PRESCOTT - While they worked for the same agency for years and retired at about the same time, two former employees of the U.S. Geological Survey came away with vastly different views about an issue central to the argument over Big Chino water.
For nearly seven hours on Monday, hydrologist Edwin McGavock of Prescott and civil engineer Hjalmar "Win" Hjalmarson of Cottonwood offered dueling testimony about two studies that have become the yardstick by which many in the community measure the Big Chino sub-basin's contribution to the Verde River.
Despite their similar backgrounds, which each included decades of work with the USGS that ended with retirement in the early 1990s, McGavock and Hjalmarson have divergent views about two studies that former USGS aqueous geochemist Laurie Wirt conducted in the early 2000s.
The Wirt studies were the first to maintain that 80 percent to 86 percent of the flow of the Upper Verde River comes from the Paulden-area Big Chino sub-basin.
Since the release of the studies in 2000 and 2005, many in the community have used those figures as a basis for opposing plans by Prescott and Prescott Valley to build a 30-mile pipeline and pump thousands of acre-feet per year from the Big Chino.
The testimony took place during the seventh day of an on-going hearing that the state began in February to review a 2008 Arizona Department of Water Resources ruling that entitled Prescott to pump 8,067 acre-feet of water per year from the Big Chino.
McGavock kicked off the debate Monday by testifying that he believed Wirt, who died in a kayaking accident in 2006, rigged her studies to come up with results consistent with her passionate views about protecting the environment.
"Laurie had a different mindset than most of us in the USGS," McGavock said. "We had a long tradition of objectivity."
In contrast, "Laurie cared deeply about what was going on in the environment," McGavock said, adding that Wirt "became very impatient with Survey procedures. No one in the USGS ever accused Laurie of being objective."
Hjalmarson, on the other hand, vehemently denied that, testifying that "It galled me to hear that; it is far, far from the truth."
Rather, Hjalmarson said, Wirt showed such enthusiasm for finding accurate information about the Verde River that he talked her into getting involved with the 2000 study.
Ultimately, Wirt and Hjalmarson co-authored the first study - with Wirt working on it during her annual leave, and Hjalmarson pitching in, even though he was already retired.
McGavock, who currently works as a hydrologist with Errol L. Montgomery & Associates, claims that some of the data Wirt used in her computer model came from a well with a chemical makeup uncharacteristic of the area, ultimately skewing the results.
"The computer model can work only with what it's given," McGavock said. "Because the model was silica-driven, it was totally unrepresentative."
Therefore, he said, the model did not provide the information that it could have if the data had been more representative.
"The model was constructed so it could not evaluate the sources of the base-flow," McGavock said. "It could have given us a pretty good indication of where the water comes from, and it did not."
Even so, McGavock allowed that he and most hydrologists agree that the Big Chino is the "primary source" of water for the Upper Verde. After the hearing, he estimated the Big Chino contribution at "somewhere between 60 (percent) and 80 percent."
Along with disputing McGavock's claims about Wirt's reports, Hjalmarson also spoke extensively about testimony that came up during the last round of hearings in April.
When he took the stand, Hjalmarson stressed that he was testifying, without compensation, because "I was alerted to the fact that somebody had abused my reputation."
He was referring to the April testimony that appeared to question his claims about 1960s-era pumping that he reported had taken place to fill lakes in Paulden's Holiday Lakes Estates.
Those claims prompted Mark McGinnis, attorney for three local appellants, to present a number of 1960s reports and aerial photos that corroborated the claims of the Paulden-area lakes.
Throughout Monday's testimony, Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden, who is overseeing the hearing, emphasized that he expects the proceedings to conclude Tuesday.
Today's hearing will begin at 9 a.m., at the Community Room (building 19, room 147) at Yavapai College, 1100 E. Sheldon St.
Reader Comments
Posted: Thursday, June 18, 2009
Article comment by:
Chuck Bordenave
No Name June 17, so people that are against the pipeline are biased. People for the pipeline are biased also, plus they are greedy on top of that. Most people, not only don't want the Verde affected, they don't want to pay the 200 million dollar cost. You may not work for anyone, but obviously you have some kind of vested interest in getting it built. When you don't use your name you have zero creditability. Like I said I'd be willing to bet you have some kind of interest in the money that will be created by building out PV.
Posted: Thursday, June 18, 2009
Article comment by:
I never received my ballot on the Water Pipeline
Its all about making money, greed and undue influence on our elected officials. The Town governments have jumped aboard the Land Owner / developer express , for what reason or reward we can only guess at. They can't move the land so they must move opinions, thoughts and ideas. One of the most trumpeted is "Develop Or Die." What exactly does uncontrolled development lead to? It leads to big , crowded cities, with high crime problems, triple locked doors , pollution and destruction of the natural environment. Look at the news in this area and see the increase in criminal acts. More apartments and low income housing will only add to the problem, however, it will make the land owners and developers rich and that is there only motovation. All their effort is to gain that water from the Verde headwaters for their own selfish gain. Worst then the Land Owners and Developers are the Politicians that have betrayed the people they were elected to serve as a whole. The have sold out either through some method of reward or sheer stupidity or senility. Perhaps they sould go back to their home states and destroy natural beauty there. But it appears they are here in a parasitic role for the new grab bag. Dispute what I say; then why hasn't an issue like a $200 million water pipeline been brought before the electorate which will be footing the bill?
Farley
Posted: Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Article comment by:
No name provided
Sorry chuck but I am not working for anyone. Let me know if anything I said was inaccurate. Just don't put words in my mouth too.
Posted: Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Article comment by:
Chuck Bordenave
No Name June 17, you sound exactly like a person that works for the PR firm the town hired. Skoog has also said that if we can truck in food, we can truck in water. Stand by people, for a big publicity campaign to push this nightmare, all paid for by the taxpayer, for the benefit of a few wealthy land owners.
Posted: Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Article comment by:
No name provided
The outspoken opponents to the pipeline are if nothing else, biased. As for Laurie Wirt's Report, God rest her soul. She was passionate, dedicated, driven and decided before going into the study. All who knew her knew that. Anyone who has read her report can see it was not intended to be an objective paper. Putting the reliability of the data aside, it was collected, compiled, written and presented with the intent of being persuasive not objective. It does not take a strong background in science in order for anyone to read the first few pages, let her words speak for themselves.
Posted: Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Article comment by:
Peer Reviewed Data is More Reliable!
It is all about USGS unbiased, peer-reviewed hydrological science being compared to city hired geology guns. These hired "guns" are biased by the large fees that they are being paid by COP and PV... they had better come up with the "right findings" or they are fired (or not hired)! Dr. Lori Wirt was of the former, the rebuttal witnesses for the cities are of the latter! Who ya gonna believe? I believe Lori!
Posted: Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Article comment by:
Ron
Reality, perhaps your opinion of environmentalists might change a bit if you ever met one. As an environmentalist myself I have never advocated a "no growth" scenario, and neither has anyone I have known. So either you know facts about my friends that they (and I) have conveniently been able to shield from ourselves, or you are just making things up to further entrench yourself in your own closed-minded perspective about those you disagree with. By all means, you are free to disagree, but get your facts straight.
Posted: Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Article comment by:
Nancy Shelton
Reality, despite being declared "out of safe yield" in 1999, the municipalities continued to encourage rapid development in the years since that time. There has never in any manner been any efforts to reach safe yield. Local governments claimed their "hands were tied" in putting limits on growth but also made no efforts to do so. They were able to get a special law passed to get the Big Chino water, but never made any attempts to reduce demand. They have sided with horticultural interests to "water" down any significant conservation measures. Now they claim they need Big Chino water to meet Safe-Yield, how convenient. Prescott did have rights to the aqueduct water which they sold once they were able to get the law change to obtain Big Chino water. Get your facts straight please. Also, every environmental action in the state to try to preserve rivers in Arizona has been thwarted. The result, with the exception of the Verde, every other river in the state has portions that are now permanently dry year-round. And the people that thwarted those efforts used the same anti-environmentalist propaganda that you are now using.
Posted: Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Article comment by:
Reality
It amazes me that so called environmentalists who are simply anti-growth can claim that pro-growth people are biased while anti-growth people are objective. Let's put the cards on the table and acknowledge that the anti-growth side is simply using shaky environmental claims as a legal weapon. Here are the facts. The Arizona legislature mandated that the Prescott AMA reach safe-yield. The Prescott AMA has been out of safe-yield since 1999. The Arizona legislature agreed to implement AMAs because the federal government was willing to subsidize an aqueduct from the Colorado River. Prescott was not given access to the water from the aqueduct. Instead, the Arizona legislature WROTE INTO LAW that Prescott could import water from the Big Chino aquifer. So there are three options. 1) Give up safe-yield, 2) Import water from the Big Chino, or 3) Force everyone who moved here since 1999 to leave.
Posted: Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Article comment by:
Ron
How convenient for those on the big development payroll to claim that their opponent is biased.
Posted: Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Article comment by:
Nancy Shelton
The only info you need to decide whose conclusions are likely to be objective is to see what parties commissioned/paid for each study. Ms. Wirt's and Mr. Hjalmarson worked for the US Government, an entity that has "no dog in the show" and has no reason to favor water ownership rights of either Prescott/Prescott Valley or downstream (Verde Valley/Salt River) communities. McGavock was hired by the municipalities and had as a major scope of his work to "find flaws" with the USGS reports. Ms. Wirt may be considered to have been an environmentalist, but there is no reason for her to risk her professional reputation/status/job by skewing her study results in any way. Unfortunately, due to Ms. Wirt's death, she can no longer defend herself or her work.
Posted: Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Article comment by:
No name provided
I sure hope they find out how we can, as Mayor Skoog told us, run a continuous pipeline from one aquifer farther west to the next until we reach the ocean, without doing damage to the environment. Mayor Skoog said this is the plan.
Posted: Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Article comment by:
Community's Future in Judge Shedden's hands
The irrefutable FACTs that ALL Wells monitored in the Prescott AMA for over 40 years have shown Nothing but rapid DECLINE, and otherwise Why would the town and cities be pressing so urgently for such a costly pipeline. The people relying on the Verde River as their water source have valid reason to be deeply concerned. Now there's even a blatant attempt to impune the reputation and work product of a "Dead" Woman, no longer available to rebut, it emboldens this guy to be used as a Tactic, despicable! The liars need to be weeded out of not only meaningful discussions, but to also lose any power / credibility to affect the process. The End Game's irreversible impact on Our Community, Our Homes here is way too important to be decided by shysters bent on short term, personal enrichment agendas.
