There are numerous water experts in the area that I hoped would answer, but maybe they are on vacation. While I am interested in this subject, others know more -- but here is what I've found.
As early as the 40's or 50's toxic waste and radioactive material were dumped by the U of A in unlined, uncapped pits at the Page-Trowbridge Experimental Ranch near Oracle Junction (in an area then known as Falcon Valley). Dumping continued until the facility was forced by the EPA to close in the mid '90's.
Numerous articles can be found in old issues of The Explorer and other publications. Extreme water worries and intense controversy resulted in articles by residents of Saddlebrooke, Oracle, and some surrounding communities.
The U of A estimated that some 280 tons of radioactive waste were buried before 1962 and as many as as 430 tons afterwards. "Down-draw" of contaminants into the area's aquifer (exacerbated by additional wells being dug in the vicinity) have led to some serious opposition to development.
The U. S. Air Force closed wells that they had dug for drinking water in the 1960's. Water testing revealed the presence of a volatile organic compound known as toluene which is used as a solvent. This, along with other contaminants, can migrate into our aquifer.
It has further been known for years that our water table has been dropping yearly. The much anticipated CAP water supply is doubtful, evidenced by dramatic water level decreases in the Colorado River, Lake Meade and Lake Powell. Erratic weather conditions also affect the aquifer supplying Oracle Junction, Saddlebrooke, Eagle Crest, Catalina and Oro Valley.
Sustainability of our water supply should be every one's concern. Do we have enough water to sustain our present population ? If so, how many years can we depend on it? Planning only until 2020 is irresponsible when our AZ Constitution recommends a 100 year supply before building can take place. Do citizens of Oro Valley honestly think that we can plan to double our population without finding out more facts about the water supply?
Make no mistake -- we are being "lobbied" by our development-happy friends. What Mr. DiSimone wrote is sensible and well thought out. We need to look at both sides of the question and see who is correct. We need to do a little homework ourselves, hold our leaders accountable, and question the Town staff, elected officials and yes, even Pima County officials.
A "Don't worry, be happy" attitude coupled with propaganda won't cut it!
"Bandanna Anna"
********************************************************************************************************************
For additional information, please check the two web sites below.
http://www.savecatalina.com/Page-Ranch/arroyo-grande-impact.htm
http://www.poisonwells.com/
"Bandanna Anna"
********************************************************************************************************************
For additional information, please check the two web sites below.
http://www.savecatalina.com/Page-Ranch/arroyo-grande-impact.htm
http://www.poisonwells.com/
3 comments:
OK. You've got our attention. Another reason for us to focus on the real issue: Should Arroyo Grande be developed at all?
Look to a ballot initiative this November, C-20-2008, that sets aside 6800 acres of the 9100 acres permanently.
The question is: what constitutes the 6800 acres being set aside.
Asphalt and concrete covered roads, extensive building will prevent the land from filtering the water and could add to the contamination.
Are there any hydrological studies showing the plume of toxic waste and direction of movement?
Are there any studies showing the affect of draw down on the move of toxic waste in the aquifer?
While the toxic dump lies north and east - toxic chemicals cannot be programmed to move a certain direction.
Also, OV homes south of the proposed development may need to consider what affect a 100 year flood might have on their homes when the AG is changed.
raindancer
Post a Comment