County counters proposed water transfer with rebuttal
Board of Supervisors sign off on letter in opposition to GSC Farm proposal
The Yuma County Board of Supervisors countered a proposed transfer of Colorado River water with a point-by-point rebuttal in a letter submitted to the Arizona Department of Water Resources.
The supervisors oppose the transfer of fourth-priority river water from GSC Farm LLC to Queen Creek and unanimously signed off on the letter during the June 22 meeting.
According to a staff report, the proposed transfer first became an issue during the County Supervisors Association Legislative Summit last October when membership voted to approve a resolution opposing the transfer.
After a series of outreach meetings hosted by the ADWR, GSC Farm attorneys filed a response to the comments received. ADWR provided for an additional comment period related to the response since many stakeholders believed that GSC Farm did not reach out to them as promised to address specific concerns. The comment period ends July 6. ADWR has to recommend one way or another to the U.S. Department of Interior.
Supervisors Lynne Pancrazi and Russell McCloud are part of a working group of Colorado River stakeholders providing comments in opposition to the transfer. Yuma County’s focus is on the economic development and planning aspects of the transfer, the staff report notes.
During the recent meeting, Pancrazi asked that the item be pulled from the consent agenda for separate discussion. She thanked all the parties involved with fighting the removal of the water from the river communities and the supervisors for signing the letter.
“Queen Creek is in the process of trying to buy Colorado River water and leave the piece of property in La Paz county without any water and use it as part of its expansion plan,” Pancrazi explained. “Our opposition because we are a Colorado River community is first and foremost. We’re next on the list. They’ve already tried Mohave Coun
ty, then they’re doing La Paz, and we’re next.”
Chairman Tony Reyes clarified that Yuma County is “not necessarily opposed to the town of Queen Creek. We’re opposed to the actual action itself. The idea is that we don’t think it’s particularly well planned to start moving water rights to different places in the state and have us be in a not very good situation of having to fight for the water that was rightfully assigned to us a long time ago.”
“The water goes with the land, yes,” Pancrazi added.
The letter is dated June 22 and addressed to ADWR Director Thomas Buschatzke. One comment cites an Arizona state statute that indicates “it is necessary to conserve, protect and allocate the use of groundwater resources” to protect and stabilize the general economy and welfare of the state “by encouraging the use of renewable water supplies, particularly this state’s entitlement to Colorado river water, instead of groundwater.”
Yuma County responded that “protection of the general economy and welfare of the state must go beyond the limitations of the densely populated Phoenix metro
urban areas to include the development of Arizona’s rural cities, towns and counties.”
Another comment says that Queen Creek needs the water transfer to meet population growth projections over the next 20 years. Yuma County responded by pointing out that Queen Creek “could ensure that its growth does not exceed its available water supplies by instituting a moratorium when maximum population growth and business development is reached. Growth beyond existing capacities is not sustainable or responsible, particularly if surface water supplies are scarce.”
Additionally, Yuma County noted that Queen Creeks is not obligated to provide unlimited housing and development opportunities for new residents.
Another comment states that the water should be transferred for “better beneficial use” and cites examples where water formerly used for agriculture has transitioned to urban or semi-urban areas.
Yuma County noted that transferring water to Queen Creek and other municipalities in the Phoenix metro area “will take away community and economic development opportunities from rural counties like La Paz, Mohave and Yuma.”
The letter indicated that rural communities will continually be at a disadvantage if “better beneficial use” calculations are used for allowing water resources to facilitate growth. It also listed numerous economic advantages that the Phoenix metro area already has, including higher education learning and cultural opportunities and larger representation in the state Legislature.
The Yuma County rebuttal also noted that state infrastructure spending disproportionately supports the development and expansion of the Phoenix metro area. In contrast, rural communities have agriculture, military and tourism industries, which are often considered “intangible” and not included in economic impact reports listing high wage jobs and property and sales taxes collections.
A comment presented numerous examples of support from state legislators, material providers, economic development groups and others in the Phoenix metro area and Pinal County, citing community and employment growth and state shared revenues in those areas.
Yuma County stated that these examples demonstrate the continuing theme that all unlimited
growth in the Phoenix metro area should be accommodated no matter the consequences to rural Arizona and, in particular, those communities along the Colorado River. The rebuttal added that these communities view their water allocations as a valuable resource that can be used to encourage community and economic development, just as the Phoenix metro area has viewed the availability of agricultural and desert lands as a valuable resource.
A comment attempts to refute the argument that Yuma County is impacted by the proposed transfer. The county letter stated that “this transfer is relevant to water rights discussions in Yuma County, and possible impacts should include considerations for all communities along the Colorado River since this transfer may set a precedent for future water transfer discussions.
Find the complete letter at https://tinyurl.com/ y8scc2t5.