Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Resources topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Town updates council on water‑resources strategy, recharge pilots and PFAS challenges
Summary
Water staff outlined a multi‑pronged water management strategy including effluent and stormwater recharge pilots, partnerships, PFAS treatment considerations and potential funding needs; staff warned that some solutions will be costly and take years to implement.
Prescott Valley water staff gave a broad update on April 3 about ongoing water‑resources initiatives — ranging from expanded recharge operations and stormwater infiltration pilots to regional partnerships, PFAS treatment and long‑term funding needs.
Vice Mayor and staff framed three central goals: balance the Prescott AMA aquifer, secure water for the local economy, and protect community quality of life. Tracy Lund (water resources briefing) described current effluent recharge operations and plans to expand infiltration downstream along the Agua Fria River corridor to increase the town’s recharge footprint. “We need to maximize the amount of effluent we can get into the aquifer,” staff said; an expansion could use additional miles of river/ wash channel pending modeling and ADWR permitting.
Staff also described a stormwater‑recharge pilot that would capture and infiltrate runoff closer to source areas and use engineered devices to improve infiltration rates in the town’s clay soils. Staff said those devices can increase hydraulic conductivity and reduce evaporation losses, and indicated the town intends to dedicate recharge credits to safe‑yield goals rather than for growth.
On treatment issues, staff discussed PFAS in wastewater influent/effluent and the economics of treating effluent for direct injection. Consultants and staff said equipping a small recharge well for PFAS treatment could have six‑ to seven‑figure capital costs and substantial lifecycle operating costs; one small recharge well was characterized as having a capital cost in the order of $10 million and lifecycle operating costs perhaps in the tens of millions over decades, making centralized treatment at the wastewater plant a more economical option in some scenarios.
Staff noted multi‑jurisdictional work on the Big Chino modeling and the need for imported water options if safe‑yield cannot otherwise be achieved. Salt River Project (SRP) and other regional stakeholders have been identified as partners for long‑range work. Staff said an updated water‑rate study and a wastewater master plan will be needed to set budgets and identify funding paths for PFAS mitigation, recharge expansions and potential importation projects.
Council questions centered on regional partnerships, voter requirements for major purchases, mapping of wells that have gone dry in outlying areas and how emergency bulk‑water sales might be managed. Staff said those issues will require further study and policy discussion.
