A policy issue of note to me has been the legal conflict of Prescott's plan to build a 36" transmission main for the purpose of importing water from the Big Chino Aquifer into their Active Management Area. This will allow them to achieve "safe yield" as required by the Groundwater Management Act of 1980.
Law:
Under current law, groundwater is open access and any user can pump from land they own. Surface water law established "senior vested rights" based who was there first.
Conflict:
Prescott says that, under open access law, they can move the water from Big Chino because they bought ranch land that sits on it. SRP states that Prescott cannot move the water because the exportation would reduce the headwaters of the Verde River by 86 percent. Under current law, SRP was "senior vested" surface water rights.
SRP plans to take Prescott to court over this matter.
Also, it is only fair to say the Center for Bio-diversity has weighed in on this issue in favor of the SRP position due to the threat that an 86 percent reduction to the headwaters would pose to the riparian habitat along the river.
Any thoughts on who will prevail and why...
Hi Rick, yeap, I also vote for a dog's life.
ReplyDeleteThe terms of water law are clear, and "seniority" determines how water is allocated. In the book "Water Law" 3rd edition by Getches, it specifies that Riparian rights, prior appropriation and hybrid systems can influence how seniority is determined in such cases. Do you know if Prescott can envoke any of these doctrines?
You are correct, however in Arizona surface water and groundwater are held under different legal precedent. The SRP position of seniority does not really apply in the Prescott case because under current groundwater law Prescott has open access to Big Chino by virtue on their ownership of land that the aquifer sits on. SRP contends that this exportation would hinder headwater of the Verde River by 86 percent, which is a surface water source.
ReplyDeleteIf that information, which Prescott disputes, is accurate, then I feel that the riparian issue could help. Otherwise the courts will have to prabably render a verdict on this one.
This is my take. I plan to due my thesis on this issue.
(1) http://www.wri.org/stories/2009/01/uscap-blueprint-legislative-action
ReplyDeleteRick, thank you for your comments.
As the Transportation Program Manager at the City of Mesa, I have studied the implications of Green House Gases and CO2 emissions in the Transportation arena. I developed a paper that proposed some actions to be taken to address these issues. Most of the proposed actions are Transit related such as increase the construction of park and ride facilities and parking, more frequent bus and other mass transit options, improve intermodal connectivity, better land use planning and transit oriented development. With this said, I try to keep up to date with USCAP: United States Climate Action Partnership, which is a 31-member coalition of major corporations and environmental groups. USCAP released its “Blueprint for Action” which is a detailed framework for legislation to address climate change.” The Blueprint is a report containing principles and recommendations that urged “prompt enactment of national legislation in the United States to slow, stop and reverse the growth of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions over the shortest time reasonably achievable(1)”.
The Blueprint is a direct response to requests by federal policymakers for a detailed consensus that could help inform legislation. USCAP members will also testify before the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee and brief members of the Obama Transition Team.
Jennife Layke, Deputy Director, Climate and Energy Program has stated: “While we recognize that achieving the needed emission reductions is not free of costs, we also believe well‐crafted legislation can spur innovation in new technologies, help to create jobs, and increase investment and provide a foundation for a vibrant, low‐carbon economy.”
I agree with you, we should allow the States to develop a detailed framework for the requirement of mitigation, reduction and control. However, the federal government should develop legislation that encompasses a strategy and policy for renewable energy and set minimum standards that need to be met by all.
Individual States should create detailed action plans that address the feasibility of these standards, the actions to achieve them, and work together with the federal government to work on environmental mitigation banking.
I've always thought that there should be federal minimums.
ReplyDelete