Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Flood Control And Recharge topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cochise County work session reviews flood‑control projects, recharge studies, USGS monitoring and Army Corps watershed study
Summary
County staff summarized flood‑control district activities including recharge projects in Palominas and the Wilcox basin, USGS stream monitoring, a possible Army Corps watershed study for Rucker/Elfrida, and public‑facing services such as sandbag distribution and National Flood Insurance Program functions.
During the April 29 Cochise County work session, staff presented planned flood‑control activities and watershed projects across the county and answered supervisors’ technical and policy questions about recharge effectiveness, monitoring and funding.
Jackie Watkins, county engineer and director of engineering and natural resources, reviewed a set of recharge and detention projects. Watkins described the Palominas recharge project (now in year nine of monitoring) and said the county is studying Coyote Wash and Horseshoe Draw to increase infiltration and reduce downstream flooding. Watkins said the county is pursuing grants to support some projects and cited a roughly $6.5 million project estimate for Coyote Wash; she also said the county is applying for an Arizona smart‑grant (as described in the presentation) for 3 Canyons recharge work.
Watkins told the board the county’s USGS stream monitoring work is estimated at about $125,000 (some costs shared with USGS) and that some monitoring locations have data records extending back many decades. She said the county is using monitoring results to compare recharge approaches and that, in Palominas, “infiltration trenches work better than dry wells,” a conclusion staff plans to apply in studies for the Wilcox and Douglas basins.
Bisbee‑area activity was discussed: Watkins said the county has an intergovernmental agreement with the City of Bisbee tied to a $2,000,000 grant to extend a pipeline and to acquire a recharge site west of the San Pedro River aimed at preserving baseflows and increasing groundwater levels in the area.
Supervisors questioned the practical groundwater benefits of small recharge projects and debated scale and cost‑effectiveness. One supervisor summarized a common concern during the session: monitoring and testing “do not produce water” — a point raised to emphasize that monitoring alone does not increase groundwater volume. Staff responded that targeted recharge basins that lengthen the period water sits in the ground (for example, from two hours to 24 hours) can increase infiltration and recharge where subsurface geology permits.
Watkins also identified a pending Army Corps of Engineers watershed study for Rucker/Elfrida; the county notified the board that the Corps grant is active and that preliminary work (an initial watershed study) is under way with potential additional grant phases dependent on Corps funding rules. Watkins said the Corps typically uses a cost‑share model but that Elfrida qualifies as an economically disadvantaged area, which can change the local share.
The flood‑control presentation included operational services: the county provides sand and sandbags free to residents (delivery to road yards and public filling by residents is available), and flood‑control staff administers National Flood Insurance Program permitting that allows homeowners to access federally backed flood insurance and loans.
No formal decisions were taken during the informational work session; staff said projects and grant applications will return for formal consideration where required.
