|
|
STRATEGIC OUTCOMES |
ACTION |
|
Department: |
☐ Safe & Prosperous |
☐ Motion |
|
City Administration |
☐ Active & Appealing |
☒ Resolution |
|
|
☒ Respected & Responsible |
☐ Ordinance - Introduction |
|
Division: |
☐ Connected & Engaged |
☐ Ordinance - Adoption |
|
Administration |
☐ Unique & Creative |
☐ Public Hearing |
TITLE:
title
Resolution Opposing the Permanent Transfer of Colorado River Water from Greenstone RP, d/b/a “GSC Farms, LLC”, to the Town of Queen Creek, Arizona, as presented, and offering reasonable alternatives. (City Administration/City Attorney)(Jay Simonton/ Rodney Short)
end
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION:
Summary Recommendation
Adopt a Resolution Opposing the Permanent Transfer of Colorado River Water from the Greenstone RP, d/b/a GSC Farms, LLC, to the Town of Queen Creek, Arizona. The proposed transfer seeks to permanently move 2,033.01 acre-feet per year (AFY) of 4th Priority Colorado River water off River to the Town of Queen Creek in Pinal and Maricopa Counties (Permanent Transfer). The Resolution urges the Secretary of the Interior and the Bureau of Reclamation to fully comply with all federal environmental laws and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in connection with the Permanent Transfer and in compiling the EIS, to consider the significant and harmful impacts, both socioeconomic and environmental, of a Permanent Transfer of water off the Colorado River, especially at a time when it is universally recognized the Colorado River is over-allocated and in crisis, and all users are being advised to conserve.
The Resolution urges the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to consider a No Action Alternative pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), or alternatively, limit any transfers of Colorado River water to non-shortage times when the Colorado River levels at Lake Powell and Lake Mead can meet the current commitments of water entitlement holders. The Resolution directs the City Administrator to provide comments on behalf of the City of Yuma and the Mayor and City Council. The Resolution also directs the Yuma City Clerk to provide a copy of the Resolution, as adopted, to the Mayor and Town Council of the Town of Queen Creek, Arizona, the City of Yuma's Federal and State Legislators, the Governor of Arizona, the Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation, the Director of the Arizona Department of Water Resources, the Statutory Agent of GSC Farm, LLC., and the Council on Environmental Quality within the Executive Office of the President.
end
STRATEGIC OUTCOME:
Approving this resolution opposing the off-River transfer furthers the City Council’s strategic outcome of Respected and Responsible as the deleterious impacts of the off-River transfer affect not only the human environment of rural River communities like Yuma but also compound the impact by further jeopardizing production of hydroelectric power.
REPORT:
On September 15, 2025, the U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) published a Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the GSC Farms, LLC (Greenstone) - Queen Creek Water Transfer Project. The Federal Register Notice of Intent can be found at this website: <https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2025-09-15/pdf/2025-17743.pdf>. This Notice of Intent continues an application to the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) filed by Greenstone in 2019. Under the proposed water transfer, Greenstone would sell a water supply to the Town of Queen Creek to be used in the Town’s water service area in Pinal and Maricopa Counties. It should be noted that this would be the first ever transfer of Colorado River from an on-River entitlement holder to metropolitan central Arizona that was not allocated through the Central Arizona Conservation District, known as the Central Arizona Project (CAP).
That 2019 request was denied by ADWR. However on reconsideration, and despite overwhelming opposition from Colorado River Communities to the Permanent Transfer and the substantial evidence in the record of the devastating and deleterious impacts of the Permanent Transfer, the ADWR initially recommended to Reclamation that they approve the transfer of 1,078.01 AFY of Greenstone’s 2,083.1 AFY 4th Priority Colorado River entitlement, and that Greenstone retain 1,005 AFY of 4th Priority Colorado River entitlement for future use on the 500 acres of land owned by Greenstone in La Paz County. Later, ADWR increased the recommendation to 2,033.01 AFY, leaving an insignificant amount of water for use on the 500 acres in La Paz County.
Despite strong public comments urging Reclamation to engage in a full EIS, Reclamation determined that a less-intensive Environmental Assessment (EA) was all that was necessary to evaluate the Permanent Transfer. Reclamation opined that the Permanent Transfer “does not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, and, therefore, an [EIS] is not required.” The Reclamation’s opinion was devoid of any real analysis on why Reclamation elected not to follow the full EIS as set forth in NEPA.
The 2,033.01 acre-feet of water in Greenstone’s Permanent Transfer proposal is part of the Fourth Priority Colorado River Water that has been reserved by Arizona through the Arizona Water Commission in the 1970’s as part of a 164,652 acre-feet (9.89% of Arizona’s Fourth Priority Colorado River entitlement) set-aside for the use of on-river, Arizona Colorado River Communities and entitlements. More recently, the State of Arizona, through ADWR, reaffirmed its commitment to the set-aside water (including the water in Greenstone’s Permanent Transfer proposal) for the benefit of Arizona’s Colorado River communities when ADWR stated, "it is the Department's unequivocal position that this water is to be reserved for future M&I use along the River. It is not to be considered as supplies available for any other purpose." (M&I refers to municipal and industrial use). The ADWR position letter further states, "[t]he increased quantity being recommended [for allocation] is part of the 164,652 recognized in the CAP Master Repayment Contract as being available for contracting along the River." (See the February 28, 1990 ADWR Letter to the Bureau of Reclamation, page 2 of 5 and page 4 of 5 respectively).
The EA process moved quickly. In August 2021, Reclamation initiated scoping and public comment for its EA on the Permanent Transfer. Reclamation published its final EA in July 2022. Despite a multitude of public comments showing the detrimental impacts of this Permanent Transfer and the precedential decision to allow future Colorado River transfers, Reclamation’s EA determined that the impacts were not significant and published an official Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) in August 2022, which would permit the Permanent Transfer to begin in 2023.
In December 2022, the Yuma City Council authorized joining Mohave County, La Paz County and later, Yuma County, in a lawsuit against Reclamation. See City Council Motion 2022-228 (December 21, 2022). The lawsuit sought a preliminary injunction against the Permanent Transfer and remand the matter back to Reclamation to conduct a full EIS on the Permanent Transfer as mandated by NEPA. Litigation ensued and the Counties and the City were denied the preliminary injunction in April 2023. The private transaction for the Permanent Transfer between Greenstone and Queen Creek closed on May 8, 2023, for a purported $20,000,000 and Colorado River water under the Permanent Transfer began to divert at the Wilmer Plant in Lake Havasu and flow through the CAP canal system to Queen Creek in June 2023.
The litigation continued and in February 2024, the on-River communities of Mohave County, La Paz County, Yuma County, and the City of Yuma prevailed on Summary Judgment with the Federal Court finding that there were questions of significant impact that needed to be addressed through a full EIS. The matter was remanded back to Reclamation to address the shortcomings, presumably through a full EIS to satisfy the requirements of NEPA. In the interim, the Federal Court left in place the FONSI and the four water contracts between Greenstone and Queen Creek and the CAP.
This brings the calendar to September 15, 2025, when Reclamation publishes the Notice of Intent to prepare a full EIS for the Permanent Transfer. Reclamation has a target date for completion of the EIS and issuance of a Record of Decision (ROD) in April 2027.
Should Greenstone’s Permanent Transfer be approved, the 4th Priority Colorado River Water entitlement transfer will establish a new and ominous precedent for the diversion of the reserved water away from Arizona’s Colorado River Communities, a significant loss to future generations of farmers and the River Communities.
The City of Yuma and many of the Colorado River water users depend on the Colorado River Water entitlements and carefully plan, conserve, and prioritize use of water. The Yuma City Council, the City of Yuma, and other Colorado River water users have consistently opposed efforts to transfer Colorado River water away from On-River users for use in other parts of the State. Attempts to transfer water away from Arizona’s Colorado River Communities seriously threaten the future economic well-being of the affected River Communities and deprive them of future growth opportunities in favor of remote interests in other parts of the State. Even worse, allowing such transfers creates a frightening new economic reality for water users in the Arizona desert: access to water will go to the highest bidder. Sound water policy should benefit all Arizona residents, not just the highest bidder. Lastly, the proposed transfer will result in less water being available for return flows to the Colorado River, which given the region is in a 21-year drought, is not the water policy Arizona should be pursuing.
Reclamation brings this Notice of Intent as several key agreements governing the Colorado River's management, including the 2007 Interim Guidelines and the 2019 Drought Contingency Plans, are set to expire at the end of 2026. Currently, the seven states with Colorado River water rights are in negotiations for the Federal Post 2026 Operational Guidelines that necessitate a comprehensive review and development of new operational guidelines to ensure the River's sustainability for future generations. The seven states have yet to come to a consensus and negotiation attempts have been unproductive. The Colorado River is overallocated and the levels at Lake Powell and Lake Mead have fallen to crisis elevations not only for a stable water supply, but for the ability to generate hydroelectric power, creating another calamity.
Agricultural to urban transfers might appear to be a viable solution to a community’s water needs, but in reality, these transfers worsen water shortages, deepen the Colorado River’s structural deficit, and permanently weaken economies. Arizona’s future requires policies that conserve water where it is, protect the communities that depend on it, and recognize the true limits of the Colorado River System. Arizona needs new water sources and sustainable strategies, not the dismantling of the agricultural base that keeps both rural communities and our food supply alive.
As a result, the Resolution under consideration is intended to signal the City of Yuma’s continued opposition to the Greenstone Permanent Transfer as presented. Reclamation is urged to consider a No Action Alternative given impacts of this Permanent Transfer under the current conditions. Alternatively, Reclamation must implement a sound policy and precedent that limits this Permanent Transfer, and any similar proposed transfers of Colorado River water, to times when the Colorado River levels at Lake Powell and Lake Mead rise to a safe elevation to mitigate the environmental impacts and the hydroelectric concerns.
FISCAL REQUIREMENTS:
|
CITY FUNDS: |
$ 0.00 |
BUDGETED: |
$ 0.00 |
|
STATE FUNDS: |
$ 0.00 |
AVAILABLE TO TRANSFER: |
$ 0.00 |
|
FEDERAL FUNDS: |
$ 0.00 |
IN CONTINGENCY: |
$ 0.00 |
|
OTHER SOURCES: |
$ 0.00 |
FUNDING ACCOUNT/FUND #/CIP: |
|
TOTAL |
$ 0.00 |
- |
FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT:
NONE
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS NOT ATTACHED TO THE CITY COUNCIL ACTION FORM THAT ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK:
NONE
IF CITY COUNCIL ACTION INCLUDES A CONTRACT, LEASE OR AGREEMENT, WHO WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ROUTING THE DOCUMENT FOR SIGNATURE AFTER CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL?
☐ Department
☒ City Clerk’s Office
☐ Document to be recorded
☐ Document to be codified
|
Acting City Administrator: |
Date: |
|
John D. Simonton |
10/03/2025 |
|
Reviewed by City Attorney: |
Date: |
|
Richard W. Files |
10/03/2025 |