State Legislature begins chipping away the Groundwater Management Act (ordinances, cities)

[Wanderling]

Wow....

I cant believe I am actually rooting for the Feds; on this one.....

F%$&ing Vampire Developers!!!

[Miss Liberty]

The feds need to stop this dead in it's tracks. Look at California. Even though they are having insane drought problems the greedy developers are hell bent on building up every piece of open land available no matter how bad the negative consequences are.

[Prickly Pear]

Originally Posted by Miss Liberty

The feds need to stop this dead in it's tracks. Look at California. Even though they are having insane drought problems the greedy developers are hell bent on building up every piece of open land available no matter how bad the negative consequences are.

They see the cheap land and their eyes sparkle with joy... And that's all they care about. Cheap land to expensive, crappy homes = profit.

[Wanderling]

Originally Posted by :-D

They see the cheap land and their eyes sparkle with joy... And that's all they care about. Cheap land to expensive, crappy homes = profit.

YEP; I know where they want to build all these homes; but the San Pedro can only handle soo much.

The people that live there wont see the negatives until its too late; one bad drought there and there will not be enough water to support them or the wildlife oasis that thrives there.

Everyone (thing) loses.....

What a damn shame.....

[Hschlick84]

Isn't there a way to build up reservoirs in the area, instead of encouraging development for cities?

[JGMotorsport64]

Originally Posted by Hschlick84

Isn't there a way to build up reservoirs in the area, instead of encouraging development for cities?

What do you mean exactly?

[Hschlick84]

Originally Posted by JGMotorsport64

What do you mean exactly?

Making artificial large pools of water so they can be collected for existing residents and irrigation, in case the river dries up.

[JGMotorsport64]

Originally Posted by Hschlick84

Making artificial large pools of water so they can be collected for existing residents and irrigation, in case the river dries up.

I think the issue in this area (Cochise County) is that the only surface water is the San Pedro which is a small river with Federal protection. I don't think they'd be able to make a reservoir because the river is already used for habitat protection. The developer would necessarily have to dig for groundwater. It would indirectly use the San Pedro if it did. Hence this legislation, there isn't a sustainable source of water so the legislature is looking to exempt them area from demonstrating a water source, as Cochise Co. requires. Which is disgraceful IMO as we have a national rep for water management, part of our brand is that we aren't California or Texas, but I'm sure there is some incredible money to be made.

The standard for groundwater use in most of Arizona is reasonable use, except those in Active Management Areas (Prescott, Phoenix, Pinal County, Tucson, Santa Cruz County) where it is much more strict. Some counties elect to require a stricter standard for developments akin to the AMAs, some don't, but Cochise does. Reasonable doesn't mean a whole lot unfortunately, but I'm not sure how reasonable these developments are in the first place. The development would necessarily lose any water dispute as junior rights holders to anything. It doesn't end well.

[Hschlick84]

Originally Posted by JGMotorsport64

I think the issue in this area (Cochise County) is that the only surface water is the San Pedro which is a small river with Federal protection. I don't think they'd be able to make a reservoir because the river is already used for habitat protection. The developer would necessarily have to dig for groundwater. It would indirectly use the San Pedro if it did. Hence this legislation, there isn't a sustainable source of water so the legislature is looking to exempt them area from demonstrating a water source, as Cochise Co. requires. Which is disgraceful IMO as we have a national rep for water management, part of our brand is that we aren't California or Texas, but I'm sure there is some incredible money to be made.

The standard for groundwater use in most of Arizona is reasonable use, except those in Active Management Areas (Prescott, Phoenix, Pinal County, Tucson, Santa Cruz County) where it is much more strict. Some counties elect to require a stricter standard for developments akin to the AMAs, some don't, but Cochise does. Reasonable doesn't mean a whole lot unfortunately, but I'm not sure how reasonable these developments are in the first place. The development would necessarily lose any water dispute as junior rights holders to anything. It doesn't end well.

They could easily create a reservoir in Cochise county, but the local code would have to change to allow for the construction while keeping the habitat protection. I would hate for more development on land that's not sustainable if not enough water is present.

An example I would use is the Chatfield reservoir, just in the southwest suburbs of Denver. The purpose of creating that was to prevent another flooding that happened in 1965 along the south Platte river near Denver. It was developed by the United State Army Corps of Engineers in the 1960s. However, the situation in Cochise county is different. Instead of preventing a flood, the San Pedro river could feed water into the reservoir as storage, and whenever it rains it could be collected.

[JGMotorsport64]

Originally Posted by Hschlick84

They could easily create a reservoir in Cochise county, but the local code would have to change to allow for the construction while keeping the habitat protection. I would hate for more development on land that's not sustainable if not enough water is present.

An example I would use is the Chatfield reservoir, just in the southwest suburbs of Denver. The purpose of creating that was to prevent another flooding that happened in 1965 along the south Platte river near Denver. It was developed by the United State Army Corps of Engineers in the 1960s. However, the situation in Cochise county is different. Instead of preventing a flood, the San Pedro river could feed water into the reservoir as storage, and whenever it rains it could be collected.

That would be terrible #1 and #2 unlikely given how many rights holders there are to the river including the Federal Government and Mexico. The river transcends an international border.

Here's some history of the only undammed river in the Southwest that supports one of the largest conservancy of Cottonwoods, Birds and Riparian fauna.

All that at the expense of crappy, probably faux Mediterranean Stucco, houses?

The Truth About The San Pedro River - * * * *** Wyatt Earp Explorers- by John D. Rose

They will necessarily have to use groundwater for the project, which will indirectly do the same thing, but slowly. Sierra Vista, in its current form, already does to some extent.

The river, in many areas, is but a trickle as it is. A dam would interfere with existing water rights. Recently a mining operation was planned with a small diversion, it was rejected due to its effects on the current rights holders.