Water management options for the upper San Pedro basin: Assessing the social and institutional landscape

Natural Resources Journal

Volumn 40, Issue 2, 2000, Pages 218-235

  Varady, Robert G ^a,b   Moote, Margaret Ann ^a   Merideth, Robert ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA   (United States)

^b Department of Environmental Policy and of Arid Land Studies ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33845303584     PISSN: 00280739     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. See generally Hector Arias, International Groundwaters: The Upper San Pedro River Basin Case, 40 NAT. RESOURCES J. (this volume, 2000) [hereinafter International Groundwaters].
2. Dr. Arias was a member of the San Pedro Expert Study Team and is a co-author of the team's 1998 report. Arias' present paper draws on and extends the analysis of the CEC report. See also SAN PEDRO EXPERT STUDY TEAM, SUSTAINING AND ENHANCING RIPARIAN MIGRATORY BIRD HABITAT ON THE UPPER SAN PEDRO RIVER (Secretariat of the Comm'n for Envtl. Cooperation ISBN 2-922305-30-9, 1999) [hereinafter RIPARIAN MIGRATORY BIRD HABITAT].
3. See Arizona-Idaho Conservation Act of 1988, 16 U.S.C. §460xx (1994). The San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area was established in 1988, soon after a land trade between the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and the Tenneco Company in 1986.
4. See D.R. POOL & A.L. COES, HYDROGEOLOGiC INVESTIGATIONS OF THE SIERRA VISTA SUBWATERSHED OF THE UPPER SAN PEDRO BASIN, COCHISE COUNTY, SOUTHEAST ARIZONA 15, 23 (U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report No. 99-4197, 1999).
5. See also ARIZONA DEP'T OF WATER RESOURCES, 1 HYDROGRAPHIC SURVEY REPORT FOR THE SAN PEDRO RIVER WATERSHED (Filed with the Court, Nov. 20, 1991) [hereinafter HYDROGRAPHIC SURVEY].
6. See LETICIA B. VIONNET & THOMAS MADDOCK III, MODELING OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND SURFACE/GROUNDWATER INTERACTION FOR THE SAN PEDRO RIVER BASIN, PART 1: MEXICAN BORDER TO FAIRBANKS, ARIZONA 6-2 (Dep't of Hydrology & Water Resources, Univ. of Arizona HWR No. 92-010, 1992).
7. For example, sheep ranchers versus cattle ranchers/ developers versus agriculturists, manufacturing plants versus urban residents, or one irrigation district versus a neighboring one.
8. See generally HYDROGRAPHIC SURVEY REPORT, supra note 3;
9. RIPARIAN MIGRATORY BIRD HABITAT, supra note 1.
10. See also R.J. Glennon & T. Maddock, In Search of Subflow: Arizona's Futile Effort to Separate Groundwater front Surface Water, 36 ARIZ. L. REV. 567, 567 (1994).
11. In mid-1999 this organization changed its name to the Center for Biological Diversity.
12. See Commission for Environmental Cooperation, Registry of Submissions on Enforcement Matters, (visited Feb. 12, 1999) 〈http://www.cec.org/templates/registryview. cfm?&varlan=English&submissionID=8&format=1〉. Submission pursuant to Article 14 of the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (CEC) by Earthlaw on behalf of the Southwest Center for Biological Diversity and Dr. Robin Silver, an official of the Center, November 16, 1996. The CEC is a trinational (United States, Mexico, and Canada) institution established in 1993 by an environmental side agreement to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
13. See National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-70 (1994).
14. Article 13 allows CEC to prepare reports related to its programs, in this case the ongoing "Conservation of North American Birds" program.
15. See Commission for Environmental Cooperation, Press Release, North American Environment Commission Responds to Public Concerns over Water Problems along Arizona-Mexico Border (May 27, 1997) available at 〈http://www.cca.cec.org/new.Data.cfm?&varlan =English&vardate=9999&unique=62&format=2〉.
16. See Bill Hess, Nazism, Communism, Now Environmentalist, SIERRA VISTA HERALD/BISBEE DAILY REVIEW, June 24, 1997, at 1A.
17. In a written statement, U.S. Rep. Jim Kolbe, R-AZ, said, "The decision by the Commission for Environmental Cooperation to conduct a study of water-related issues along the San Pedro River corridor has generated considerable controversy and apprehension among area residents. Part of the blame lies with the CEC, which announced its intention to conduct this study without prior consultation with local and county officials." Bill Hess, EPA to Visit; Study Stirs up Emotions, SIERRA VISTA HERALD/BISBEE DAILY REVIEW, July 13, 1997, at 1A, 6A.
18. Bill Hess, 'Environmental Drive-by' Study, SIERRA VISTA HERALD/BISBEE DAILY REVIEW, June 15, 1997, at 1A.
19. Bill Hess, Trade Issues or No, NAFTA Panel Can Study River, Official Says, SIERRA VISTA HERALD/BISBEE DAILY REVIEW, July 2, 1997, at 1A.
20. In June 1997 the CEC appointed the Upper San Pedro Expert Team; Gregory Thomas a lawyer; Jeff Price, an ornithologist; Hector Arias Rojo, a watershed-management expert; Julie Stromberg, a botanist; John Bredehoeft, a hydrologist; and Ronald Lacewell an agricultural economist; to review studies of the San Pedro River Basin and prepare an assessment of water issues affecting the river and its associated riparian habitat. See Commission for Environmental Cooperation, Press Release, Riparian Migratory Bird Habitat on the Upper San Pedro River (Aug. 1,1997) available at 〈http://www.cec.org/new/ Data. cfm?&varlan=English&vardate=9999&unique =94&format=2〉.
21. See UDALL CENTER FOR STUDIES IN PUBLIC POLICY, PUBLIC INPUT DIGEST FOR THE UPPER SAN PEDRO RIVER INITIATIVE 2 (prepared for the Comm'n for Envtl. Cooperation, 1998). As part of the second step of the initiative, the CEC sought the services of The University of Arizona's Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy to design and implement the public input process. Public input was solicited through advertisements, a newspaper insert with mail-in public comment form, voice mail, focus-group meetings, an open house, and public workshops. The focus-group meetings and public workshops drew close to 600 people. In addition, approximately 300 input forms, letters, and other written comments were submitted.
22. See generally SAN PEDRO ADVISORY PANEL, ADVISORY PANEL REPORT ON THE UPPER SAN PEDRO RIVER INITIATIVE: RECOMMENDATIONS AND FINDINGS PRESENTED TO THE COMMISSION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL COOPERATION (prepared for the Secretariat of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation, 1998).
23. See generally SAN PEDRO ADVISORY PANEL, RIBBON OF LIFE: AN AGENDA FOR PRESERVING TRANSBOUNDARY MIGRATORY BIRD HABITAT ON THE UPPER SAN PEDRO (prepared for the Secretariat of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation ISBN 2-922305036-8, 1999). The CEC Council comprises the Canadian Environment Minister, the U.S. Secretary of the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Mexican Environmental Secretary.
24. See International Groundwaters, supra note 1.
25. Just 30 km north of the Mexican border, the fort was established as an outpost during the Indian Wars of the 1870s and 1880s. See Ft. Huachuca Home Page (last modified Jan. 13, 1999) 〈http://huachuca-www.army.mil/index.htm/〉.
26. People for the U.S.A.!, formerly People for the West!, is a nonprofit interest group "organized to create a permanent coalition among interested individuals and groups in the United States to protect multiple use on public lands, individual property rights, and resource production." People for the U.S.A.!, (last modified Feb. 5, 2000) 〈http://www.pfw.org/whowhat.html〉.
27. See JACQUELINE VAUGHN SWITZER, GREEN BACKLASH: THE HISTORY AND POLITICS OF ENVIRONMENTAL OPPOSITION IN THE U.S. 201, 202 (1997);
28. MARGARET KRITZ, Land Mine, in LET THE PEOPLE JUDGE: WISE USE AND THE PROPERTY RIGHTS MOVEMENT 29 (John D. Echeverria & Raymond Booth Eby eds., 1995);
29. JIM BACA, Challenges and Opportunities, in LET THE PEOPLE JUDGE: WISE USE AND THE PROPERTY RIGHTS MOVEMENT 53 (John D. Echeverria & Raymond Booth Eby eds., 1995).
30. The Bureau of Land Management withdrew all land within the National Riparian Conservation Area (NRCA) from mining leases and applied a 15-year moratorium on grazing within the boundaries of the NRCA. See H.R. Rep. No. 99-41, at 2 (1986).
31. The Nature Conservancy named the San Pedro River one of its twelve "last great places" in 1991. See The Nature Conservancy's Protection Initiative for the 1990s, 41 NATURE CONSERVANCY 28, 28-29 (1991).
32. In April 1999, American Rivers named the San Pedro one of America's "ten most endangered rivers of 1999." See American Rivers, Press Release, San Pedro Named One of Nation's Most Endangered Rivers (Apr. 12, 1999) available at 〈http://www.amrivers.org/99sanpedrorel.html〉.
33. Land owned by the Mexican government to which communities have usufruct rights.
34. The mining operation is owned by Mexico's largest copper company, Grupo Mexico.
35. Although there are no exact figures on the amount of water consumed by the mine, water experts agree it is the largest water user in the basin. Sixty-two of the largest wells in the watershed belong to the mining company. See RIPARIAN MIGRATORY BIRD HABITAT, supra note 1, at 46-48.
36. Until February 1999, when it turned over responsibility for municipal water supply to the city of Cananea, the mining company supplied water to the city as well as its mining operations. See Virginia de Viana, Empeora desabasto de agua, EL IMPARCIAL (Mexico), Mar. 5, 1999, at 1E.
37. See International Groundwaters, supra note 1.
38. See David Eaton, Conference Comments at the Ciudad Juárez-El Paso Case Study Session of the Binational Conference on Groundwater Management, La Paz, Baja California Sur, Mexico (Feb. 8, 1998).
39. In July 1999, Bruce Babbitt, U.S. Secretary of the Interior, and Mexican SEMARNAP secretary, Julia Carabias Lillo, signed a letter of intent to create a conservation area on the Mexican side of the basin and increase cooperation between the United States and Mexico on San Pedro River Basin water issues. See United States, Mexico Seek to Protect River, SIERRA VISTA HERALD/BISBEE DAILY REVIEW, June 23, 1999, at 1.
40. Cf. Gary LaMonica, Feds Sneak into Arizona, ARIZ. WILDLIFE NEWS, Feb. 1978, at 1, which describes an effort by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to purchase riparian areas along the San Pedro River for preservation purposes.
41. RIPARIAN MIGRATORY BIRD HABITAT, supra note 1, at 55-63.
42. See RIPARIAN MIGRATORY BIRD HABITAT, supra note 1, at 65, 68.
43. On the U.S. side alone, the Upper San Pedro Partnership, San Pedro Joint Task Force, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Environmental Protection Agency, Arizona Game & Fish Department, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, Arizona Department of Water Resources, Arizona State Lands Department, Cochise County Planning & Zoning, Fort Huachuca, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Agricultural Research Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service, two natural resource conservation districts, at least three universities, and local environmental organizations all collect information and conduct water and resource management studies in the San Pedro basin.
44. See International Groundwaters, supra note 1.
45. See City of Douglas, Res. No. 98-161, A Resolution of the Mayor and Council of the City of Douglas, Cochise County Arizona Opposing the Export of Water from the Douglas Basin to Recharge the San Pedro Basin (Aug. 12, 1998).
46. See Robert G. Varady et al., Interbasin Water Transfers in the Southwestern United States: The Case of the San Pedro River, paper presented at the International Workshop On Interbasin Transfer Looking for Solutions for the Future (Paris, International Hydrological Programme of UNESCO, Apr. 26-27, 1999).
47. One, the "Upper San Pedro Partnership," consists of 12 federal, state, and local agencies that collectively work to identify, prioritize, and implement water-management policies and projects in the Sierra Vista subwatershed of the San Pedro River Basin. Another, the "San Pedro Joint Task Force," is an advisory committee, made up of planning and zoning commissioners from the city of Sierra Vista and Cochise County, that advises the city council and county board of supervisors on proposed watershed-management options for the Sierra Vista subwatershed. A third, "Dialogue San Pedro," a diverse group of officials, academics, environmentalists, property-rights advocates, and other concerned citizens, has been meeting to discuss options for improving education, information-exchange, and coordinated water management in the basin; since its inception, the dialogue has been convened by The University of Arizona's Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy.
48. The mayor of Naco, Sonora, the heads of at least three ejidos in the basin, and environmentalists from Cananea, Sonora, have participated in preliminary discussions aimed at influencing Mexican and U.S. government water-management policies.