Water conservation in the western United States is more complicated than it appears. Now and then, even experts with three decades’ experience admit that an educated guess is all they can offer.
Former Cottonwood City Council member Randy Garrison’s great-great-grandfather established the area’s first water company, Cottonwood Water Works, at the end of the 19th century. In 1983, Garrison himself began working for the company, beginning a career that spanned nearly three decades before Cottonwood Water Works’ sale to the city nine years ago.
Since then, Garrison has been vocal in his opposition to many of the choices the city has made about managing its water resources. He brought up the subject of two injection wells at Riverfront Wastewater Treatment Plant, which is now under construction. According to Garrison, the city has not conducted substantial research to ensure the science behind the wells is sound.
“When it comes to the wells, I haven’t been privy to the engineering,” Garrison said in a follow-up interview July 26. “But, that being said, when you study the flow of the river in cubic feet per second there are areas that give water to the river and there are areas that take away. The same can be said for the layers of a well.
“So here’s the rub: It’s just educated speculation as to the movement of the water once you put it into the ground. They can guess as to what level to inject at, hoping that the level is drawing water out into the basin, but without some serious chemical analysis and a lot of time, there is no real idea where it is going and how it is getting there, just a lot of educated guessing.”
Sherry Twamley, founder of Amigos del Verde Valley Volunteer Coalition, has also dedicated herself to the task of examining water issues in the Verde Valley, advocating for fair and affordable water rates and the sustainable use of resources.
“Technically, they are injection wells,” Twamley stated. “The plan is to inject thousands of gallons of effluent back into the ground, ‘into the aquifer’ that according to Pender Engineering is more than 800 feet deep. The volume of effluent created by the Riverfront reuse plant is estimated to be up to 300,000 gallons a day, which if discharged, would flood the Riverfront Park. From the beginning, the project has suffered from gross fiscal, engineering and project mismanagement.”
According to Twamley, the city has already failed to get Arizona Department of Environmental Quality permits because the reclamation plant cannot meet state requirements — in Twamley’s words, costing residents “hundreds of thousands of dollars in re-engineering studies, drilling and labor.”
“Originally, the city wanted to discharge the effluent into the Verde River and only pump the ‘liquor’ — leftover liquid sludge waste — up the hill to the parent Mingus Avenue Wastewater Facility,” Twamley added. “But ADEQ refused to allow the effluent to be discharged into the Verde River, because it would destroy the balance of the habitat. Now the city wants to inject all of the effluent into the aquifer.”
City of Cottonwood Natural Resources Director Tom Whitmer said, “The reason isn’t because the quality of the treated reclaimed water was less than the quality of the river; in fact, it is quite the opposite.”
The actual quality of the treated reclaimed water produced by the Riverfront Wastewater Treatment Plant will be much cleaner than the quality of the Verde River, Whitmer said, which is the real reason why ADEQ will not permit the direct discharge of the treated reclaimed water from the Riverfront Wastewater Treatment Plant to the Verde River.
“I might add that ADEQ is also opposed to the direct discharge of groundwater from a well into any river in the state because the quality and chemistry of the groundwater from a well is going to be different than the quality and chemistry of a river, which may potentially negatively impact the aquatic life in a river. Adding any water from any source to any river where the water quality and chemistries are significantly different may result in the impact of the aquatic wildlife that live within the river,” Whitmer said.
According to Twamley, “the first test injection well, at a cost of $518,000 for the engineering study and drilling, was rejected by the ADEQ because the treatment method left behind contaminants and the city has to pay for a brand new injection well test using a different treatment method.”
Whitmer countered, stating that neither the rejection of an injection test well at a cost of $518,000 nor the rejection of a treatment process by ADEQ have occurred.
“The city thus far has four proposed injection wells being considered for permitting by ADEQ,” Whitmer explained. “Three injection wells are in the general vicinity of the Mingus Wastewater Treatment Plant and one is near the Riverfront Wastewater Treatment Plant. One injection well near the Mingus Wastewater Treatment Plant has already been drilled and tested and is awaiting final permit approval by ADEQ to begin recharging reclaimed water. One exploratory injection test well has already been drilled near the Riverfront Wastewater Treatment Plant and all testing
has been completed and submitted to ADEQ for permitting.”
Whitmer added that the total expenditure for drilling and testing the exploratory test injection well near the Riverfront Wastewater Treatment Plant has been approximately $80,000.
“It is important to understand that in order for the city to gain approval from ADEQ to recharge treated reclaimed water back to the regional groundwater aquifer, the city must first demonstrate the quality of the treated reclaimed water being recharged is comparable to or of better quality than the groundwater in the aquifer,” Whitmer said. “Based on extensive testing of currently produced treated reclaimed water from the Mingus Wastewater Treatment Plant, the quality of the treated reclaimed water at a minimum is comparable to and in many cases better than quality of the groundwater in the regional aquifer.”
“Put 10 water engineers in a room, and they will all give you a different answer, so it comes down to buying the ‘correct’ answer,” Garrison said. “I believe there will come a day where we can create indisputable proof on the movement of our water, but we are not there yet, and it will be expensive.”
Garrison explained that his major concern is that the Riverfront Wastewater Treatment Plant was sold to the public as a method to reuse water throughout the city.
“That is what was sold to the public and was the right thing to do,” Garrison said. “That is true conservation: Less pumping and less waste. Instead, they chose a different path, which is to put the water in a hole in the ground and call it even …. They’re using fuzzy science to sell the idea of water banking as conservation, instead of actually doing what was sold to the public, who is paying for this very expensive experiment.
“It might work, but it does not reduce pumping, and that is true conservation.”
Whitmer stated that the city has a goal and responsibility to meet the current and future water needs of its customers with as little impact to the Verde River and groundwater resources.
“Since acquiring the private water companies, the city has reduced the amount of groundwater pumped annually by about 30 percent, reduced its total gallons per capita per daily use of water by almost 50 percent, making it one of the lowest in the state, and also reduced its lost and unaccounted-for water by almost 70 percent,” Whitmer stated. “Reducing the amount of groundwater pumped as growth occurs is important. Replacing the amount of water being pumped by recharging the captured and treated reclaimed water is paramount.
“By recharging all available and unused treated reclaimed water, the city may potentially be able to reduce the amount of groundwater depletion by almost 50 percent, which would make the city of Cottonwood one of the most, if not the most, water-efficient municipal providers in the state.”
A request for comment from city of Cottonwood Mayor Diane Joens was referred to Whitmer.
