Editor's Note: The Arizona Daily Star has refused to run the following opinion piece, for obvious reasons: As a cash cow for the Saint Louis-based Pulitzer Publishing Co., the Star's main interests in this community lie in promoting growth and in not offending major advertisers who profit from that growth.
To fuel local growth, major business leaders and, it appears, the very press that is supposed to watch them, would have us drink the swill that passes for water from the Central Arizona Project. Those who have already experienced CAP water during the disastrous introduction phase some time ago would certainly never vote to drink it again.
Unfortunately, the majority of local voters were spared the ordeal of the brownish, awful-tasting CAP water ruining their pipes and even driving up blood pressure among the susceptible.
Thus the Star's opposition to the current initiative before the voters, to recharge CAP water in the ground rather than piping it directly to our homes, has the ring of a moderate's reasonableness for the majority.
It is anything but reasonable, however. In fact, it's nothing more than a vicious attempt by the few to enrich themselves at the expense of the many. The Star's role in this appalling ripoff would seem to be to keep the general populace ignorant.
With this in mind, we print the following opinion piece by Rich Wiersma, a proponent of the current initiative. Wiersma was invited by Star editorial staff to write this response to the newspaper's stand on the initiative, but the powers that be at the newspaper never saw fit to run it.
Such behavior is inexcusable on the part of a publication purporting to provide full and fair coverage of vital community issues.
HOW ABOUT A wake-up call for the Editorial Board of The Arizona Daily Star, in matters pertaining to CAP water. The Editorial Board blundered by opposing the 1987 CAP Recharge Initiative and endorsing construction of the failed chemical treatment plant. Despite being informed by recharge advocates that the foul-tasting, low quality, and costly chemically treated CAP water would severely diminish Tucson's quality of life, the Board completely swallowed the water utility's empty promises.
The negative impact of chemically treated water in this basin has been staggering. Just what is there to show for the city's mismanagement of a quarter of a billion dollars: a cracking and leaking chemical water treatment plant that produced foul water which was overwhelmingly rejected by consumers.
Many homeowners were financially devastated when naturally salty
CAP water--made worse by the addition of ozone, chlorine and ammonia--corroded
household pipes and caused them to burst. This corrosive water
also prematurely destroyed evaporative coolers, water heaters,
washing machines, ice makers, water filters and dishwashers.
Some consumers believe the chemically treated water also caused health problems. The complaints most often reported included skin rashes, headaches, nausea and urinary tract infections. These health concerns are compounded by the fact that carcinogens--trihalomethanes--are formed in the potable supply when chemical disinfectants react with organic material in Colorado River water.
Individuals who turned on their taps and received brown sludge had to purchase costly bottled water, making this one of Tucson's hottest growth industries. By blaming all these problems on "old water mains," the Star Editorial Board demonstrated anew its lack of understanding of elementary CAP water issues. Is it just possible the method of treatment is at fault? Is there a reason why none of the many water utilities receiving Colorado River water uses the failed treatment method selected by Tucson Water bureaucrats--ozone and chloramines?
In light of the water problems, it's no wonder many Tucsonans vigorously oppose chemical water treatment and favor natural recharge. For those new to the issue, recharge is the process by which raw Colorado River water would be released into stream beds and small basins to filter through the soil into the aquifer. In this process, nature purifies and stores CAP water at no cost to the community, in the same way that snow melt and storm water is naturally purified and stored.
Against this backdrop, a ballot initiative has been filed called "The Water Consumer Protection Act." The guiding principle behind this initiative is that it makes no sense for mines, cotton plants and pecan trees to get this basin's best quality drinking water while Tucsonans are served chemically treated ditch water. If passed by voters in November, the initiative would prompt the city to pursue such options as water trades with mines and agribusiness, as well as naturally recharging the aquifer with surplus CAP water.
The Arizona Daily Star Editorial Board is once again in error by opposing the 1995 version of the Citizen's Water Initiative. Two columns attacking the Water Consumer Protection Act on April 23 were biased, misleading and contained mythical conclusions. This response will address some of the more flagrant, erroneous statements contained in the editorials.
Star Myth No. 1: "The core of the group opposing the initiative consists of long-time Tucson Water critics who previously tried to get the city to commit to recharging all CAP water.
FACT: Even if that were true, what's the problem? Recharge advocates were correct in 1987, and they are correct in 1995. Clearly though, the majority of the core group endorsing the current water initiative were involved with or opposed to the 1987 recharge initiative. However, unlike the Star Editorial Board, these folks previously opposed have the honesty and independence to admit they were misled by the Tucson Water Department and are now committed to being part of the solution to Tucson's water problem.
Star Myth Nos. 2 & 3: "The mines don't want CAP water.... Its changing chemical composition wreaks havoc with their own chemical processes."
FACT: The mines have not rejected CAP water. Mining consultants have concluded it's feasible to substitute CAP water for ground water in copper processing.
What mining companies do want to avoid is signing a 50-year CAP water contract with the CAP Canal Company. And who can blame them in light of a limited supply of ore in the soil and fluctuating copper prices? However, as the water initiative permits, Tucson could market some of its CAP allocation to the mines in exchange for their ground water. Since the mines consume enough water to service a city of 500,000 people, water trades with that industry make good management sense.
Star Myth No. 4: "The cost of all this (water swaps with mines and agriculture) would be astronomical."
FACT: This is nonsense. The CAP pipeline already crosses the water line for the ASARCO Mine south of Pima Mines Road, making a water trade with them incredibly easy. The CAP Canal Company has indicated a willingness to extend the CAP pipeline south to service the FICO pecan groves and the Cypress mine. Therefore, instead of the cost of this water swap being "astronomical," it would actually save Tucsonans millions of dollars in household costs associated with using corrosive, chemically treated CAP water. Avoiding the operating cost of the failed chemical treatment plant would result in even more savings for rate payers.
Star Myth No. 5: "The initiative restricts water management options."
FACT: More nonsense. Water management options are not restricted. What the initiative does restrict is the delivery to consumers of a third-rate water supply that is corrosive and contains TCE or other carcinogenic byproducts of chemical disinfection. Does the Editorial Board have a problem with that?
The initiative allows the Tucson Water Department to use a variety of options as long as the water delivered to customers is of acceptable quality. However, the initiative will not allow city bureaucrats to turn Tucson's water supply into that of a third world country.
In this critical issue confronting Tucson, the Star Editorial Board owes its readers independent research and accuracy rather than the parroting of false statements originating from the water utility. The type of deception and dishonesty employed by opponents of the 1987 recharge initiative must not be permitted in 1995. Voters must be told the truth.
