project WORLDVIEW                  copyright 2025                     Home                back to Choices We Make

Water-related issues columns from Prescott AZ Daily Courier "Science Works" 

note: for reader feedback, raves, rants, and author responses to articles below click here: Courier Climate Dialogues 
                    

March 9, 2025

Science Works…           for Prescott AZ Daily Courier   March 9, 2025   

 Is Elon Musk Coming for Our Water?

by Stephen P. Cook

 Relax. The world’s richest man won’t show up leading a caravan of Tesla armored electric vehicles and leaving with our water. But if you’re concerned about how a $483,000 Biden State Department planned purchase of such vehicles grew to $400 million after Trump took office—and a February 24 NPR story “A new document undercuts Trump admin’s denials about $400 million Tesla deal”—so am I. This is especially disturbing given idealized portrayals of Musk with a chainsaw leading a DOGE team diligently pursuing waste, fraud, and abuse—but actually gutting programs and institutions we depend on.

 What does this have to do with Arizona water? My last column ended by urging Republican legislators to join Prescott Mayor Phil Goode in supporting HB 2714 “The Rural Groundwater Management Act.” As he and Wilcox Mayor Greg Hancock said in a February 27 Arizona Capitol Times Op-Ed, “Rural communities are best positioned to understand their own water needs. One-size-fits-all mandates do not work for Arizona’s diverse landscape. The policy we are advancing — built on the foundation of the bipartisan Governor’s Water Policy Council — prioritizes local control. It provides the tools and flexibility necessary for rural Arizonans to guide their own water futures while respecting the character of each community.”

Let’s pause and consider the subsidiarity principle: matters should be handled by the competent authority at the lowest level. Some cite this to justify belief that family and value-shaping institutions (schools, churches, etc) should be strengthened.  The Republican Women of Prescott’s website—which says “The most effective government is government closest to the people”—seemingly embraces it.

Goode and Hancock agree, saying The Rural Groundwater Management Act is “about working together, not imposing solutions from the top down.” It’s not a top down approach where, in the worst case, a single higher level person in charge decides how to move forward. Example at state level: Arizona House Natural Resources, Energy, and Water (NREW) Committee Chair Gail Griffin can single-handedly kill HB2714 by tabling it. Example at federal level: Elon Musk wielding that chainsaw.

DOGE cuts threaten countless science-based programs at several institutions—Health and Human Services, Environmental Protection Agency, Food and Drug Administration, Federal Aviation Administration, National Science Foundation, Public Broadcasting Service, National Weather Service, etc. Examples: life-saving vaccines, the air we breathe, water we drink, food we eat, air travel safety, research that can lead to life-changing technologies like smart phones, news and weather forecasts we depend on. Even national security is at risk. Think not? Witness our country’s ability to fight nuclear war jeopardized by lay-offs of 350 workers at the National Nuclear Security Administration—firings the Trump Administration soon tried to rescind.

Back to Arizona water…On Day One Trump ordered “All agencies shall immediately pause the disbursement of funds appropriated through the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.” This halted the $4 billion program paying farmers, cities, and Native American tribes to conserve Colorado River water by leaving it in reservoirs. The halt injected uncertainty into plans to stabilize Lake Mead.  Also halted: a $154 million project that would finish a connection between the Salt River Project (SRP) and the Central Arizona Project. This connection would help communities like Buckeye—with eventual one million population goal and already eyeing Verde River water—grow.

Confused? The Verde River, a key player in our area’s water supply discussions, is a long way from Buckeye—but it stretches 170 miles. A July 2023 SRP press release—announcing an $8.5 million US government grant for a study— provides an explanation. “The study will examine solutions to address sedimentation and restore lost capacity, including the feasibility of raising Bartlett Dam on the Verde River by up to 102 feet. The project could increase total water storage capacity on the Verde River by 350,000 acre-feet…enough water to provide for about a million Arizona households.” Critics, noting that it depends on capturing floodwaters during wet years for use in drier ones, fear that’s wishful thinking. They cite studies linking drought to climate change—and a recent one concluding that atmospheric river associated huge precipitation events are slowly shifting north out of our latitude.

February 23, 2025

Science Works…           for Prescott AZ Daily Courier   February 23, 2025   

 Definitions, Climate, Water, and the Prescott General Plan

by Stephen P. Cook

 Dictionaries provide two definitions of climate: 1) “Weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period,” and 2) "Any prevailing conditions affecting life, activity, etc." What follows considers both as related to discussion surrounding the 2025 Prescott General Plan. The Plan is a political document, where political is defined as “relating to government or public affairs.” We can combine these last two definitions to describe “political climate” as “the prevailing trend of public opinion.” Bob Dylan once connected all three definitions by stating, “You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.”

 While air movement—and flow of water— can be objectively established with great certainty using various instruments, gauging political winds involves subjective judgment. Commenting on the Plan, I’ve expressed hope that it be based on best available information—about population, housing, energy use, water resources, precipitation, drought, changing climate, etc. — and that those facts not be bent by prevailing political winds. Ideally they should be used, as appropriate, to support value judgments presented as community goals. 

The Plan’s “Prescott Vision statement,” presents such a goal: “Prescott strives to be a charming, welcoming, and sustainable community.”  On the previous page it says “The City of Prescott hopes that all people within its limits feel welcome”—followed by a controversial anti-discrimination statement. Many against including this say the Plan should be confined to “land use.”  State law (9-461.05.section C) provides a “fact” I’ll cite suggesting otherwise: “The general plan shall consist of a statement of community goals and development policies.” Seems if you have a “being welcoming” goal to (in part) spur development, then the anti-discrimination statement is appropriate.  

With respect to “welcoming,” another fact: Prescott has long billed itself as “Everybody’s Home Town.” And, in terms of bad state-wide publicity, I’d say few will dispute our community experienced a low point shortly after a September 4 2020 Black Lives Matter march on the Prescott Square. I recall one Prescott leader claiming shortly thereafter, “We’re better than that”—referring to reports of those carrying guns directing hateful expressions at those preceived as different. 

 Since then, I think (naively?) the local “welcoming” climate has improved. Recent evidence for that includes three reports: 1) Prescott Rodeo announcers have quit making jokes at the expense of “liberals” and “Democrats,” 2) Prescott Democratic Women have invited their Republican counterpart group to a meeting, and— in a similar spirit of reconciliation— 3) “The Launch Pad” youth group’s “Better Together” program aims to help people from different political persuasions hold constructive conversations.

 Use of culture war words can hinder such efforts. These include “woke” and “DEI” (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion)—terms used at a recent hearing by an anti-discrimination statement foe who said, “If this is a land-use document, it’s just riddled with DEI and woke.” My reply: if our goal is to be welcoming, then we want to provide evidence that we’re “including” (thus the “I” in “DEI”) not “excluding.” 

Sadly “climate”—as in “climate change”—is, to some, a trigger word, as is “sustainability.” Greg Murray, Prescott resident and scientist, is concerned that comments made at public meetings and in some of the ‘rants’ in the Courier amount to calls to gut the Plan’s “Resiliency and Sustainability” chapter, which includes “Future Growth and Water Demand” and “Climate and Energy” sections.

 I’ve recently included a link on my “Courier Climate Dialogues” web page (on projectworldview.org.) to a document Greg has written to counter “misinformation offered by citizens and even members of City committees in the service of partisan political ideology.” I’ve also broadened these Dialogues to include that second definition of climate. Check out this page if you’re interested in how scientists respond to misinformation — or simply curious as to how I’ve responded to hateful remarks like one from last August: “…you are a lunatic…You and others like you should be locked up so you can't do anymore damage...” 

 Despite such statements, I (naively?) think most people... choose love over hate; knowledge over ignorance; hope we can overcome challenges— posed by new technology, climate change, shifting political winds, etc— and keep Prescott a good place to live, over fear that we can’t. And that most politicians—like Prescott City Council members meeting Tuesday (February 25) to consider the Plan— learn that getting things done involves working together and compromise.

 We’ve recently seen an example of this related to something we all want: a sustainable water supply—meaning water comes out when future Arizonans turn on the faucet. January 31 saw our Mayor Phil Goode joining Governor Katie Hobbs at a press conference in supporting HB 2714 “The Rural Groundwater Management Act” and saying, “Last time I checked, there is no Democratic water and Republican water, there’s water for our state.” Political courage—Yes! Will LD1 legislators follow his lead?

 September 8, 2024

Prescott Beaver Believers

 Given Prescott’s many creeks, naturalists generally believe beavers lived there before white settlement. But they dispute reports that these furry dam builders currently reside within our city limits. Ecologist Greg Murray helped me flag one such report on the iNaturalist website as an April Fool’s Day joke. Some, like Prescott Creeks’ Executive Director Michael Byrd, tell visitors to Prescott’s Watson Woods Riparian Preserve, who see what looks like beaver damage to trees, that humans girdling Siberian Elms—an undesirable invasive species—caused this. Yet many area nature lovers fit into a more broadly defined “beaver believer” category and may look to them when thinking about the future of their favorite rivers. Do beavers play a key role in maintaining watershed health?

 Before considering that question, consider some background. A review of the book Beaverland—How One Weird Rodent Made America by Leila Phillip in the December 2022 Scientific American magazine begins by saying, “Beavers, you may have noticed, are having a moment.” It goes on to say, “The Los Angeles Times recently called the beaver a ‘superhero’ and the New York Times has deemed them ‘furry weapons of climate resilience.’” And additionally “wetlands with beavers are so good at fighting mega-fires that some researchers have urged the US Forest Service to switch mammal mascots from Smokey Bear to Smokey Beaver.”

 A web page posted by the non-profit Watershed Management Group suggests that Tucson has lots of beaver believers. It’s headlined “Release the Beavers!” —followed by “Help beavers reclaim their role as a keystone species in the Santa Cruz and San Pedro watersheds. Wiped out by trappers in the 1800s, they are returning to restore our desert rivers.” Besides advocating for restocking beaver, they conduct annual surveys to monitor the health and distribution of beaver populations, and work to understand “how beaver dams can help flowing water sink into the aquifer below and recharge groundwater.”

 Prescott beaver believers have similarly been at work. In the summer of 2009, students in Prescott College professor Walt Anderson’s Wetland Ecology and Management class counted seven dams and 17 beaver colonies along a 20-mile stretch of the upper Verde River in a study funded by The Nature Conservancy.  These data—and observations of chew marks on trees—led to an estimate of 1 to 1.5 beaver colonies per mile. Combined with Walt’s estimate of six beavers per colony, one concludes that beavers were thriving there 15 years ago.

 How are beavers doing on the Verde River today?  Sadly, where Walt and students found a thriving population, local Sierra Club Chair Gary Beverly tells me that, based on recent excursions, the beaver population appears to have crashed. Why? Walt thinks disease and predation are most likely responsible. Gary suggests decreased water base flow in recent decades —from 28 cfs to 13 cfs—due to groundwater pumping from the Big Chino aquifer and climate change is a factor.

 Besides drought and increased wildfire, climate change can lead to more severe rainfall events and flooding. Beaver dams help an ecosystem retain more water, making it more resilient to drought.  Moreover, by slowing water flow, the work of these natural engineers reduces erosion and allows sediments to settle before they're carried to lakes downstream.  And since nutrients like phosphorus that promote the growth of "nuisance" algae and aquatic plants are mostly carried on sediment, beaver dams improve water quality downstream. Greg tells me that aerators recently installed in Watson Lake combat oxygen depletion in deeper waters driven by excessive surface algae and plant growth— a problem that could be minimized by beavers upstream freely performing “ecosystem services” that help maintain biodiversity and water quality. Walt questions whether Granite Creek now carries enough water to reliably support beavers—something it once did.

 Gary has suggested that introducing beavers could benefit stretches of the upper Verde River overrun by cattails—something beavers like to eat and use in dam building, along with cottonwoods and willows. 62% of the Verde River watershed is public land—most under the jurisdiction of the US Forest Service (USFS). In wildlife terms, the USFS is only responsible for managing habitat—otherwise it co-operates with the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. AZGFD wildlife specialist April Howard tells me that her agency “has no plans to restock beaver anywhere in Arizona,” and reversing that decision “would require a lot of analysis.” One reason for hesitancy: uncertainty as to how beavers would affect native fish threatened by non-natives. Another: beavers can move around and become pests!

These topics will be discussed at the “2024 State of the Verde Watershed Conference” beginning September 24^th in Camp Verde. Also that night, in Tucson, the “6th Annual Beavers & Brews” gathering will be held—billed as appropriate for “beaver believers new and old.”

***********************************************************************************************************************

September 8, 2024 / Reader Feedback and Responses

Courier Column for September 8 "" / Comments

from GM: The Sunday column came out great!  Thanks for doing those - this town needs it!

response from S. Cook:  Thanks.

from September 17, 2024 Prescott Daily Courier:

   response from S. Cook:  Thanks.

************************************************************************************************************************

link to Prescott's Citizen Water Advisory Group

link to Courier Climate Dialogues page