Hearing opens water transfer lawsuit
Yuma officials attend start of legal proceedings
Yuma Mayor Doug Nicholls shared an update of the water transfer lawsuit in which both Yuma County and the City of Yuma are involved.
On March 8, Nicholls and Deputy Mayor Chris Morris attended the beginning of the hearing in the U.S. District Court in Phoenix in the legal action challenging a proposed transfer of Colorado River water to Queen Creek in central Arizona.
Yuma joined a lawsuit with the Yuma, Mohave County and La Paz counties, and the City Council authorized legal action against the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation under the joint representation of the law firm of Clark Hill of Phoenix.
At the Wednesday council meeting, Nicholls noted that the hearing began the process of the legal challenge. However, due to scheduled meetings with state legislators and officials, the mayor and deputy mayor could only stay in the courtroom for a brief period of time.
However, Nicholls explained that the city is fighting the proposed water transfer because it would set a “disastrous” precedent.
“That would be disastrous for rural Arizona, in particular putting a dollar amount on water that is three times higher, four times higher, than the actual land they bought it on, which means, long and short of it is, it would put rural Arizona up for sale to Maricopa County and Pima County to transfer all that water, and that would be the quickest way to end rural life in the state of Arizona,” Nicholls said.
In addition to the city and counties who joined the lawsuit, the mayors of most of the river communities signed an amicus brief also opposing the water transfer.
“More to come in the next month. We’ll see where this lawsuit actually takes us,” Nicholls added.
The counties, many of the cities and towns on the Colorado River and almost all of the farm operations in Yuma’s water districts, oppose the transfer of fourth-priority river water
by GSC Farm and parent company Greenstone Acquisitions to Queen Creek, citing detriment environmental repercussions.
Greenstone, a financial services firm, acquired farm land in La Paz County with a Colorado River diversion water entitlement of 2,913.30 acre feet for irrigation use. Greenstone proposed to permanently assign and transfer part of the water entitlement to Queen Creek.
The Bureau of Reclamation began an environmental assessment as required by the National Environmental Policy Act to consider the environmental impacts of the permanent transfer of the river water on the environment, including the physical, biological and socioeconomic resources that could be affected.
The Yuma City Council submitted comments to Reclamation as part of the environmental assessment outlining what it believes are “the harmful and eternal effects” that the Greenstone water transfer would have on Yuma citizens and the surrounding area and how the transfer did not comply with NEPA.
To understand the true scope of the environmental impacts, the council urged Reclamation to undertake a full environmental impact statement as required by NEPA. The EIS is a report that identifies the impact of an action on the environment.
On Sept. 2, the Bureau of Reclamation issued an opinion finding that the Greenstone water transfer “does not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, and, therefore, an (EIS) is not required.”
According to a city staff report, Reclamation’s opinion was “devoid of any real analysis on why the USBR elected not to follow the full EIS as set forth in NEPA.”
After Reclamation issued its opinion, the Mohave County Board of Supervisors authorized Clark Hill to initiate legal action against the bureau and other parties challenging the federal agency’s final environmental assessment of the potential effects from the proposed water transfer.
The Yuma City Council then directed the City Attorney’s Office to discuss the action with the Mohave County Attorney’s Office and the attorneys at Clark Hill. La Paz County and Yuma County had already joined Mohave County and agreed to be jointly represented by Clark Hill.
The council then authorized the city to join the litigation and be jointly represented by Clark Hill and split the costs evenly between the entities up to a maximum cap of $100,000.
“It shows a more united front of the river communities on the importance of water and our livelihood and making sure we have a future, and it’s not just sold out from underneath us,” Nicholls said at the time.
Under the original proposal, GSC Farm in La Paz County would sell 2,033 acre-feet per year of its fourth-priority Colorado River water entitlement to Queen Creek.
GSC also owns thousands of acres of farmland in Yuma County. Opponents fear this would set a precedent that could negatively impact Yuma County and bring further declines in river flows, impacting the agricultural industry and the health of the river, which is already at an all-time low due to drought.
Both the City of Yuma and Yuma County adopted resolutions urging the Secretary of the Interior to require Reclamation to fully comply with all federal environmental laws and require an environmental impact study to determine the impacts of a proposed transfer.
The Yuma resolution noted that if approved, the transfer will establish an “ominous” precedent for the diversion of the reserved water away from the Colorado River communities, “a significant loss to future generations of farmers and the river communities.”
The Yuma County resolution noted that water is “one of our most precious natural resources that is in jeopardy of being depleted if not managed adequately” and an “essential scarce resource necessary for the continued growth and economic development of On-river Communities.”
The county resolution also stated that “both Mohave and La Paz Counties have previously received disaster drought designations by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and as water shortage ‘hot spots’ in a Reclamation report which serves to intensify the region’s level of concern.”
GSC Farms filed the request in 2019. As part of the process, the ADWR held public hearings on the request in November 2019. In Yuma, 33 speakers, including many elected officials from cities and towns in Yuma County and the other river communities, expressed their opposition in a packed Yuma City Hall Council Chambers.
In September, the Arizona Department of Water Resources recommended that Reclamation approve the transfer of 1,078 acrefeet per year of GSC’S 2,083 acre-feet of water per year and that GSC retain 1,005 acre-feet per year for future use on the land.