3/15/2010 10:37:00 PM Replacement well versus National Monument Yavapai County supervisors issue use permit for well near Montezuma Well
Steve Ayers/Courtesy photo County Supervisor Chip Davis looks on intently for the better part of an hour and a half Monday as speakers both for and against a controversial well, located just outside the gates to Montezuma Well, explained the merits and demerits of the well.
RIMROCK - A controversial well adjacent to Montezuma Well inched closer to regulatory compliance on Monday when the Yavapai County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved a use permit for the property on which it is located.
At least two dozen people showed up at the boardroom in Cottonwood to comment - roughly half in support and half opposed.
The well, owned by Montezuma Rimrock Water Company, became the center of attention last month about the time it was going before the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Several residents of the Montezuma Estates subdivision have, over the past month, voiced concerns not only about the approval process, but also the actions of the county's Development Services Department and a belief that the well could inhibit future groundwater flows to the national monument.
At Monday's board meeting, some opponents asked for denial of the use permit, while others asked supervisors to put the decision aside until they have answers to some of the as-yet-unanswered questions.
"This has not been vetted properly to the residents of Beaver Creek," resident Fred Shute said. "There has been no effective community forum, and issues like set backs have not been preserved. Take it back to planning and zoning."
Chris Coder, archaeologist for the Yavapai-Apache Nation, voiced the YAN's concerns, saying that both the science and the process had proved to be inadequate.
But several also spoke on behalf of the water company citing its excellent record for delivering water, the need for safe water and fire protection.
"It is a replacement well. It won't use any more water than what is already being used. It should be noted that the neighboring Arizona Water Company has six wells, all of which are located on residential lots," local resident and hydrologist Gary Weesner said.
Montezuma Rimrock owner Patricia Olsen assured the supervisors that their approval was just one step in a long process. She also said that even though the well had a capacity of 800 gallons per minute, it would use only what it needs.
"It is important to understand that I will only be pumping what my customers buy," Olsen said.
In the end the board answered the one question that was before them - was a commercial well, used to supply water to a surrounding community, an appropriate use of the parcel the well is located on?
"It's a land use question," Supervisor Chip Davis said after the meeting, "and there are other wells in residential neighborhoods being used for community wells. I believe there are issues with water in the Beaver Creek area that need to be addressed, but we can't address water issues when considering land use."
One stipulation to the board's approval is that Montezuma Rimrock, which is currently out of compliance with Arizona Department of Environmental Quality as well as the Corporation Commission, be in compliance within one year.
Steve Ayers is a reporter for the Verde Independent.
Posted: Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Article comment by:
Frederick Shute
It is ridiculous to blame Chip Davis for this. He was misinformed-in fact lied to by his staff. I had hoped that the staff of the Yavapai County Department of Development Services was merely incompetent. However , at this point I suspect deliberate malfeasance. The Sacred Water Coalition is filing an injunction to stop the issuance of this Use Permit, and we intend to sue the County for breaking it's own laws. Section 209 of the Yavapai County Planning and Zoning Ordinance is not a suggestion-it is a law. And despite Tom Thurman's idea that the 9 foot variance from the setback ordinance is no big deal among friends that is also a law, not a guideline. This group of people operating out of Prescott need a wakeup call. The good earth was not created for the purpose of developers personal profit.
Posted: Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Article comment by:
Win Hjalmarson
Re: John, So it seems you didn't get your way and you're angry at Chip. I suggest to those who have followed this interesting issue pay attention to what has been said. Steve has done a great job putting facts in perspective and reporting the comments of others. There's a lot to be learned and you can make a difference if you wish--if you really care. Protect the Well using lawful means. In regard to Chip, he cares about the environment more that any county supervisor I've ever known.
Posted: Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Article comment by:
John Dougherty
Chip Davis displayed his true colors concerning environmental and private property rights Monday when he voted to approve a controversial use permit for Montezuma Rimrock Water Company. Mr. Davis had three options: 1. Vote no, which would have been enough to deny the use permit because significant neighborhood opposition required a unanimous vote by Supervisors. 2. Make a motion to send this project back to planning and zoning for more detailed hearings, which, the evidence clearly shows are needed. 3. Go sheepishly along with his development-at-any-cost cohorts Carol Springer and Thomas Thurman. Mr. Davis took the easy way out and mumbled "yea" to approve a permit for a company that is fraught with significant problems. The biggest problem from a land use perspective is that there is no single spot on this parcel that meets the Yavapai County Water Code for 50 foot setbacks between a well and property lines. Rather than address this fundamental issue head on, the Development Services staff said it wasn't sure whether the county could regulate a "commercial well". What?!! The Development Services staff didn't have the answer to this fundamental question? Nope. Instead of simply asking a deputy county attorney, who was attending the meeting, for an opinion, the staff said it had a call into Department of Water Resources and Department of Environmental Quality to see if they knew the answer to this perplexing question. These two agencies hadn't responded prior to the hearing. Common sense says if you're lacking such basic information as to whether the Water Code applies, perhaps it's best to wait another day until one has a definitive legal opinion. But not this stellar group of leaders. Mr. Thurman dismissed the need to abide by county ordinances saying the fact well was only 41 feet from a property line shouldn't be any reason to stop the project. Perhaps Mr. Thurman will do us all a favor and line out all the county ordinances he doesn't like so we can all ignore them in the future! Without obtaining any formal legal advice from the county attorney, or anyone for that matter (other than Mr. Thurman), about whether the MRWC is subject to the County Water Code requirements for 50-foot setbacks, the supervisors decided to move ahead and approve the use permit. Mr. Davis had an opportunity to distinguish himself as a leader, but instead meekly followed the lead of Ms. Springer and Mr. Thurman, who would approve a real estate development in the middle of I-17 and deny there was potential for massive pileup. Mr. Davis' moment of truth came at the end of the long proceeding when he masterfully crafted the BIG question to none other than Patsy Olsen, the owner of the water company: "Is this a good place for a well?" Guess what Patsy said? This issue is far from over and voters in Yavapai County will long remember Chip Davis selling out Montezuma Well National Monument and the private property rights of neighbors for a company that chose to put a well on parcel of land that appears to violate the County Water Code.
