 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Opinion
New proposed city water deal holds promise of 'Win-Win'
©Arizona Daily Sun
3/10/2005
Win-win.
It's a phrase bordering on trite nowadays.
But the latest water deal offered to the city of Flagstaff appears to have not just one or two winners, but three and even four.
As in "Win-Win-Win-Win."
Here's how it would work: The Prosser family sells 5,500 acres of its sprawling Bar-T-Bar cattle ranch east of the Flagstaff to the city for $13.5 million. The city gets water rights that it needs to accommodate future growth. The Prossers, through a perpetual conservation easement, get to keep their cattle on the land and thus stay in ranching. Foresight Wind Energy gets to build wind turbines on the Flagstaff-owned land, paying the city royalties that could amount to $3.6 million over the 30-year easement. The entire 45,000-acre Bar-T-Bar ranch remains as open rangeland instead of being subdivided into ranchettes, assuring continued public access for hunting, fishing and other recreational uses.
On paper, the deal certainly seems an improvement over the previous Red Gap Ranch offer, which had none of the other benefits listed above. Yes, the price tags and locations are similar, but anytime there's a chance to keep a hard-pressed ranching family in business while protecting open space and promoting sustainable energy, the choice seems a no-brainer.
There are some who say ranching is no longer viable for a reason: The rangelands have been overgrazed and feedlots have supplanted the open range as a more efficient way of putting meat to the table.
That's where the Flagstaff-based Diablo Trust comes in, and it's why we're more enthusiastic about this land deal than most.
The Trust is a coalition of conservationists and ranchers who are committed to better stewardship of the land while preserving the ranching tradition in northern Arizona. The Trust will oversee the Prossers' ranching conservation easement, and based on its track record - it has earned awards from both the EPA and the state farm bureau - we're confident the rangelands will be in good hands.
There are other concerns, however, that come with such a large-scale project. One is how the city's plans to pump so much water from the Coconino Aquifer on the Bar-T-Bar Ranch will affect other drilling projects nearby, including one proposed by the tribes and Peabody Energy for the Black Mesa Mine. As we've noted before, it would be better politically and possibly financially if the city could meet its future water needs as part of a coordinated, regional water system, not by going it alone.
And money could be an issue, if not now, then in the future. Flagstaff voters have already approved spending up to $15 million for the purchase of water rights. But it will cost an additional $111 million to pump, pipe and treat the new water supply, according to one city estimate. If there's a way to share that cost with other users, the city should explore it.
Finally, there is no guarantee that the water beneath the Bar-T-Bar Ranch will prove suitable or sufficient for drinking, even after treatment. The Coconino Aquifer, although vast, is subject to localized drawdowns, as are now occurring at Flagstaff's wellfields off Woody Mountain Road. It also contains pockets high in solids, fluoride and other contaminants that would not be cost-effective to treat. The Bar-T-Bar deal includes a $9 million buyback offer after three years if the city wants to back out, but that still means a $4.5 million upfront investment.
At this point, city officials have put negotiations on hold pending completion of a federal Bureau of Reclamation hydrology study of the Coconino Aquifer in connection with the proposed Black Mesa Mine pipeline. When that is released, we hope all the parties will sit down and explore mutually beneficial water options for the region.
Anybody for "Win-Win-Win-Win-Win?"
Arizona Daily Sun Virtual Editorial Board — On drilling for water and developing wind power on the Bar T Bar Ranch, 3/10/2005
Gretchen Smith
If we care about the quality of life in Flagstaff, we will care about the prosperity of our families. If they are to flourish, they must also be prosperous, and ironically, that prosperity means water. Just as we need water to live, so we need water to thrive.
As a community, Flagstaff has set its future success on attracting non-polluting, high-tech manufacturing industries such as W.L. Gore. Such industries require water. High-tech manufacturers pay higher wages than consumer enterprises such as Wal-Mart, which requires less water, but pays lower wages.
We want Flagstaff to be more than a "watering hole" where people stop to buy and play. Better, a Flagstaff that is prosperous within because of companies paying higher wages.
Bar-T-Bar land may be a source of water vital of Flagstaff's welfare. With beautifully green surroundings, we sometimes forget we live in a desert. We cannot live on water runoff. As desert dwellers, we have to dig for it.
Bar-T-Bar land could provide the water we need, not only to live, but also to thrive. The city has no choice but to see if Bar-T-Bar is where we should dig.
Gretchen Smith is a former 20-year flight attendant, a recent graduate of Cal State San Marcos, a member of Soroptimist International of Flagstaff, and a novice potter.
Christopher Lane
OK, let's get this straight: The city is considering sinking about $13.5 million for land that would be used for future water to support future growth. The land is the same patch that would host a wind-energy park along I-40, near Two Guns.
First of all, the wind energy plan looks like a darn good idea -- it would provide (the equivalent of) about two-thirds of the city's energy use, and would eventually pay for itself. Given that we know that the rest of the state is growing and needs the juice, we'd be wise to start generating our own.
OK, so the city takes out long-term bonds (including $111 million for infrastructure), and we'll all start paying for them.
Now, wait a minute. Why does the city need this water? Ah yes, so that more people can move here in the next 30 years. OK, it makes sense. Now, are these future settlers going to pay back taxes to pony up for their share of the water bill? Are they going to pay large utility development fees for their new condos? If we're going to do this, let's get down to brass tacks and make sure that we're not giving out free rides.
Christopher Lane is an NAU graduate student
Dick Heguy
Before any decision is made regarding the Bar-T-Bar/Diablo Trust water rights deal, plenty of questions need to be answered. The City Council should reflect on the problems they experienced just a few months ago before they dropped the Red Gap Ranch water deal because of unanswered questions.
Flagstaff Utilities Director Ron Doba's recommendation to the Water Commission that they take no action until the hydrologic modeling in the area is completed makes sense. Ron has done a tremendous job through the years keeping water sources available to the city, and we should trust his judgment.
The required open-space easements proposed in the deal should be looked at closely.
The potential to tie-in with the Wind Energy Park presents an interesting opportunity, but the $9 millon guaranteed buyback seems a little low to me.
Finally, I would hope that some thought would be given to who is going to shoulder the burden for the estimated $111 million dollars that will be needed to get the water to the City in order to "accommodate future growth"!
This deal has the potential to be very expensive in the future, so we should proceed cautiously.
Dick Heguy is a retired fire battalion chief and a combat veteran.
Jack Welch
The city should pursue the Bar-T-Bar water rights offer not because it will solve future water problems for Flagstaff (it won't), but because if we don't someone else will and we simply cannot let any valid opportunity disappear into the portfolio of some other enterprise.
What our community should understand is the cost of building the facilities to get that precious liquid out of the ground and on its way to Flagstaff will make the purchase price seem like chump change and if our city council decides to expend bond money for the purchase of water rights it still won't mean we'll be able to proclaim our water needs solved. If anything, water conservation efforts will have to be increased because we are still living in a desert and the cost of ignoring that fact will be extremely high.
Since water is a finite resource and the demand for it infinite, we should view the purchase of water rights as the acquisition of a community asset that will increase in value and benefit future Flagstaff financially. We have a trustworthy city council with a good grasp of water issues and we should support their decisions on the purchase of water rights.
Jack Welch is an alternative transportation advocate
Learning from the land and sharing our knowledge...
So there will always be a West.