Public Comments on the Water Report

These are thoughts some people have about the water report.

Robert S. Cauthorn remarks:
I'm still wading through the report (no pun intended) but I think it's fascinating and the city should be applauded for doing something like this.

Michael Perkins remarks:
I have a recent article from a Canadian newspaper about city efforts for water conservation and storm sewer problems. Here are a couple of paragraphs I found interesting. Vancouver wants to cut water demand - the city's waterworks department estimates each barrel could save about 4,920 liters of water in peak summer months - and reduce pressure for construction of a new dam.... Planners in Etobicoke hope to lighten the load on storm sewers. Etobicoke has set up a pilot project, distributing 100 barrels free to see whether the containers can reduce the amount of water that spills into storm sewers during summer rains. Vancouver's project involves selling barrels at half price - $67 each - in an effort to encourage water conservation by using rainwater to water the garden. Tuesday 8 Aug 1995 Globe and Mail. I think this is an excellent example for Tucson to follow. I have the rest of the article for interested parties. Please respond to my e-mail so I can be sure this message went through. Jasper@azstarnet.com

Brad Tatham remarks:
Having attended several city starm water meetings and having read the report I am happy to see that the study has put some of the focused on the protection of the native vegetation around our washes. To protect as many of our washes from bulldozing fools increases the value of our property. Let Los Angeles keep their identity with concrete rivers because it makes for good chase scenes (bad for tourism) in movies. What we do to the surrounding vegetation reflects the value we put on nature. Nature sells in Tucson just look at our tourism. We, as a city, are in part defined by how we treat our washes which should be places for plants, animals and people. Let us try to hide our mistakes ex:(Kino overpass) with Arroyo Chico and move towards making washes places to brag about. Thank You

Werner A.H. Mammen remarks:
I am concerned with the run-off in all major rivers. Huge amount of waters is lost every year. What is the feasibility of installing dams in the rivers and holding some of the run-off back and keep the rivers full for most of the year or combining the runoff with the proposed CAP lake?

kloomis remarks:
review of the materials was done at the request of one of the consultantants. Getting into the presentation and choosing options was relatively easy and accomodating.However some concern about the target group's interest or ability to follow whats going on. This is a technical document and the reading level has to be at "grade l6".Newspapers have tried to present written material at the 6th grade level or lower. Qestion ? Should an effort be made to give information cument but it seems to me it could be presented at a more universally comfortable reading level.

Kelly schwalenstocker remarks:
As a student in the Pima College Environmental Technology program I am especially interested in the stormwater runoff water quality sampling plans. Since we have such infrequent rain falls, the pollutant load in the storm-water runoff must be very high. I'm glad the city is finally addressing these problems. Our aquifers are precious and we should do whatever we can to protect them. I would also like to see the city address the CAP issues in a forum like this. I think half of the public's concerns about CAP water are due to lack of information. I know this isn't the place for it but if I hear one more ad crying about chemically treated water I think I'll scream.

Bruce Noon remarks:
Two basic comments. First, that insurance and city policy should make it difficult, at best, to remain in a flood plain after flood damage occurs, and that relocation reimbusement funds would be available. This would allow a natural reclamation of "corridor" areas, and would not require extrodinary engineering solution for historically negligent flood plain planning. Second, it is imperative that open corridors be maintained through the city and new growth areas. Many people who originally move into an area for the terrain "values" move on when the concrete changes the ability to take a dog for a walk, or see wild animals or plants. Consequently, the area becomes less valuable to the residents and a loss of ownership occurs. Roadways through open areas should be the focus to keep access open rather than trying to control the water- ways. Build bridges and raised roadways!

Katherine Lawrence remarks:
I deeply appreciate the effort to retain the natural aspects of many of the city's washes. The report, to date, seems to be an excellent balance of finance and environment. My one suggestion, to improve the pollution of our ground water, would be to modify the hours of the outreach sites for toxic materials. I doubt I'm the only one who has items to turn in, but just doesn't make it up that early. I'd much prefer 10am-2pm rather than the 8am-Noon that they're currently open.

Bill Liebson remarks:
Nowhere have I seen plans for or a recommendation to use the storm water, which is a better quality water compared to CAP water, for recharging our aquifers. Why isn't this issue addressed?

John P. Kennedy remarks:
It seems to me that an inexpensive solution is to promote water harvesting at the homeowners level. Perhaps incentives, city supplied materials to those who "qualify", or some kind of perks to help the average homeowner do his/her share in this. Also, how about tax breaks for those with gravel yards, or native desert yards? That would save us all a ton of water every year. I have a hard time driving a filthy car all summer, and my neighbours have their own golf courses. But thats a different subject. Anyway, I'm originally from St.Louis, MO. and we have a complete storm drain system there. Call me silly, but part of the fun for me is the desert rain smell, flooded streets, running washes, and whatever else Mother Nature cares to give us. Also, if the rain water settles through the ground into our water table, so what? Thats where it comes from anyway. Its not clean when it falls, but it filters out in the ground just fine. I hope I've been of some help to you on this issue, and if you need to contact me, please feel free. I'm a small business owner, so being easy to contact comes naturally! Best regards to all, John P. Kennedy

WILLIAMSON, KATHLEEN remarks:
One way of harvesting and storing water runoff is the use of a cistern which is attached to a house and stores the water that hits and runs off of the roof. This can be a substantial amount of water. This technique has been successfully used in Australia's deserts, through the contemporary wisdom of Bill Mollison and the school of Permaculture. It is also widely used and required in new building projects in Davis, California. My grandfather built a cistern onto the house he built in the 1930's in County Mayo in Ireland. As a result, trips to get well water were (which the children did with buckets) reduced to only fetching drinking water. The cistern provided all of the family's utility water. Perhaps we should seriously consider following the example set by Davis. Another suggestion is that we all be required to use our grey water (ie bath water, dish water, washing machine, etc.,) for watering our lawns and gardens. This would result in an enormous water savings for the community, as well as economic savings for each water buyer. I realize there have been objections to the uses of the above techniques in the past. For example, if the cistern is neglected it breed mosquitos. And grey water has actually been disallowed under the Tucson City Code. I say we overcome the old problems with these techniques, allow for some regulations to oversee, and realize the need substantially outweighes the risks at this time. Kathleen G. Williamson

Mel Lehman remarks:
I don't understand why all of this is such a big issue here in Tucson. You have allowed it all to become so political. In regards to the CAP water and its big problems. I understand that cities like Phoenix and Las Vegas have been using Colo. River Water for a long time now. Why is it that they are not having such problems ? Or are they and we just don't hear about it.?

J. S. Stacey remarks:
I am a little concerned that the city would continue on the Randolph South golf course project knowing full well, it won't work. Just because we have Federal Money, doesn't mean it needs to be spent. What should be done is outlined in the U of A Hydrology report of 1983. The more water we run off fast, the more liability we will have for the flooding of high risk areas (i.e. Marana and Continental Ranch) I think that Geologists concerns should be heeded and some attention to not spending "Big Bucks" for and "Engineering wading pond". Thanks for letting me write.

Dwight Jones remarks:
Tucson has at least 2 serious problems, both relating to rapid growth; one is depletion of the aquifer from which we drink, and the other is traffic congestion with all of it's related ills. I propose the City of Tucson complete a study of the possible benefits of using the natural waterways of the Rillito Wash, the Pantano Wash, and to a lesser degree, the Tanque Verde Wash as a means of building an economical and ecologically sound roadway/water recharge system. The roadway would be elevated and run on columns situated in the wash, with off/on-ramps located at the intersections of major surface streets. The recharge of the aquifer would incorporate using the pilings for the roadway columns as a means of returning surface water to a specified depth in the aquifer. Using concrete barriers, such as are commonly used in road detours, placed strategically in the washes, and an estimated 3000-4000 roadway columns, stormwater runoff can be slowed to enhance both the natural and artificial recharge of Tucson's underground aquifer. All of this happens while diverting east-west traffic from surface streets onto what would become scenic parkways along our newly-revitalized washes.