City Officials Face A Flood Of Recharge Options. By Jim Wright IT'S BEEN ALMOST six months since Proposition 200--the Clean Water Consumer Protection Act--was passed, and the City of Tucson still hasn't complied with the law. City Manager Michael Brown says he's concerned with how to handle Tucson's compliance in such a way that ratepayers are not abused. Currently, the most expensive potable water in our valley comes from city-owned Tucson Water, whose ratepayers are shelling out three times what their neighbors living in Flowing Wells pay, and more than twice as much as other water companies in the area charge their customers. Now, Kent McClain, Tucson Water's director, has come up with a plan he claims will satisfy Proposition 200. McClain calls for recharging 60,000 acre feet of Central Arizona Project (CAP) water into the aquifer at a site in Avra Valley northwest of the city, then taking the groundwater/CAP recharge mix from new wells to be drilled in Avra Valley and piping it to the treatment plant before serving it up in Tucson's potable water distribution system. McClain has measured the efficacy of his plan against all others by criteria which he and his staff--no fans of Prop 200--created. So, when representatives from The Pure Water Coalition, whose membership is made up of several groups supporting Proposition 200, proposed seven "no-frills" recharge options at a recent public hearing, McClain dismissed the citizen's suggestions as "unworkable." Fortunately the Tucson City Council wisely opted to study all the plans offered by the public. As the situation now stands, three key issues seem to be at stake when the city is addressing how to implement Prop 200: 1) Cost--each $750,000 spent by the city to improve the water system translates into a 1 percent increase in the city's water rate; 2) Compliance--which entails meeting the state's new criteria for continuing as a guarantor of an Assured Water Supply, and; 3) Cooperation--in meeting the specifics of the city's new voter-mandated Prop 200 water code. How does McClain's Avra Valley recharge proposal measure up? For starters, it would cost Tucson Water ratepayers a minimum of $65 million. Oddly, when McClain first proposed his project to the Council last December, it was estimated to cost over $71 million. When Tucson Water flack Mitch Basefsky was asked about the disparity, he simply shrugged, muttering, "We just refigured the cost." On the other hand, some of the recharge projects offered by the Pure Water Coalition would cost a fraction of McClain's Avra Valley plan, or almost nothing at all. The proposed Ajo Detention Basin recharge project, which would put two small lakes and a wetlands area near County Club and Ajo roads, is a case in point. Pima County plans to use the existing 95-acre flood control basin for an 18-hole golf course. County plans already call for scooping up the entire basin floor and removing about 200 acre feet of dirt, which the city could use to close the Los Reales landfill, which is ripe and a year overdue for closure. Removing the dirt would help to protect the integrity of the basin as a flood-control facility. To help meet the city's deadline for determining where it plans to recharge the county's water, the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality has researched the basin area to determine possible pollution sources. With none found, the county has penciled into its golf course plan, at the Pure Water Coalition's urging, two lakes and a large, winding wetland area which could double as a recharge facility. Making the project cost effective is the fact that the Pure Water Coalition has identified a 54-inch CAP pipeline which crosses a giant flood-control culvert near the area. Coalition members say a pipeline could be fitted with a radio-controlled valve to release CAP water into the seldom-used culvert, and the water would then flow one mile along the culvert before entering the existing detention basin. Thus far, county officials have told The Weekly they see the project as a win-win for the city and the county. Yet, even though the city has been handed the project on a platter, with all proposed construction costs being picked up by the county, city officials continue to frown and scoff at the proposal. While the recharge capacity of the project may range only between 5,000 and 10,000 acre feet a year, the price is right. The coalition estimates it would take less than $50,000 for oversight management costs. The rest of the tab, it appears, would be picked up by the county. On the other hand, should city officials choose not to recharge CAP water in the basin and should they refuse to sell 2 million gallons of CAP water a day to the county to water the planned golf course and other facilities, including the recently approved baseball stadium, the county will be forced to pump groundwater--a lose-lose situation if ever there was one. All in all, the Pure Water Coalition's various proposed projects are estimated to be capable of recharging up to 100,000 acre feet of water annually at an estimated cost of less than $19 million, according to retired UA hydrologist Brent Cluff. WHILE CITY OFFICIALS are stalling on a final decision on where to recharge CAP water, another issue has surfaced to complicate the task: The city's continuation as an Assured Water Supply provider. The law governing assured water supplies was created in 1973 to protect consumers from developers who were selling land where, all to often, no water existed. Under the law, a developer or a water provider such as Tucson Water may obtain Assured Water Supply certification by demonstrating to the Arizona Department of Water Resources: 1) Sufficient water of adequate quality is available for 100 years; 2) The water will be used in accordance with the state's management plan and goals for the Tucson Active Management Area, and; 3) Finances are available to construct a water delivery system. Developers would much rather build within an established water provider's delivery system, such as Tucson Water's, so that any proposed development needing water assurance certification could obtain it easily, rather than going through the hassle of getting certification on their own. But on March 7, state Water Resources director Rita P. Pierson warned in a letter to McClain that she is "concerned that the demonstration of Assured Water Supply may be more difficult than you envision, given the Proposition 200 restrictions." Pierson went on to inform McClain that the "ultimate capacity of the Pima Mine Road and Avra Valley (proposed recharge) facilities is unknown." Thus Pierson's letter puts addition pressure on the Tucson City Council. In addition to bringing the city into compliance with Proposition 200, it seems city officials have fallen short of meeting the state's criteria for ensuring the city continues its role as an Assured Water Supply provider. Even though the state has yet to say what the target recharge goal is, state Water Resources officials are saying that without considerations for the future (which state law also requires), Tucson Water must demonstrate it can recharge more than 80,000 acre feet a year to receive an Assured Water Supply designation. Tuesday, Brown told The Weekly, he estimates the city will have to demonstrate to the state an ability to recharge "somewhere between 100,000 and 130,000 acre feet" annually before the state will issue the city a new certifacation as an Assured Water Supply provider. So if, on April 22, the City Council gives its blessing to McClain's proposed recharge projects at Pima Mine Road and Avra Valley, the cost for the two projects would, by the city's own estimates, easily exceed $75 million. And if city officials were very lucky, they would be able to recharge only 65,000 acres annually, which could be credited to their recharge credit account with the state. And even if Tucson Water were to add up its current credits from other conservation activities such as effluent recharge, the city would still fail to meet the state's requirements to continue as an Assured Water Supply guarantor. City Manager Michael Brown understands the city could at any time be sued for not complying with Proposition 200. Brown also understands his underlings at Tucson Water have left him to deal with the mess. Brown is saying it's time the city seriously consider the most obvious and cost-effective options presented by the Pure Water Coalition. Brown recently told The Weekly the time has come to try, at least incrementally, some of these proposals. Brown also is well aware of the angry community undercurrents which could erupt if water rates were perceived to be unreasonably hiked. The last time Tucson Water ratepayers staged a revolt was back in 1974, when a majority of the City Council succumbed to that ol' water-borne desert malady, a recall election.

		© 1995-97 Tucson Weekly . Info Booth