|Name||William K. Perry|
|Address||517 E. Adair Dr |
Phoenix, Arizona , United States
|| July 03, 1951
|Last Modifed||Thomas Walker|
Oct 17, 2006 01:30pm
|Info||William K. Perry, elected from Maricopa County for a second six-year term in November 2000, currently serves as the President of the CAWCD Board. He served as Secretary from 2001 to 2003, and as Vice President from 2003 to 2005. Mr. Perry is a native Arizonan and has farmed in Arizona since 1974. |
In 1974, Mr. Perry received a Bachelor of Science majoring in Agricultural Economics from the University of Arizona and in 1989 he earned a Masters in Business Administration from the University of Phoenix. Since 1975 Mr. Perry has been extensively involved in volunteer, community, and church activities. Mr. Perry served on the Buckeye Irrigation District Board of Directors from 1987 to 1990; served on the Arizona State Legislature Joint Budget Legislative Program Authorization Review Committee in 1998; served on the Liberty Gin Company Board of Directors from 2000 to 2002; served on the Franciscan Renewal Center Board of Directors from 2002 to 2004; and is currently the Vice President of Paloma Irrigation and Drainage District Board of Directors.
Mr. Perry has two adult children.
Name: William K. Perry
Address: 517 E. Adair Dr Phoenix
Phone: 623-386-5004 (work) 602-695-6262 (cell) 602-277-0883 (home)
Previous Occupation: None
Education: I graduated in 1974 from the University of Arizona with a B.S. in Agriculture Business and earned and MBA from the University of Phoenix in 1990.
Birth Date: July 3, 1951
Family: I am divorced and have two adult children, my daughter is 26 yrs old and my son is 23 yrs old.
How long have you lived in Arizona? I have lived in Arizona all my life (I am a third generation native).
What is your party registration and how long have you been registered as a member of that party? I have always been a Republican.
Previous public offices you've sought/held: None
Civic organizations in which you've been active? I have served on the boards of directors of the Buckeye Irrigation District, the Liberty Gin and the Franciscan Renewal Center and currently serve as a director of the Paloma Irrigation and Drainage District. I also served as the head of the hospitality ministry at the Franciscan Renewal Center.
Do you have any sort of a criminal record or any outstanding civil judgments? Please be specific. No
The CAWCD board toils in virtual anonymity. The subject is complex. There is no pay. Why are you running for a seat on the board?
I am currently the only farmer serving on the board. The CAP will deliver approximately 700,000 acre feet of water (46% of the CAPs annual entitlement) to agriculture in 2006 through either direct delivery or through a Groundwater Savings Facility. I think it is very important that agriculture have a voice on the CAP board.
List your top two priorities. Please explain each.
a). In order for Arizona to get Congressional funding for the Central Arizona Project it had to agree that the CAP water would hold a junior water right status. In return for that junior status the Federal Government agreed to do certain things to help the Colorado River deliver all of its allocated water. The Government agreed to augment the river (most likely cloud seeding). ). For Arizona to receive its full entitlement through the years of drought it is essential that the Federal Government fulfill its obligation.
The U.S. has also committed to operate the Yuma Desalter Plant (which will save about 100,000 acre feet per year) and improving regulatory storage on the river (which has the potential to save between 60,000 to 80,000 acre feet per year).
b). The seven basin states (Arizona, California, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Colorado and Wyoming) are currently involved in shortage sharing criterion discussions. It is very important that the seven states agree to a shortage sharing plan so that the Secretary of Interior doesn’t step in with a separate plan. The results of the Shortage Sharing Agreement are critical to CAP given its junior status.
How would you rate the existing management and staff of the Central Arizona Project? Are they doing a good job or poor job? Please explain.
The management and staff at the CAP are some of the best in the business. Their dedication to the CAP is beyond reproach. In my experience the staff has always responded quickly and professionally to all requests or concerns from either the Board of Directors or from the stakeholders.
Do you support Arizona's water bank and its agreement with Nevada? Why or why not?
I fully support the agreement between the Arizona Water Banking Authority and the state of Nevada. This banking agreement will be a bridge for Nevada as they develop additional water sources in their own state. Nevada will be paying the full cost of the CAP water, full cost of the recharge, full cost for the recovery of the water and will be paying a property tax equivalency charge. As an added bonus the State of Arizona will receive an additional $100,000,000.00 from the State of Nevada above and beyond the costs of the recharge and recovery. The water bank has already stored 237,000 acre feet and the projections for 2006 estimate another 200,000 acre feet of water will be stored. By the end of 2006 the bank will have stored 436,000 acre feet or 36% of the agreed on amount. Studies have shown that even in times of shortage CAP deliveries will not be affected.
The Imperial Irrigation District of California is in a legal dispute with Mexico over the lining of the All American canal. A stay on the construction has been granted by the 9th Circuit Court. Should the canal be lined or not?
I fully support the lining of the All-American Canal. The lining of the canal will be critical to California as they work to live within their 4.4 million annual acre feet entitlement to the Colorado River. The loss to seepage from the unlined canal has been estimated to be 60,000 to 80,000 acre feet per year. This will be water California will be able to put to use that is other wise just lost to Mexico through seepage.
Do you favor restarting the Yuma Desalting Plant? Why or why not?
I favor running the Yuma Desalter Plant (see answer to question # 2). By running the desalter at full capacity, the Colorado River system will save about 100,000 acre feet of water per year. By not running the Desalter, there is a defacto over delivery to Mexico of 100,000 acre feet of water per year. A group of stakeholders met last year and came up with a white paper that addresses the environmental issues concerning the Santa Clare Slough and land fallowing. The Bureau of Reclamation has committed to run the desalter at 10% capacity early in 2007. Prudent water management would dictate that the Yuma Desalter Plant run at full capacity.
Do you support ongoing Colorado River augmentation efforts such as cloud seeding and the removal or tamarisk trees. What other ideas do you have?
I support augmenting the river (see answer to question #2). Improving the regulatory storage (Drop 2) would also be a benefit. It is estimated that between 60,000 and 80,000 acre feet per year are over delivered to Mexico because the Bureau of Reclamation cannot handle the extra water that is in the river as a result of water that was ordered and not used because of weather conditions. Current hydrologic studies have made it clear that the Colorado River was over allocated. The current allocations of water which total 16.5 million acre feet per year (7.5 million acre feet to the upper basin, 7.5 million acre feet to the lower basin and 1.5 million acre feet to Mexico) exceed the current belief that long term annual average runoff is more likely in the neighborhood of 13.5 to 14.5 million acre feet per year. It is now more important than ever to get every last drop of water that can be squeezed from the system to meet the obligations.
Was the Gila River Indian Community settlement good for Arizona? Why or why not?
Overall the settlement was a good thing for Arizona. Whether or not the Community received more water that it was entitled to would only be second guessing. Going to court to settle water claims is risky and costly and the outcome is impossible to predict. With the settlement completed the state parties are able to make long term plans with relative certainty and the Community can plan for their future knowing how much water they will have. The Central Arizona Project can plan financially for the future having settled its repayment debt for the construction of the canal system with the United States.