DOCSLIB.ORG

Cities Mean Business

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Cities Mean Business A publication of the League of Arizona Cities and Towns | Summer 2011 CITIES MEAN BUSINESS Arizona City & Town 1 2 League of Arizona Cities and Towns Summer 2011 TabLE OF Executive Committee PRESIDENT Robert Walkup, Mayor, Tucson CONTENTS VIce PRESIDENT Doug Von Gausig, Mayor, Clarkdale TReaSURER DepaRTMENTS Mark Mitchell, Councilmember, Tempe 5 Message from the President COMMIttee MeMBERS Marie Lopez Rogers, Mayor of Avondale 6 Message from the Executive Director Jay Tibshraeny, Mayor of Chandler Gilbert Lopez, Councilmember of Coolidge 12 City/Town Snapshot Byron Jackson, Mayor of Eloy Parker, Arizona Elaine M. Scruggs, Mayor of Glendale Fernando Shipley, Mayor of Globe 14 Window to the Past John Salem, Mayor of Kingman Yuma Territorial Prison Mark Nexsen, Mayor of Lake Havasu City Thomas L. Schoaf, Mayor of Litchfield Park 15 Advertisers Index Scott Smith, Mayor of Mesa Kenny Evans, Mayor of Payson EXTRAS Bob Barrett, Mayor of Peoria Claude Mattox, Councilmember of Phoenix 7 Travel and Tourism Key to Arizona’s Harvey Skoog, Mayor of Prescott Valley Economic Success Lynne Skelton, Mayor of Sahuarita W.J. “Jim” Lane, Mayor of Scottsdale 8 2011 League Annual Conference Rob Adams, Mayor of Sedona Program at a Glance Gerry Whipple, Councilmember of Show Low Bob Rivera, Mayor of Thatcher Alan Krieger, Mayor of Yuma FeatURE 10 Headwinds Temper Near-Term Outlook for Arizona’s Cities and Towns League Staff EXECUTIve DIRectOR Ken Strobeck COMMUNIcatION & EDUcatION DIRectOR Matt Lore EDITOR Arizona City & Town is published EDITOR: Deanna Strange Mary Vinzant by Innovative Publishing Ink. GRAPHIC DESIGNER: Nathan Cole 10629 Henning Way, Suite 8 SALES REPRESENTATIVE: Richard Ochsner GRAPHIC SUppORT Louisville, Kentucky 40241 PRODUCTION MANAGER: Shannon Patterson Phone 502.423.7272 MARKETING: Richard Ochsner Randle Kuehner Fax 502.423.7979 COPY EDITOR: Michael Adkins Spark Design Innovative Publishing Ink specializes in creating custom magazines for associations and businesses. Please direct all inquiries to Aran Jackson, at [email protected]. www.ipipub.com Published July 2011 2011 July Published Arizona City & Town 3 CURTIS GOODWIN SULLIVAN UDALL & SCHWAB ElectionsElections • Open Meeting Law • Code Revisions ZoningZoning •• PublicPublic RecordsRecords •• ConstructionConstruction AA TraditionTradition PersonnelPersonnel andand Personnel Policies • ConflConflicts icts CellCell TowerTower SitingSiting •• Water,Water, Sewer, Power ofof ExcellenceExcellence CableCable TVTV • Sales Tax Collection FACTActFACTAct Compliance Assisting Arizona’s city and town attorneys. WeWe cancan help!help! Contact Susan Goodwin 501 East Thomas Road, Phoenix, Arizona 8501285012 (602) 393-1700 [email protected] 4 League of Arizona Cities and Towns 474187_Curtis.indd 1 4/23/10 2:10:12 PM MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT Cities Mean Business The theme of this issue of Arizona City & Town is “Cities Mean Business.” If it looks familiar, it should. This is also the theme of our upcoming annual conference in Tucson. As the mayor of Tucson, I take this theme to heart. As the national and Arizona economies begin to show slight signs of improvement, I know that it is the cities and towns in our state that will help to catalyze this recovery. Cities do indeed mean business, and as such, we need to continue to look at innovative ways to cultivate our tra- ditional economic drivers such as tourism, in addition to attracting new and emerging technologies that will spur job creation and economic development in our state. This process begins in our cities and towns. In addition, “Cities Mean Business” also demon- strates our dedication and commitment to serving our citizens through the most efficient and productive means possible. Each and every day, cities and towns deliver essential services, and create viable and thriving communities where our citizens can live, work and play. For cities and towns, providing a high quality of life is our business. In this issue of Arizona City & Town, you will find articles on topics that will be explored in more depth at our annual conference later this month. These include an article on Arizona’s economic forecast and the role cities and towns will play in our recovery, as well as the importance of tourism as a vital economic force in our state. I hope you enjoy this issue, and, more important- ly, I hope to see you in Tucson on August 30 at our 2011 annual conference. Robert Walkup League President Mayor, City of Tucson Arizona City & Town 5 MESSAGE FROM THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR The Economic Engine It’s been said before, and it’s abso- opportunity, cities and towns must be an integral part of the lutely true: cities and towns are the effort. The facts speak for themselves. economic engines of the state of Working together, we do have an opportunity to retool Arizona. But what does that really our economic prospects by attracting a diverse group of mean? This topic will be explored industries that may not have considered Arizona before. in the pages of this edition of the Great strides are being made in the renewable energy sec- League magazine and also at our tor, but there are more areas that warrant exploration. We annual conference in Tucson. If we need to capitalize on our proven strengths and expand our are going to be successful as a state horizons to include new businesses that may not have been in attracting new jobs, in growing major players in the state before. Our location in the West and diversifying the economy and makes Arizona an excellent place for transportation hubs, in recovering from a historically severe recession, we must un- distribution facilities, manufacturing and beyond. These derstand how the Arizona economy actually works. challenging times offer our state an opportunity to redefine The numbers are quite amazing. Out of a state with more our strengths and seize new opportunities. than 114,000 square miles and a population of around 6.5 Whatever the future brings, cities and towns will always be million people, more than 5 million — more than 82 percent at the forefront of the Arizona economy. — live in one of our 91 incorporated cities and towns. And, when it comes to employment statistics, nearly 90 percent of the state’s jobs are based in cities and towns. Together, the economic activity within cities and towns produces around Ken Strobeck 91 percent of the state income tax and 93 percent of the Executive Director state’s sales tax proceeds. No wonder that cities and towns mean business in Arizona. This time around, we must learn from the boom-and- bust cycles of our economic past and capitalize on the opportunities we have before us. Why are cities and towns the center of economic activity in Arizona? Because we have visionary leaders who have helped make our cities attractive places to live, profitable places for businesses to locate, and where the infrastructure and municipal services are of the highest quality and are reliable. As policymakers at the state level seek to recruit new business to the state and create new jobs and economic 6 League of Arizona Cities and Towns 1 2 3 1. Main Street – Bisbee, Arizona Photo courtesy of the Arizona Office of Tourism TraveL and Tourism KEY 2. Route 66 – Williams, Arizona Photo courtesy of the Arizona Office of Tourism, © 2008 Kerrick James to AriZona’S 3. Downtown Phoenix, Arizona by Kiva Couchon, Photo courtesy of the Arizona Office of Tourism, Steve Craft Arizona Office 4. Whiskey Row – Prescott, Arizona Economic Success of Tourism Photo courtesy of the Arizona Office of Tourism, PACT s one of America’s largest Travel and tourism is the only and experience someplace new like industries, the travel and export-oriented industry in our state Arizona. We promote this to our own tourism industry has a wide- generating revenue throughout all 15 residents, to the nation and around the spread economic impact. Di- counties. Although the industry is rep- world. We do this because the business rectA spending by resident and international resented primarily by businesses in the of tourism is currently one of the most travelers in the United States averages $1.9 leisure and hospitality sector, transpor- lucrative businesses in the state! billion a day, $80 million an hour, $1.3 mil- tation and retail, it reaches far beyond Whether the traveler is buying gas lion a minute and $22,300 a second, these business sectors. Scores of busi- and snacks at the local convenience according to the U.S. Travel Association. nesses large and small, such as Jeep tours store, buying clothes at the local mall In Arizona, evidence of the economic and boutique stores, exist because of our or specialty boutique store, paying the impact from travel and tourism industry visitor industry. It also creates business entrance fee to one of Arizona’s vari- is equally far-reaching. In 2009, more for printers, florists, landscapers, laun- ous statewide attractions, eating the than 35 million visitors experienced Ari- dry firms and food suppliers that provide local cuisine at an area restaurant or zona as a leisure and business destina- goods and services to the direct tourism staying at a local hotel or resort, this tion. Direct traveler spending generated businesses — all of which work together economic activity creates a cycle that $16.6 billion for our state. That is nearly to keep the travel and tourism industry keeps Arizona’s economy moving in $45 million being contributed to our functioning as a major economic driver the right direction. economy every single day. for Arizona. This money flowed through the In an effort to increase this eco- Arizona economy and directly generated nomic impact, the Arizona Office of 4 more than 157,000 industry-related jobs. Tourism works to promote Arizona as Combined with the secondary employ- a premier leisure and business destina- ment that is generated through this tion to a global audience.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Resource Law Notes Newsletter, No. 8, Apr. 1986
    University of Colorado Law School Colorado Law Scholarly Commons Resource Law Notes: The Newsletter of the Natural Resources Law Center (1984-2002) Newsletters 4-1986 Resource Law Notes Newsletter, no. 8, Apr. 1986 University of Colorado Boulder. Natural Resources Law Center Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/resource_law_notes Part of the Energy and Utilities Law Commons, Energy Policy Commons, Environmental Law Commons, Environmental Policy Commons, Indian and Aboriginal Law Commons, Natural Resources and Conservation Commons, Natural Resources Law Commons, Natural Resources Management and Policy Commons, Oil, Gas, and Energy Commons, Oil, Gas, and Mineral Law Commons, Public Policy Commons, Water Law Commons, and the Water Resource Management Commons Citation Information Resource Law Notes: The Newsletter of the Natural Resources Law Center, no. 8, Apr. 1986 (Natural Res. Law Ctr., Univ. of Colo. Sch. of Law). RESOURCE LAW NOTES: THE NEWSLETTER OF THE NATURAL RESOURCES LAW CENTER, no. 8, Apr. 1986 (Natural Res. Law Ctr., Univ. of Colo. Sch. of Law). Reproduced with permission of the Getches-Wilkinson Center for Natural Resources, Energy, and the Environment (formerly the Natural Resources Law Center) at the University of Colorado Law School. Resource Law Notes The Newsletter of the Natural Resources Law Center University of Colorado, Boulder • School of Law Number 8, April 1986 10:50 John D. Leshy, After the Concrete Sets: The Two Conferences Future Role of the Bureau of Reclamation in Western Water Management Scheduled for June 1:15 Panel: The Natural Resources Law Center will present its Mohamed T. El-Ashry, Policy Options for Improved seventh annual summer program this June, 1986.
    [Show full text]
  • Bureau of Reclamation Yuma Area Office WATER CONSERVATION FIELD SERVICES PROGRAM
    Bureau of Reclamation Yuma Area Office WATER CONSERVATION FIELD SERVICES PROGRAM FY1999 Annual Report & FY2000 Program Plan BUREAU OF RECLAMATION YUMA AREA WATER CONSERVATION FIELD SERVICES PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999 (OCTOBER 1998 TO OCTOBER 1999) What is Reclamation’s Water becoming harder and harder to make any Conservation Field Services Program ? advances in water conservation through structural measures. Most future advances In 1997 Reclamation created the Water in water conservation can be made through Conservation Field Services Pro gram. This improved water management. program is a firm commitment by Reclamation to: What is meant by “Water Management”? * Encourage water conservation through voluntary and cooperative means; Webster’s Dictionary defines * Assist water agencies to develop and “management” as the skilled handling of implement effective water management and something; or the act of planning, directing, conservation plans; and controlling something in a skilled * Coordinate with other state and local manner. Improving water management will conservation program efforts; involve educational effo rts, improving skills * Foster improved water management; and and abilities, changing attitudes and * Assist water districts as they seek perceptions, and application of new efficiency in their water management, as an technology. alternative to other regulatory measures. Water management is not a structural measure. However, it will need to include What is the “Yuma Area”? some structural components, for example, measuring devices and automation The “Yuma Area” is an administrative area equipment. of Reclamation which includes all users of Colo rado River water downstream of Davis How much potential is there for water Dam, except those served by the Central conservation in the Yuma Area? Arizona Project and the Colorado River Aqueduct.
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona's Wildlife Linkages Assessment
    ARIZONAARIZONA’’SS WILDLIFEWILDLIFE LINKAGESLINKAGES ASSESSMENTASSESSMENT Workgroup Prepared by: The Arizona Wildlife Linkages ARIZONA’S WILDLIFE LINKAGES ASSESSMENT 2006 ARIZONA’S WILDLIFE LINKAGES ASSESSMENT Arizona’s Wildlife Linkages Assessment Prepared by: The Arizona Wildlife Linkages Workgroup Siobhan E. Nordhaugen, Arizona Department of Transportation, Natural Resources Management Group Evelyn Erlandsen, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Habitat Branch Paul Beier, Northern Arizona University, School of Forestry Bruce D. Eilerts, Arizona Department of Transportation, Natural Resources Management Group Ray Schweinsburg, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Research Branch Terry Brennan, USDA Forest Service, Tonto National Forest Ted Cordery, Bureau of Land Management Norris Dodd, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Research Branch Melissa Maiefski, Arizona Department of Transportation, Environmental Planning Group Janice Przybyl, The Sky Island Alliance Steve Thomas, Federal Highway Administration Kim Vacariu, The Wildlands Project Stuart Wells, US Fish and Wildlife Service 2006 ARIZONA’S WILDLIFE LINKAGES ASSESSMENT First Printing Date: December, 2006 Copyright © 2006 The Arizona Wildlife Linkages Workgroup Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorized without prior written consent from the copyright holder provided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduction of this publication for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written consent of the copyright holder. Additional copies may be obtained by submitting a request to: The Arizona Wildlife Linkages Workgroup E-mail: [email protected] 2006 ARIZONA’S WILDLIFE LINKAGES ASSESSMENT The Arizona Wildlife Linkages Workgroup Mission Statement “To identify and promote wildlife habitat connectivity using a collaborative, science based effort to provide safe passage for people and wildlife” 2006 ARIZONA’S WILDLIFE LINKAGES ASSESSMENT Primary Contacts: Bruce D.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Department of the Interior Geological Survey Use of a Three-Dimensional Model for the Analysis of the Ground-Water
    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GEOLOGICAL SURVEY USE OF A THREE-DIMENSIONAL MODEL FOR THE ANALYSIS OF THE GROUND-WATER FLOW SYSTEM IN PARKER VALLEY, ARIZONA AND CALIFORNIA By Patrick Tucci Open-File Report 82-1006 Tucson, Arizona December 1982 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR JAMES G. WATT, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L. Peck, Director For additional information write to: U.S. Geological Survey Box FB-44 Federal Building 301 West Congress Street Tucson, Arizona 85701 CONTENTS Page Abstract ........................................................... 1 Introduction........................................................ 1 Purpose and scope ............................................ 2 Location, physical features, and climate ....................... 4 Geohydrologic system............................................... 5 Geology and water-bearing characteristics of units............. 5 General hydrologic setting ..................................... 7 Ground-water conditions in 1940-41 ............................ 9 Ground-water conditions in the mid-1960's ..................... 12 Ground-water conditions in 1980 ............................... 13 Ground-water model of Parker Valley ............................... 16 Model construction ............................................ 16 Model simulation of conditions in the mid-1960's ................ 21 Model simulation of conditions in 1940-41 ....................... 22 Model simulation of conditions in 1980.......................... 24 Model sensitivity .............................................
    [Show full text]
  • Ca-Lower-Colorado-River-Valley-Pkwy
    I • I I I ) I I A REPORT TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES ---1 I 'I I I I THE LOWER I COLORADO I RIVER I VALLEY • PARKWAY I I D- '°'le> F; 1-e. ·• NFS- ' f\CAc:.+... \ V"C. , ~ P,of>oseol I ~~~~=-'~c f~l~~c~~w I THE LOWER COLORADO I filVERVALLEYPARKWAY I I I A proposal for a National Parkway and Scenic Recreation Road System along the Lower Colorado River Valley in 'I California, Arizona, and Nevada. I NATIONAL PARK .i DENVER SEfiViC I ·-.-:. a.t ..1flkllb""ll.--';,.i. n II"~ r.· " •· \..' ;: · I ;:~::::.;.;:;.:J I I I U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service I in cooperation with Lower Colorado River Office Bureau of Land Management • PLE~\SE RtTUR?j TO: I February 1969 I , lJnited States Department of the Interior OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY I WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240 I I Dear Mr. President: We are pleased to transmit herewith. a report on the feasibility anc;l desirability of developing a nation~l p;;i.rkwa,y and sc;enic recreation I road system within. the Lower C9l9rado River· Vaiiey in Arizona, Califo~nia, and Nevada, from the Lake Mead National Recreation I Area and Davis Dam on the north to the International Boup.d:;i.ry ~ith Mexico on the south in: the vicinity of San Luis, Arizqna arid Mexic.o.· . ·. ' .. ·.' . ·. I This :i;eport is based on ci. study 11,'lade by the Lower Col<;>rado River Office ap.d the NatiQnal :Par~ Service pf this Depa.rtmep.t with engineerin.g assistance by the Buqlau of Public Roads of the Departmep.t of .
    [Show full text]
  • Salinity of Surface Water in the Lower Colorado River Salton Sea Area
    Salinity of Surface Water in The Lower Colorado River Salton Sea Area, By BURDGE IRELAN, WATER RESOURCES OF LOWER COLORADO RIVER-SALTON SEA AREA pl. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, PROFESSIONAL PAPER 486-E . i V ) 116) P, UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1971 CONTENTS Page Page Abstract El Ionic budget of the Colorado River from Lees Ferry to Introduction 2 Imperial Dam, 1961-65-Continued General chemical characteristics of Colorado River Tapeats Creek E26 water from Lees Ferry to Imperial Dam 2 Havasu Creek -26 Lees Ferry . 4 Virgin River - 26 Grand Canyon 6 Unmeasured inflow between Grand Canyon and Hoover Dam 8 Hoover Dam 26 Lake Havasu 11 Chemical changes in Lake Mead --- ---- - 26 Imperial Dam ---- - 12 Bill Williams River 27 Mineral burden of the lower Colorado River, 1926-65 - 12 Chemical changes in Lakes Mohave and Havasu ___ 27 Analysis of dissolved-solids loads 13 Diversion to Colorado River aqueduct 27 Analysis of ionic loads ____ - 15 Parker Dam to Imperial Dam 28 Average annual ionic burden of the Colorado River 20 Ionic accounting of principal irrigation areas above Ionic budget of the Colorado River from Lees Ferry to Imperial Dam - __ -------- 28 Imperial Dam, 1961-65 ____- ___ 22 General characteristics of Colorado River water below Lees Ferry 23 Imperial Dam Paria River 23 Ionic budgets for the Colorado River below Imperial Little Colorado River 24 Blue Springs --- 25 Dam and Gila River - 34 Unmeasured inflow from Lees Ferry to Grand Quality of surface water in the Salton Sea basin in Canyon 25 California Grand Canyon 25 Summary of conclusions 39 Bright Angel Creek 25 References ILLUSTRATIONS Page FIGURE 1 .
    [Show full text]
  • Nitrogen Management Bmps Parker Valley Demonstration
    Nitrogen Management BMPs Parker Valley Demonstration Item Type text; Article Authors Watson, J.; Winans, S.; Sheedy, M. Publisher College of Agriculture, University of Arizona (Tucson, AZ) Journal Cotton: A College of Agriculture Report Download date 25/09/2021 03:53:57 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/210297 NITROGEN MANAGEMENT BMPs PARKER VALLEY DEMONSTRATION J. Watson, S. Winans, M. Sheedy Abstract A nitrogen management demonstration was conducted in the Parker Valley in 1994. Grower nitrogen application practices were compared with nitrogen application recommendations based upon pre plant soil samples plus petiole nitrates and plant mapping data. The only significant difference in amounts applied occurred in May, with grower applied rates exceeding recommended rates. Grower rationale for the application was logical, however, it being dependent upon the uncertainty of irrigation timing in June. Introduction A nitrogen management study was initiated in the Parker Valley in the spring of 1994. The intent of the study was to demonstate the implementation of some Best Management Practices (BMPs) for nitrogen application to cotton. Since the implementation of nitrogen BMPs is required in the state of Arizona, and the US EPA is encouraging the adoption of similar regulations on federal lands, it is important for growers to become familiar with the application of such practices in their crop management decision making. The continued protection of the Colorado River and of nearby groundwater from non -point source contamination is important to the maintainence of economic development of the region.It is particularly important for local water users to insure that the perception of their protection of the area's water resources is a positive one.
    [Show full text]
  • Leslie L. Edel Alfalfa Production in the Palo Verde Valley Generally Runs
    LOW DESERT ALFALFA PRODUCTION By: Leslie L. Edel r 'i Alfalfa production in the Palo Verde Valley generally runs around 30,000 acres or roughly 30-33% of the valley's acreage. This past season saw an increase due to the anticipated California drought conditions and potential hay shortage. Needless to say, these conditions didn't materialize and the Colorado River irrigated desert valleys were caught with excessive producti~n in a stressed hay market. our advantage of an ample water supply backfired. The following table shows the difference in acreage: ACREAGES VALLEY 1989 1991 Imperial Valley (CA) 170, ,339 205,467 Parker Valley (AZ) 411 ,700 47,000 Palo Verde Valley (CA) 25, 835 44,202 Yuma Valley (AZ) 31, ,100 40,000 Coachella Valley (CA) 3, 810 1,940 TOTALS 272,784 338,609 The most. pronounced production change in the last 20 yea.rs is - probably the move away from bailing wire and improved land leveling t or dead level borders, and widening of the border in conjunction with the leveling. Recent moves to beds for better salinity or moisture control is being tried by some growers with mixed results. six rows may be planted on the top of the beds and one or two rows on the side of the bed. The two middle rows on the top of the 40" bed sy::;tem usually salt out where salinity is a problem. Besides the low water cost in the Palo Verde Valley of $31-$41/acre of land, the valley is in balance from a salinity aspect.
    [Show full text]
  • Exhibit ___Colorado River Indian Tribes Extraordinary Conservation
    Exhibit ____ Colorado River Indian Tribes Extraordinary Conservation—Intentionally Created Surplus Fallowing Creator: Colorado River Indian Tribes Term: For creation between the effective date and December 31, 2025 ICS Category: Extraordinary conservation from land fallowing Project Description: CRIT will fallow parcels of land on the part of the Colorado River Indian Reservation that is in Arizona. Parcels of land will be designated for fallowing on an annual basis and described in a Creation Plan. At the time of designation each parcel will have a history of irrigation for at least 3 out of the most recent 5 years. Each parcel may be designated for fallowing for no more than 5 consecutive years. Annual ICS Creation Amount: CRIT will create annual amounts of EC ICS by fallowing previously irrigated farm land not to exceed 5,000 acre-feet calculated as a reduction in consumptive use. CRIT will accumulate a maximum of 20,000 acre-feet. Deductions for evaporation and for any delivery amounts may be replenished to maintain a total of 20,000 acre-feet. CRIT may also be creating Compensated System Conservation by fallowing parcels of irrigated land and may designate that part of the consumptive use not compensated as system conservation for EC ICS creation. An example of this would be fallowing 10,200 acres of previously irrigated farm land with a quantification of consumptive use of 5.2 acre-feet per acre for a total of 53,040 acre-feet per year. Of this reduced CU, 50,000 acre-feet would be designated as compensated system conservation and the balance of 3,040 acre-feet designated as EC ICS.
    [Show full text]
  • R Approval of Location of Overhead Telephone Cable Across the Colorado River, Riverside County; the Parker Valley Telephone Company, Inc
    - 18 . MINUTE ITEM 5. APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF LOCATION OF OVERHEAD TELEPHONE CABLE ACROSS THE COLORADO RIVER, RIVERSIDE COUNTY; THE PARKER VALLEY TELEPHONE COMPANY, INC. - W.O. 4891, P.R.C. 3060.9. After consideration of Calendar Item 7 attached, and upon motion duly made and unanimously carried, the following resolution was adopted: THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER IS AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE PARKER VALLEY TELEPHONE COMPANY, INC. , PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 7901 OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE AND OF ATTORNEY GENERAL 'S OPINION NO. 52/56, IN THE FORM PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED BY THE COMMISSION, APPROVING THE LOCATION OF AN OVERHEAD TELEPHONE CABLE, WITH THE NECESSARY APPURTENANCES, ACROSS THE UNGRANTED TIDE AND SUBMERGED LANDS OF THE COLORADO RIVER, ON THE SECTION LINE BETWEEN SECTION 9 AND SECTION 16, T. 2 S., R. 24 E., S.B.B. & M., REFERRED TO AS PARCEL "B", AND AS SHOWN ON MAP FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE STATE LANDS DIVISION. Attachment Calendar Item 7 (1 page) O A 74 9325 S 37 CALENDAR ITEM 7. APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF LOCATION OF OVERHEAD TELEPHONE CABLE ACROSS THE COLORADO RIVER, RIVERSIDE COUNTY; THE PARKER VALLEY TELEPHONE COMPANY, INC. - W.O. 4891. An application has been received from The Parker Valley Telephone Company, Inc., for approval of the location of an overhead telephone cable crossing ungranted tide and submerged lands of the Colorado River out to the thread of the river within the Colorado Indian Reservation in Riverside County, California, 34 miles upstream from Blythe, California, and across from Yuma County, Arizona (see Parcel "B", Exhibits "A" and "B") on the section line between Section 9 and Section 16, T.
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 Annual Report Structure and Approach to Conservation
    Natural Resource Conservation Commissioner Lisa A. Atkins 2020 Annual Report Structure and Approach to Conservation Arizona's population is rising. Around 18% of land is privately owned, 27% is owned by tribes, State lands are about 12% and the remaining 42% is federally owned. We need landowners that can collaborate with multi- ple entities to work on projects and land management practices that conserve natural resources in Arizona. Collaboration is a three-legged stool • Natural Resource Conservation Commissioner provides dis- trict administration, funding, assistance, and training • Natural Resource Conservation Service provides planning and technical assistance, cost-share programs and inspections • Local Natural Resource Conservation Districts identify and pri- oritize resource concerns and use a voluntary, incentive-based approach to engage landowners NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSIONER The Natural Resource Conservation Commissioner administers and coordinates districts throughout the state as directed ARS 37-1013. This is done by: • Providing financial and operational support to Arizona’s 32 Natural Resource Conservation Districts • Design efficient program and policy structures that engage participation and deliver conservation results • Coordinating and promoting conservation district services; providing operation oversight and administra- tion; overseeing district elections About the Arizona State Land Department: http://land.az.gov About the Natural Resource Conservation Districts: https://land.az.gov/our-agency-mission/supported-programs Natural Resource Conservation Districts For more than 75 years, conservation districts have served as trusted, non-regulatory partners who engage landowners in conservation. Each county is represented by at least one conservation district. Conservation district supervisors live where they work, making them the local experts of the landscape and people.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Supply Assessment
    DESERT QUARTZITE SOLAR PROJECT DRAFT PLAN AMENDMENT/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT APPENDIX Y WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR THE DESERT QUARTZITE SOLAR PROJECT RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA PURCHASE ORDER 4800019091 Prepared for: Desert Quartzite, LLC 135 Main Street, 6th Floor San Francisco, California 94105 Prepared by: URS(an AECOM company) 130 Robin Hill Road, Suite 100 Santa Barbara, California 93117 (805) 692-0600 Fax: (805) 964-0259 Job No. 60486157 June 2016 WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT DESERT QUARTZITE SOLAR PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................... 1-1 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW ...................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 WATER REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................... 2-1 3.0 PROJECT WATER SUPPLY SOURCES ............................................................... 3-1 3.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 GROUNDWATER RESOURCES ...................................................................... 3-1 3.2.1 Description of the Palo Verde Mesa Groundwater Basin ........................ 3-1 3.2.2 Regional Hydrogeologic Setting .............................................................
    [Show full text]