pursuing a cautious perspective against future water costs, the city of Cottonwood bought several water companies in surrounding areas and shortly thereafter raised the rates.  In an editorial of August 22, 2010, the Verde Independent characterized this buying as a “spending spree” and suggested the city follow the advice of its financial director, Rudy Rodriguez, to go on a PR offensive “so people understand why the attendant rate hike is necessary and important.”

The Verde Independent is correct that the city should communicate its intentions to its residents.  It's just good politics to tell taxpayers how the city is spending its/their money...and why. 

Rates, by the way, were decreased at the lowest use levels but, none-the-less, raised at higher levels.

There was a river but vegetation didn't know it.

It seems reasonable to give breaks to “minimal” users and raise rates for large users.  In other words, conservative water users will be charged the same or less than before the rate increase and “excessive” users would be charged at increased rates.

What is essential is that people realize we are living in the desert where water is scarce and finding a path to sustainable use can be complex. . .water is a limited commodity and should be expensive. 

Cottonwood officials realized that water use will be governed by our wallets and it was a far-sighted city administration that intelligently planned for the city’s future.

Of course, the saga of Cottonwood-water has a negative side.  According to a local resident the city is again planning to alter its rates upward because decreased water use has put a dent in anticipated revenue.  

Cliffs, Mesas, Water.

But, the Arizona Republic has another take.  In an April 15, 2011 article focusing on Phoenix, the newspaper wrote, "Residents Should Know Who Is Behind Water-Rate Hikes".  The paper claims the projected increase is due to the State of Arizona withdrawing $7 million in funding from the Arizona Dept. of Water Resources and shifting the burden to cities. The AR pins blame on Gov. Jan Brewer.

In either case the Arizona Republic echoes the Verde Independent in calling for better communication between city administrations and their residents. 

The likelihood is residents won’t like what they hear.  Water is going to be expensive…very expensive. . .and it should be because water in the desert is a scarce commodity. 

If You Make a Mistake, You Die.

Currently 3 men from Salt Lake City are missing in the Superstition Mountains east of Phoenix.  They went to this Wilderness Area to find the Lost Dutchman Goldmine, an enduring legend that has claimed at least 40 - 50 lives.

A green water hole within a few miles of hikers

Fools gold, fools to the end.
They ventured into this environment with no resources...no water, no knowledge of the desert, no imagination.  
Water is available throughout the Superstitions.  Springs are numerous and you can spot them from the light green shrubs and trees that surround them.  Some say they can smell it.  If the men die of thirst with the lights of Phoenix glowing on the horizon, I'm sure there is an old expression that applies to their foolishness.
I've hiked every trail in the Superstitions, often when temps are 110+, and a good part of the fun is the implicit challenge that, if you make a mistake, you die.
That was for fun, the challenge.
If you die for a vaporous legend of gold, shame.  Unfortunately, the men are past reproduction age and their genes have likely been passed along.
Much of my caution in the desert comes from the realization that thirst is maybe one of the worst ways to die.
I should go there soon, for the nostalgia, the thrill, for the knowledge that it's a risk activity. . . to get my soul back.

The Cost of Water

It's about time someone began thinking in terms of $$$$

Herb Guenther, director of the Arizona Department of Water Resources, has often said that the era of cheap water in Arizona is over.  It's a wise sentiment, and I think that it's high time the era of cheap water in Arizona was over, but is it really?  Have Arizonan water companies really changed the way they price their water for retail consumption?  Have consumers really changed the way they use it?  We're beginning to make some progress by implementing more increasing block rate structures.  With these rates, as usage hits a specified threshold, the per unit price of water rises for the next block of water usage.

How people can expect the least available commodity in the desert to be one of the least expensive stretches belief.
As prices rise, maybe people will get the idea that maybe, just maybe, water ought to be used more conservatively.
If nothing else, the current recession may drive this point home.

Arizona Boggles on River Definition…Ownership

I carefully tore out Steve Ayers’ article, “Verde ownership status still on hold”, from a recent issue of the Verde Independent  and have read and re-read the piece a dozen times or more.

Attorneys are the only ones who seemingly understand the questions of ownership of the Verde River and courts keep passing the issue up, down, and sideways.

The basic question, courts are asking, is whether the Verde River was “navigable” in 1912 when Arizona became a state.

Navigable is the operative word.

The impact of the answer is two-pronged.

1. If navigable, the State owns the Verde River and it is public.
2. If it wasn’t navigable, adjacent property owners own the Verde and it is private.

Questions are legion.

Does Arizona legally define rivers as having to be “navigable”?

What is “navigable”…?

      Navigable to an inner tube?

      Navigable to a river boat drawing 1 – 2 ft. of water?

      Navigable to an inflatable raft?

      Navigable to a swimmer?

What is in the best interest of the State?

What is in the best interest of the people of Arizona?

Is it in the best interest of the State to let ownership fall to property owners of the region who would “own” the water and divert it to a ditch system to sell to various interests?

Whatever the questions…Whatever the speculations…The river will win.  Attach sufficient legal handles, manipulate it through the courts, “handle” it enough, and…it will fool you. 

Rivers can be fickle.  Maybe…just maybe, it will dry up and call itself a dry wash.  

This Is the Way It Used To Be

Northern Arizona has been paralyzed by rain and snow for several days.  Driving is treacherous through the hills and banked hair-pins of the roads and mountains.

My neighbor, Katie, remarked with a smile and obvious enthusiasm,  “This is the way it used to be.”  Katie Lee is 90 yrs old and has been out here for 50 years. 

Her perspective is invaluable either as an environmental commentator or harbinger of things to come.  Precipitation is at record or near-yearly record levels in this area, but her thoughts should give us pause.

Ought we to think of our soggy environment as temporal or should we think that this variable desert environment will settle back to its usual drought conditions? 

In simple terms, is this the way it will be or should we suspect that the snow plows will soon no longer have reason to cruise the roads?

Can we trust that our water glasses will fill in the future? I’m betting that the conditions that formed the gullies and arroyos we see today as dry, will remain dry in the future.  I think Katie does, also.

That’s just the way of a desert.


See Also, http://www.verdevalleynews.com/main.asp?SectionID=109&SubSectionID=1079&ArticleID=34886&TM=77690.2

Looking Out My Back Door

With apologies to CCR…

Currently there is talk in Arizona about sustained safe-use of water resources. Proposals are offered, solutions returned.  Most are merely hopeful, some just ridiculous.

If you want to know what the desert will naturally support, just look out your back door.  For a personal experience, pack into a wilderness area. Sycamore and Loy canyons are close. Legs of your trip will have to be planned carefully between springs, stock tanks, water holes. 

The desert doesn’t support an abundance of wildlife (human or otherwise) and the density of animal populations is typically low. In Arizona, for example, density of the deer population is estimated at 10 per sq. mi. -- in the most favorable habitat -- while in Wisconsin that number ranges from a high of 100 per sq mi. to an average for the state of 25 – 35 per sq. mi. 

Vegetation is scattered, also.  Monocultures such as lawns, vineyards and cotton farms don’t exist naturally because the water necessary to support them doesn’t exist.

Running counter to the scaled-back density of animals and vegetation, human population in Arizona has increased approximately 26% in the last in the last eight years.

The desert will not naturally support megaplexes like Phoenix or Tuscan with their monocultures of people. It is not an Iowa cornfield.

When we talk about pumping aquifers, constructing diversion dams and establishing reservoirs to support non-native agriculture and an overgrown population, it’s a conversation about debt…water debt.

Two water resources are particularly misleading:

1. Reservoirs, scattered about Arizona, look like lakes but are nothing but rivers with an enlarged surface area (and greater than normal evaporation) and. . .

2. Aquifers, being hidden, are only remotely connected to people’s awareness.

The perfect storm? . . .maybe it’s your choice. . . pump the rivers and aquifers and. . .take your chances.

For more on this subject please see   http://verdenews.com/main.asp?SectionID=109&subsectionID=1079&articleID=33135