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.

Skies Remain Dangerously Blue

Jerome is a small town . . . its population somewhere under 500 . . . and it's forms of communication with its residents  borders on colloquial.  A sign in the post office asked residents to please conserve water because the overflow from storage tanks was running only intermittently.  When I drove past yesterday the overflow was dry.

Jerome is an old copper mining community that once boasted a population of 15,000.  With a current population of only 400-plus
the town is experiencing the initial indications of a water crisis.

Jerome's water comes from an aquifer beneath Cleopatra Hill, captured in 3 water storage tanks and gravity fed to the town below.  The aquifer is replenished by precipitation.

In the last 6 weeks there has been about 1/8 inch of rain, hardly enough to reach the aquifer let alone replenish it.  As I've said in previous posts, if you want to see what the desert will support, "Just look out your backdoor."  It isn't much, yet the tree planting, car washing, and yard/garden watering go unabated.

This on 3 - 10 inches of rain annually.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Which Way Goes Desire

When we talk about the availability of water resources, we assume 0.5+ acre foot per person.  
As people f.... and population increases, the question for Arizona is whether our sexual desire will overcome our thirst. 
That's an interesting question. 
The disturbing complexity is that thirst will kill us and sex, or the lack of it, will make life unpleasant.  
There's a finite limit to Arizona's water...a finite limit to population hasn't been found.
If you need it spelled out, a growing population will have effects on water use.
You can pick up sex at the local grocery store.  Wanna quible about water? 

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.

Selling the Verde River, Part 2

It seems that any thoughts expressed about the Arizona ditch system that draws water from the Verde River generates a variety of knee-jerk reactions that are inaccurate or irrelevant.

The point made in the previous post was that the design of the diversion dam on the Verde River may be pushing more water through the Cottonwood Ditch than it is entitled to take.

I did not (1.) condemn the ditch system nor did I (2.) disparage the 300+ users of Cottonwood Ditch water.  Although certainly possible, I did not (3.) question the environmental impact of the diversion dam.

Google Earth Image taken June 13, 2011, showing the Cottonwood Ditch Assoc. diversion dam.  Nearly 100% of the Verde River is blocked, diverting most of the river’s flow not along its natural course but to the Cottonwood Ditch. Various springs and seeps restore the river’s flow about 1,000 yds. downstream.

Others have concerns, as well. 

Doug Van Gausig, Mayor of Clarkdale, entered comments into the minutes of the town council meeting of June 2007 regarding Mr. Grosetas activity.

"This summer the Cottonwood Ditch is again diverting 100% of the Verde River into their ditch, allowing only a trickle to bypass the diversion. This is a terrible thing for the river's habitat. It means that the river is no longer a viable corridor for transportation and migration of aquatic animals - the diversion becomes, in essence, an unnatural barrier to movements in the river. I talked to Greg Kornrumph, of SRP, and to Max Castillo and Les Bovee of State Parks (which operates the Hickey Ditch) about possible remedies for this situation. I'll continue to work on this issue with State Parks, FreeportMcMoRan and Cottonwood Ditch to find an equitable, legal and durable solution to this annual problem."

A suggestion made by Mr. Groseta is that “interested citizens and political leaders consider the adverse impact . . . trees and vegetation are causing to our river system. These millions of trees are sucking the river dry!", he asserts. 

If this is the case, it’s surprising he has let trees and vegetation line the first mile or so of the Cottonwood Ditch.  (He is President, remember!!!)

As the photo indicates, the river's water has disappeared because of the dam, not because of surrounding trees and vegetation.

Mr. Groseta's myopia may stem from all the trees that block his view of the forest.

The question should not be my qualifications but Andy Groseta's take from the river.  It affects everyone.


NOTES: 
1. I debated whether to continue the subject of this blog in the Verde Independent.  A newspaper is not the format for on-going discussions of a subject.

2. Some respondents to my previous blog should learn the difference between insinuation and inference.  I don't insinuate anything, but I can't control reader inferences.

How to Sell the Verde River.

Andy Groseta has again blocked the complete flow of the Verde River.  He's entitled to do it...Arizona law says so.  The law also says he is entitled to take 10.6 cubic-feet-per-second from the river for the Cottonwood Ditch Association, an organization he heads up.

Note the increased level of the Verde River upstream from the dam and note
the curved configuration. That's important because it increases the flow rate of
water through the sluice gate that is a primitive way of measuring his
"take" ...which he sells.

His water-take is determined by a simple sluice gate.  The flow through that sluice gate, however, is determined by the pressure of the river, whether the river is "high" or "low".

Note the level of the Verde behind the dam.  It's 8 -10 feet higher than downstream.

The primitive measuring systems in use do not calculate river back-up, water pressure and subsequent flow.  

It's not the diversion dam that's at issue.  The issue is whether the design of the diversion dam increases his "take" beyond his entitlement.

Has anyone measured Groseta’s take from the river?

My neighbor has a sign that proclaims, “The River Always Wins.”

We’ll see.  The Verde may need some $$$s of its own.

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 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.