Plan to Protect San Pedro River Offers Option for Rural Water Management

New Law Lets Voters Set Up Special Water District

by Joe Gelt

Recently passed legislation will allow Cochise County voters to create a special water management district on the upper San Pedro River as part of a plan to preserve its flow. The legislation has varied significance. Many in the environmental community view the new law as first and foremost a river-preservation effort; others see the bill as representing a breakthrough in the state’s ongoing effort to adopt a rural water management strategy.
Either way most would agree that the legislation is certainly timely, addressing critical problems in need of solution, both river preservation and rural water management.
The San Pedro is a river in need of preservation. Groundwater pumping in the Sierra Vista area has reduced flow in the upper San Pedro River, one of Arizona’s last free-flowing rivers, and the prognosis is not good. Unless a river management plan is adopted, long stretches of the river will likely dry up permanently in the face of growing water demands in the area.

(This is not an issue confined to the San Pedro River. The effect of groundwater pumping on Arizona river flow is an issue getting increased attention. See Publications on page 8 for a review of a recent Sonoran Institute report, Guidelines for Meeting the Needs of People and Nature in the Arid West, addressing this issue.)

Law sets up river protection plan
Arizona lawmakers responded to the plight of the San Pedro River by passing legislation that sets up a nine-member board with a very busy agenda. It is tasked with devising a comprehensive plan for conserving and reusing water in the area as well as identifying water supply augmentation strategies. Further, the board is to consider ways to organize a permanent water district and elect its members. Financial matters are also within the board’s purview; it is to determine the cost of meeting established goals and identifying the means of raising money to cover costs.

Whether the board’s labors bear fruit or not will depend upon voters in the area who, according to the new law, will decide whether or not to accept its recommendations. Their opportunity to vote is contingent, in turn, upon the Cochise Board of Supervisors putting the issue on the ballot.
If voters do in fact approve establishing a permanent board, they will have an opportunity to vote again if the board decides to levy a tax. The law allows the board to levy a tax of up to 50 cents for every 1,000 gallons of water delivered — but only if voters OK the tax on a separate ballot measure.
Legislators decided that voters would figure prominently in establishing — or not establishing — the district to ensure local control.

Fort Huachuca is the issue
For many legislators the critical issue at stake was not so much environmental but the survival of Fort Huachuca. Environmentalists noted that earlier versions of the bill were so focused on Fort Huachuca they did not even mention the San Pedro River. The military base now operates under the terms of a U.S Fish and Wildlife biological opinion requiring that the area reduce water use so as to achieve “sustainable yield” by 2011. In effect this means the quantity of groundwater pumped equals the amount recharged. This would ensure continued flows in the river and the survival of endangered species in the watershed.

(Some hydrologists challenge the concept of “sustainable yield” preserving river flow. University of Arizona hydrologist Tom Maddock says, “There is this underlying idea that if you pump less than the natural recharge to the system you are not harming the system. It doesn’t work that way; what you are forgetting is that natural discharge is occurring at the same time. So unless you can capture the discharge you are not going to do anything.”)

If the 2011 deadline is not met, the fort would be out of compliance, jeopardizing any plans for future growth and even threatening the fort with closure. Fort Huachuca, the state’s third largest employer, looms largely in the area’s economy.

Environmental benefit noted
Some in the environmental community are guardedly optimistic about the law. Andy Laurenzi, Sonoran Institute land and water program director, is concerned that a number of critical decisions depend on voter approval. He says, “Someone might argue that it is a pretty high bar when the need for water management authority is so evident in the system.” He adds, however, that the new law is “a positive step, but a small step on the path to sustainable management.”

Sandy Bahr, Sierra Club conservation outreach director, says, “The law is not going to do the job but we think there are provisions that take us a step in the right direction.” She believes some new ground was broken with the law stating that the district’s goal is to maintain the aquifer and base flow conditions needed to sustain the upper San Pedro River.

She says, “The recognitions that in order to sustain the river you have to maintain the aquifer is a very important provision.” She does not recall seeing this wording in other state laws. She says, “I know water bills have come out of previous task forces with recommendations about limiting groundwater pumping within a quarter of a mile of a river or near riparian areas but by the time language was drafted there were huge exemptions.”

She believes the provision could strengthen river protection efforts in the state. She says, “One of the problems we have had protecting rivers in Arizona is this arbitrary disconnect between what happens with groundwater pumping and maintaining the flows in the river.”

Folks along the Verde River, another Arizona river threatened by groundwater pumping, are paying attention to San Pedro River developments for the likely influence they will have on managing the Verde River. This thinking probably prompted the Central Arizona Homebuilders Association’s involvement in the San Pedro River legislation.

CAHA raised more objections to the San Pedro legislation than the Southern Arizona Homebuilders Builders Association, which has a direct interest in development along the river. It is likely that CAHA, realizing that the Verde River in central Arizona is the next likely choice for similar legislation, sought input into a law that might serve as an example of what it might expect.

A rural water management model
There is another side to the San Pedro River legislation, beyond its immediate concern with preserving river flow. Some officials view its main importance as representing a breakthrough in the state’s efforts to develop an appropriate rural water management plan. The need for such a plan has been much discussed and debated, to limited effect.

Herb Guenther, director of the Arizona Department of Water Resources, says, “(The law) is a unique concept in water management for Arizona. It is the first locally designed, watershed-specific — in this case groundwater basin-specific — proposed water management plan.”

He says decisions will be made and implemented at the local level with the Department of Water Resources playing a facilitative role as opposed to a regulatory role. He says, “It will be specially designed to meet the goals of the people who occupy those particular basins or watersheds. ...It is a very basic exercise of democratic principles.”

He says, “It recognizes that one size doesn’t fit all when it comes to groundwater management. This is a concept the Governor has emphasized and directed me to follow up; this is the first of its kind.” A San Pedro River Management district could serve as a pilot district to guide other rural areas of the state.
The ringing words lauding local control notwithstanding, the Verde Independent, which serves the Verde Valley area, took exception, critical both of what the law does for the San Pedro River and also its wider water management implications, including its possible effect on the Verde River. In response to the bill, a June 12 editorial bemoaned the fact that legislators “instead of doing something to actually protect the waterway ... decided to give voters the option of establishing a temporary committee to figure out how to increase water supplies in the area.”

The editorial indicated that this approach does not bode well for efforts to protect the Verde River where many different groups — the editorial refers to them as too many cooks — are ineffectually now working on various strategies.

The editorial calls for government officials to “make the tough decisions instead of passing the buck.” It stated, “When it comes to river protection issues, we have the Arizona Department of Water Resources and the Environmental Protection Agency. ... Another cook in the kitchen is not the answer.”

Water Center Home -- AWR Home -- Search