The Morning Blend
Welcome
Complete Media Kit
PALOMINAS — He stood at the end of the 111⁄2-foot-high concrete block wall by the wash and a drainage culvert that was filled with murky brown water.
With a puzzled look on his face, he glanced across Palominas Road where more water stood in a small collection basin and in the road-side ditch.
The concrete wall, said Larry Olson, a 30-year resident of Palominas, was constructed to divert flood water from the Palominas school facilities. A worthy endeavor, he says.
The school facilities flooded regularly, causing extensive damage, said county Supervisor Pat Call.
  
|
“We had to do something,” Call said. “Sheet flow through the valley is significant and wildcat developers, those that divide land into four-acre plots, have no standards to meet when it comes to flood control.”
Unfortunately, Call said, the cost of the project ended up being more than the county estimated at the time, so the project involving extensive drainage and flood control measures could not be completed.
What has Olson scratching his head is why the county would protect the school but not take into consideration the extra flow of water that is being channeled into a wash that cannot hold the volume.
“They may have solved the problem of the school flooding, but they have made a bigger problem. This is not a good use of taxpayer dollars,” Olson said.
Rutherford Diversified Industries Inc. of Sierra Vista bid $398,708 to construct the earthen berm along state Highway 92 and construct the 111⁄2-foot concrete-block flood wall along the west and north property line of the school. The structures divert off-site stormwater flowing eastward toward the school northward into School House Wash and around the wall eastward to Palominas Road. There the wash connects to a culvert that then carries the water onto property owned by the Miller family, as well as a bar ditch on the east side of Palominas Road.
County project engineer Allon Owen said the wall was supposed to be just 31⁄2 feet high. Even though the wall is just one block thick, the bottom blocks of those 31⁄2 feet are filled with reinforced concrete. The block above that line is not. He said the school district requested the height of the wall be increased for privacy.
No one asked the handful of residents living behind the school whether or not they wanted a block wall in their back yard, and Owen heard from one of the residents about it.
He also confirmed that part of the wall is not on school property.
Olson’s neighbors, the Miller family, who have owned and operated a feed and mercantile store at the corner of Highway 92 and Palominas Road for years, doubts the logic of the county’s move, since now all that extra water ends up crossing their property, making it unusable during the rainy season.
“They just didn’t care,” Wayne Miller said. “The county was supposed to address the drainage issue before they built the wall. They didn’t. Now all this water comes through our property and we took steps to protect our land.”
The fence line along Palominas road was being washed away, leaving a gap between the ground and the fence just big enough for a calf to get under. That could create problems with mama cows in the road trying to get to their babies. So, the Millers dammed up a wash on their property just below the culvert and built a 3-foot berm down the length of their property on Palominas Road to protect their land from flooding.
Unfortunately, that leaves Olson right in the path of flooding stormwater. Though he has yet to experience any damage to his home, outbuildings and property, the potential for disaster is at the forefront of his mind.
“It used to drain off after a rain, but now it stays in the ditches and is eroding the road. When you read about people interfering with the flow of water, it sounds like they’re breaking the law. It seems like a simple solution. Open the wash back up,” Olson said. “I understand their concerns, but I don’t think this is right.”
County floodplain project engineer Michael Engers said the county was aware of Miller’s dam.
“We acknowledge that Mr. Miller constructed the dam to protect his property,” Enger said. “… If it truly becomes a hazard, we will ask him to take it down.”
Engers said the concrete wall is part of a much larger project that will encompass proper retention ponds, a larger box culvert under Palominas Road and recharge facilities to move the water down to the San Pedro River.
Owen said that budgeted project is on hold since easements need to be obtained prior to beginning construction.
Design plans that were completed at the time of the flood wall construction show that a channel cutting across the Miller property was planned. However, Miller said, no negotiations have been finalized and the county has not proceeded with the acquisition of an easement across his family’s property.
The county is now attempting to force the Millers to remove the dam, backpedaling on a wait-and-see position held for the past year.
Engers confirmed that a letter had been sent to the Millers stating that obstructing the water flow was in violation of Arizona Statute 4836-15. According to the statute, it is unlawful for a person to engage in any development or to divert, retard or obstruct the flow of waters in a watercourse if it creates a hazard to life or property without securing the written authorization of the board of the district in which the watercourse is located. Where the watercourse is a delineated flood plain it is unlawful to engage in any development affecting the flow of waters without securing such written authorization.
The Millers did not get approval for the dam from the county flood control board, which is the Board of Supervisors.
The letter states they have until July 21 to remove it or the county will “take appropriate action.” The letter also gives an update of the status of the drainage project and states it will be a few months before the county gets to the right of way talks.
“We won’t take it down,” Miller said. “(The county) came to us to purchase acreage so they could handle the additional water flow. They’ve had all this time to do something and now that the rains are coming, they want us to put our land at risk. Why aren’t they held responsible for the same laws that we are? In my mind, they diverted the water onto us illegally. Everything that’s in their letter to us could just as easily be applied to them. They broke the law.”
Though the county officials’ stand is that they followed proper procedure, Larry Miller also takes exception to that position.
“They diverted water from Highway 92 around the school and dumped it all into the wash that runs behind the wall. How can they say there’s no significant impact?” he asked. “They were supposed to buy a strip of land from us to run the water safely. They didn’t. They just let it run out onto our land and erode it. They’re stirring up a bee hive. We will fight them. They can take responsibility for the water they’re dumping. In the meantime, the dam stays and the water can stay in the bar ditches along the road.”
His family also is concerned with the possible hazardous substances that can come from the flood waters, since some of the volume comes from Highway 92.
“I’m not saying there’s a lot, but who knows what can happen,” he added.
Larry Miller believes wholeheartedly that the county “is intentionally trying to erode my property values as well as my property.”
But the Millers had a new outlook and reportedly have agreed to take down the dam and open up the wash, said Engers, who met with Larry Miller and Tony Miller Wednesday.
“They’re still afraid the water will devalue their land, but we will allow them to protect the fence line. The county will be doing a appraisal so we can obtain the right of way across Miller’s land,” Engers said.
Wayne Miller confirmed the meeting and said the county admitted things could have been done differently.
“They were in the wrong and we were sort of in the wrong, but they agreed we had the right to protect our land and our cows,” he said. “We had a good meeting and they listened to all our concerns.”
In the end, the county agreed to buy 10 acres to run a channel toward the San Pedro River and hope to have the details worked out by September.
“We worked out a deal with the Millers, so now we can proceed with taking care of the flooding problem in the area,” Engers said.
State statute
Arizona Statute 48-3615. Violation; classification; civil penalties; strict liability required by section 48-3613.
B. A person who violates subsection A of this section is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor.
C. A person who violates this chapter or rules adopted pursuant to this chapter may be assessed a civil penalty not to exceed the fine chargeable for a class 2 misdemeanor. Each day the violation continues constitutes a separate violation.
D. A person who without written authorization from the board of directors damages or interferes with a facility that is owned, operated or otherwise under the jurisdiction of the district is strictly liable for both of the following:
1. Any actual damages to persons or property that is caused by the damage or interference.
2. Payment of costs to the district for remediating the damage or interference.
Herald/Review reporter Shar Porier can be reached at 515-4692 or by e-mail at shar.porier@bisbeereview.net.
Mike Jackson wrote on Jul 2, 2007 1:52 PM: