Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Management Uspp topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisors agree to revisit county ties to Upper San Pedro water efforts
Summary
Board members voiced opposition to aspects of regional water partnerships that aim to control groundwater and directed staff to place related flood-control and partnership items on a future agenda for further review.
Cochise County supervisors signaled opposition to several regional water-management efforts tied to Fort Huachuca and the Upper San Pedro watershed and asked staff to place the Cochise Conservation Recharge Network (CCRN), the Upper San Pedro Partnership (USPP) executive committee, and related flood-control projects on an upcoming agenda for fuller review.
During the July 15 work session, a supervisor criticized past attempts to create a water district intended to "restore and maintain the regional groundwater aquifer," saying the goal is not feasible and that repeated efforts to redraw governance structures risk ceding local control. The presenter displayed historical materials noting past funding and partnership efforts, including a cited $5 million Upper San Pedro partnership grant and other project dollars the speaker characterized as "criminal" spending directed to external organizations.
Board members said they plan to press the county's position more strongly. One supervisor asked staff to prepare materials so the Board can revisit an existing intergovernmental agreement that provides county funding to the USPP and to consider withdrawing that funding and related IGA commitments. Another supervisor asked that future flood-control district project proposals be routed to the Board with clear recommendations.
Staff clarified that the Cochise Conservation Recharge Network item is recorded as part of flood-control projects and that the county does not pay dues to CCRN; rather, the flood-control district advances projects that the Board can approve or reject. The Board did not make a final decision in the work session; supervisors asked staff to return with specific proposals for agenda action and background on how past funds were spent.
