Arguments Against K2

There are a set of arguments being made against the K2 well development that are about aspects of the K2 well itself. The responses are provided for the following arguments:

1. Physical limitations on the K2 site makes drilling there impractical
2. Toxic Waste will be produced by the drilling
3. Will be unable to do the pump test called for in the agreement
4. Drilling a deep well at K2 site is risky
5. Drilling should be done in Pine, not Strawberry
6. K2 well will impact Fossil Springs
7. K2 will impact wells in Strawberry
8. Water can be obtained from other private sources

This argument against the K2 well is that application of zoning rules restrict the useable area of the site to such an extent that it is unusable, that easements are inadequate to get to the site, and that the zoning restrictions will prevent building an additional 200,000 gallons of water storage.

The portion of the K2 site where the wells will be located has been restricted because of zoning rules that require wells to be at least 100 ft. from septic systems. This zoning rule is intended to prevent contamination of shallow wells. While contamination of a deep aquifer well is not an issue, the zoning rule does not make an allowance for that.

The source of the problem is that the house on parcel 301-11-140C is actually partially built over the property line of the K2 site. Had the house been placed on its lot properly, the sewer cleanouts that the 100 ft. is being measured from would be farther from the K2 lot line and less of the K2 site would be impaired.

Some of the easement is only 22 ft. wide and the claim has been made that this is not enough for moving the drilling equipment to/from the site. The two lanes of Highway 87 are a little over 23 ft. wide. The easement is wide enough to move equipment in and out of the site.

The bottom line factor of whether the K2 site restrictions are a problem is whether the drilling company can work within them without a problem. The drilling company has said that they can do the drilling with the restrictions that are in place.

There is nothing in the agreement that requires the addition of water storage on the K2 site. Attachment 2 to the agreement is an initial rough site plan drawn at the time of the agreement which shows two additional storage tanks labeled “Future Storage”. There is no indication of the size of these storage tanks or whether they ever need to be built. There is no reason why future storage has to be built on the K2 site.
[Back to Top]

2. Toxic Waste will be produced by the drilling

There have been claims made that the drilling may produce toxic waste and concern has been expressed about how that waste will be handled.

The drilling method being used does not produce toxic waste.

[Back to Top]

3. Will be unable to do the pump test called for in the agreement

The agreement calls for a pump test of the permanent well that the well has a production rate of 150 gpm for 24 hours a day, seven days a week. This represents 1,512,000 gallons in the course of a week.

Surrounding property owners have stated that they will not allow the water to be drained across their properties. As a result, they claim that the pump test can not be performed.

Water discharge will be produced during the drilling and during the pump testing of test and production wells. A permit has been obtained for discharging the water into Strawberry Creek. If the water can not be discharged across the existing easements, then a permit will be acquired from ADOT to pipe the discharge along the county road or tanker trucks will be used.

[Back to Top]

4. Drilling a deep well at K2 site is risky

This claim is that the risk of failure to find sufficient water at K2 site is too high.

Drilling a well in the Pine-Strawberry area is always risky. Of the 32 shallow aquifer that are owned by PWCo, 11 did not hit water when they were drilled.

Determining the hydrology of a site is done through studying surface features, taking into account what is known about the geology of the area, and the experience level of the hydrologist. Hydrology is not an exact science, but seeks to identify sites with a higher probability of successfully hitting water.

The hydrology report prepared by Highland Water Resources Consulting (HWRC) for the K2 site states that: “Upon review of the existing data and the completion of a lineament analysis of the site HWRC is confident that the location is quite adequate for the drilling of a deep test and/or production well.” This view was confirmed by three independent peer reviews of the hydrology report. (See Hydrology, for more details)

To further reduce the risk of failure, the PSWID has had an underground resistivity survey done. This survey method has been successfully used in Arizona to more accurately identify the location of underground water.

[Back to Top]

5. Drilling should be done in Pine, not Strawberry

This argument is that the water is for Pine so the drilling should be done in Pine. Water under Strawberry should be for Strawberry.

This water is for both communities. Pine has a much greater need for additional water than Strawberry currently does, so in the short run Pine will reap greater benefit from it. In the long run it will support the growth in both communities.

The selection of the K2 site was driven by the need to develop a new source of water as quickly as possible at a reasonable cost. The K2 site had been identified as having potential. The property was already owned by PWCo, it is located near the distribution system at a point where the water can be easily sent to both Pine and Strawberry. It was determined to be the best site to rapidly develop. No potential drilling sites in Pine were identified at the time that efforts to reach an agreement with PWCo were initiated.

The drilling of the K2 well will be totally funded by the PWCo customers. The excess water from the K2 well will be made available to SWCo. As a result, the customers in Strawberry will have access to the water at no added cost for the development. With only half the customer base of Pine, it would likely not be economically viable to drill a deep aquifer well to serve only the SWCo customers.

In the long run Strawberry and Pine need each other in order to develop an adequate and reliable water supply for the area. At this point, Pine needs the support of the residents of Strawberry to take the first step to removing water as an issue for both communities.

A rough underground survey of the Pine area was completed in November, 2007. Analysis of that data is taking place and it will be used to provide a direction for a more focused underground survey in 2008. It is PSWID's intent to facilitate the drilling of a second deep aquifer well in Pine in the next few years. This second well will secure the water future for both communities for a long time.

In any case, we believe that the opposition to the development of the K2 well is more about the fact that the development of any well will hamper the oppositions desire to purchase the water companies. If the drilling site was in Pine the opposition would be making most of the same arguments against a Pine well.

[Back to Top]

6. K2 well will impact Fossil Springs

This concern is that some or all of the water that passes under the K2 site is destined to emerge at Fossil Springs and that the K2 site would then affect the output from Fossil Springs.

The hydrology report prepared by HWRC (see Hydrology) has the following statement: “HWRC currently believes that the subject K2 area may not be within that portion of the deep regional groundwater flow system supporting Fossil Springs. However, the exact location of the springs “capture” area is not clearly defined and the complexities of fractured groundwater flow occurring in the deep regional system may never be completely understood.”

The measured range of flow at Fossil Springs varies from about 19,000 to 30,000 gpm. Flow measurements such as this have at least an error range of ± 5%. If the K2 well produces 150 gpm and all of that water came from the capture area for Fossil Springs, that would represent 0.5 to 0.8 % of the flow. The impact, if any, would not be big enough to be measured.

Once the K2 well has been drilled, water testing will be done to determine whether the water does eventually flow into Fossil Springs or not.

[Back to Top]

6. K2 will impact wells in Strawberry

This concern is that by drilling through the shallow aquifer into the deep aquifer that this will provide a path for water to drain from the shallow aquifer into the deep aquifer.

The method used for drilling a deep well seals the area around the well casing. This will prevent any leakage of shallow aquifer water to the deep aquifer.

[Back to Top]

7. Water can be obtained from other private sources

This claim is that the water issues in Pine could be solved by obtaining water from private well owners in the Pine area.

This claim typically refers to the Milk Ranch well. The owner of this well has shown no interest in providing water to PWCo. The owner of the Milk Ranch well is currently suing to be removed from PWCo’s area of operation so that he doesn’t have to provide water to PWCo.

The other factor that is considered when obtaining water from private sources is the cost to get the water into the distribution system. That cost can be significant, $891,000 for the Milk Ranch well (See TetraTech estimate), and can make the water too expensive to use.

PWCo currently gets 27% of its water from water sharing agreements with private wells. The K2 well will reduce the dependence on water from privately owned wells. It is best that PWCo provide most of the required water since water from private wells is a less reliable source of water because well owners sometimes have desires that don’t match what is good for the community.

[Back to Top]