|
| Affiliation | Independent |
|
| Name | Richard N. Morrison |
| Address | 720 West Elliot Road
Gilbert, Arizona 85233, United States |
| Email | rnmorrison@msn.com |
| Website | [Link] |
| Born |
June 04, 1947
(76 years)
|
| Contributor | Thomas Walker |
| Last Modifed | Thomas Walker
Oct 17, 2006 01:55pm |
| Tags |
|
| Info | Name: Richard N. Morrison
Address: 720 West Elliot Road, Gilbert, AZ 85233
Phone: (H) 480-892-8696; (M) 602-524-5757, (W) 602-801-9078
EMail: rnmorrison@msn.com
Website: www.morrisonforwater.com
Fax: 480-503-0785
Occupation: Attorney, Salmon Lewis & Weldon, PLC; Trustee of Marvin R. Morrison Family Trust; Partner in family-owned farming and ranching enterprises: MBR Land I, LLP - MBR Land II, LLP - Morrison Brothers Ranch, LLC - Morrison Brothers Windmill Ranch, LLC - J&M Land & Investment Co., LLLP; Episcopal Priest
Previous Occupation: Navy Pilot; Faculty Associate, Arizona State University; Assistant Professor, College of Business, Northern Arizona University
Education: Doctor of Jurisprudence, University of Houston, 1977; Master of Arts, San Francisco Theological Seminary, 1991; Bachelor of Science in Management, Northern Arizona University, 1970
Birth Date: June 4, 1947
Family: Married to Elaine for 32 years. We have two adult daughters.
How long have you lived in Arizona? Continuously since 1947, excepting only my period of military service from 1970-76.
What is your party registration and how long have you been registered as a member of that party? Independent since 2003; Republican from 1972-2003
Previous public offices you've sought/held: Previous public offices sought: Salt River Project Board of Governors, defeated in 1980
Previous public offices held: Director of Roosevelt Water Conservation District and Director of Electrical District No. 5 of Maricopa County
Civic organizations in which you've been active? Executive Committee of the Morrison Institute of Public Policy; United States Department of Agriculture National Advisory Council on Rural Development; Arizona Town Hall; Pollution Control Corporation of Maricopa County; Arizona Republican Caucus; East Valley Partnership; Desert Botanical Garden; Governor’s Williams AFB Re-use Advisory Committee; Institute for Servant Leadership; C.W. & Modene Neely Charitable Foundation; Mesa Chamber of Commerce; Rotary; Valley Leadership; Trustee of Claremont School of Theology; Trustee of Seabury-Western Theological Seminary; Chancellor of the Episcopal Diocese of Arizona.
Do you have any sort of a criminal record or any outstanding civil judgments? Please be specific. None
EIGHT QUESTIONS
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?
Three circumstances combine to prompt my candidacy. First, having grown up on the ditch-bank of a Gilbert-area farm, and seen each day the dramatic effects of water in a desert climate, I know first hand the importance of a reliable and affordable water supply to the health and prosperity of Arizona’s residents. Second, I have a professional interest in policy questions, especially as they relate to water. Third, I was asked to run by some East Valley residents who want a representative of the East Valley on CAWCD’s board. My life circumstances right now make it possible for me to respond to that invitation with a commitment to serve, if elected.
List your top two priorities. Please explain each.
The issues of top priority for me are (1) making sure CAWCD has acquired enough water supplies to fulfill its groundwater replenishment obligation beyond 2035, and (2) developing and/or recruiting the next generation of top level management and staff for the district. CAWCD has done a good job of forecasting the replenishment obligation it will face through 2035, and it has identified possible sources of water that might be used to fulfill that obligation. However, I believe it would be prudent to be more aggressive in acquiring the rights to additional water that will be needed beyond 2035. There is no reason to suppose that Arizona’s growth will stop at the end of the current forecast, and I know from talking to the staff of the Arizona Municipal Water Users’ Association there is general uncertainty about the extent to which municipalities in the CAP service area will be able to renew the existing long-term leases acquired through Indian water rights settlements. As to the second item, I have a high regard for CAWCD’s management and senior staff, but many of them are nearing retirement age, and some may retire in the next few years. My experience can help the district prepare current employees for advancement and/or select the appropriate persons from outside CAWCD who may be needed to succeed current management.
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.
I rate the current management and staff of the CAP very highly. I have worked with CAWCD’s staff for many years in the context of Indian water rights settlement negotiations, enrollment of lands within the groundwater replenishment district, the interpretation of water service subcontracts provisions, and occasionally with respect to water policies generally. I like the staff and senior management personally, and respect their professional abilities. It has been reported to me that some persons seeking election to the board believe that senior management is no longer as responsive to the interests of CAWCD’s constituency as in the early years of contract negotiations, that staff and management aren’t listening as much or as well as they should. To the extent there may be a need to improve communications, I believe there are ways of doing that without replacing the very experienced staff on which CAWCD is, frankly, very dependent. Until persons can be groomed for succession or others can be identified who possess the requisite training and experience, CAWCD needs the current members of the management team for their institutional memory and understanding of the myriad commitments CAWCD has undertaken through its contracts and policy choices.
Do you support Arizona's water bank and its agreement with Nevada? Why or why not?
Yes, the Arizona Water Banking Authority is a critically important part of ensuring the full utilization of Arizona’s entitlement to Colorado River water, and it is an important part of multi-agency planning involving CAWCD and the Arizona Department of Water Resources, as well. Banking creates a stored reserve of water that can be accessed during times of drought on the Colorado River. The Authority is also permitted to contract with entities in California and Nevada to store their unused Colorado River water for a fee. (It is important to note that when this is done, the bordering states are not acquiring water rights from Arizona—these other states are storing their own unused entitlements. The benefits to Arizona include cash payments—the agreement with Nevada required $100 million to be paid to Arizona in 2005—as well as replenishment of Arizona’s aquifers. Then, when Nevada, for example, is ready to use its stored credits, it draws water directly from Lake Mead, and Arizona withdraws the same amount of water from its groundwater aquifers.) I believe this arrangement is commonly misunderstood, which results in charges that Arizona has sold “its” water to Nevada, but that is not a correct description of what is happening. I am not personally convinced that Arizona needs to help Nevada store its unused entitlements, but the Authority can do so without harming Arizona. Unquestionably there is enhanced water management associated with being able to facilitate water exchanges through the Arizona Water Banking Authority.
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?
The canal should be lined, and the effort should continue to find a way to deliver a portion of Mexico’s Colorado River entitlement to delivery points that can be served by the canal. In the case of the All-American Canal, Mexico has no legal right to the seepage-water. However, there are moral, ethical, and environmental issues associated with the practical dependency that has arisen on the part of Mexican citizens who rely on seepage from the canal as a source of water that can be withdrawn from the ground in Mexico. Lining is generally a good water conservation practice, however, and there are significant examples in our own state of lands being brought into production where the water saved from lining earthen canals was made available to the farmers who paid for the lining. Many Mexican water experts acknowledge that the water at issue has been a 60 year bonus, taken out of California’s entitlement to Colorado River water. Arizona has sided with Nevada in supporting the canal lining project because it is at the foundation of a seven- state agreement to share Colorado River water, an agreement that requires California to decrease the quantity of water it takes from the Colorado. The concern is that the failure to line the canal could cause the seven-state agreement to come unwound.
Do you favor restarting the Yuma Desalting Plant? Why or why not?
Yes, the Desalter should be operated (I understand that it is expected to run at 1/3 capacity next year), and its full capacity should be preserved because, as expensive as it is to operate, running the Desalter may prove to be more feasible than replacing river flows, especially if Yuma area drainage water is the source water as opposed to Wellton-Mohawk drainage water. Yuma area groundwater requires less pre-treatment before desalination and is lower in salinity. While the operation of the Desalter is primarily a Bureau of Reclamation responsibility, Sid Wilson of the CAWCD should be credited with forming the YDP/Cienega Workgroup that held a productive dialogue among diverse opinions regarding the operation of the Desalter. The workgroup has identified (for the Bureau of Reclamation) ways to offset the impact of the continued bypass of return flows from Wellton-Mohawk and to preserve the viability of the Cienega de Santa Clara.
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 both cloud seeding and the removal of tamarisk trees. Arizona should also continue to explore creative new financing mechanisms for the construction of pipelines and other delivery mechanisms that will enable additional quantities of reclaimed wastewater to be transported across jurisdictional boundaries to the locations where such water is needed. The Phoenix metropolitan area is already producing far more reclaimed wastewater than is being put to productive uses because of the great distances between the point of processing and those locations where the reclaimed wastewater is needed or could be used. As an aside, such financing mechanisms may also facilitate the resolution of a growing concern among water experts about the fact that the CAGRD member lands are pumping groundwater in areas far removed from the location of CAGRD’s replenishment. (The CAWCD board governs the Central Arizona Groundwater Replenishment District “CAGRD.”) To solve this problem, Arizona may need to facilitate the financing of new pipelines for the delivery of potable water from the vicinity of recharge and replenishment to high-growth areas where CAGRD member lands have only groundwater available currently.
Was the Gila River Indian Community settlement good for Arizona? Why or why not?
I worked on the Gila River Indian Community Water Rights Settlement Agreement for 17 years, so I have an admitted interest in its outcome. The settlement was a great achievement! The Gila River settlement is the largest Indian water rights settlement in U.S. history, and it represents the collective wisdom of hundreds of the best water minds in the country. It is also important to acknowledge that it was a consensual agreement. Each signatory to the agreement had the option not to participate, but in the end, all participants concluded that their interests, and the interests of those receiving water from them, were best served by entering into the settlement. People who criticize Indian water rights settlements tend to forget that pending litigation resolved through the settlement process was intended to stop non-Indian defendants from using some or all of the water they were using from Arizona’s river systems and from the aquifers in a hydrological connection to those river systems. In the case of the Gila River Indian Community, the Community had federally protected claims large enough to command all of the water available in the entirety of the Gila River in a year. The objective of the settlement was to resolve pending litigation and to prevent the loss of water by those who had already grown dependent upon its use. The settlement did that, and did it in ways that were creative (using remedies beyond those available to our courts). The consensual agreement helped many of the settlement parties secure reliable water supplies long into the future, and it also created needed flexibility for the exchange of water and for resolving potential environmental impacts. Finally, the settlement paved the way for a reduction in Arizona’s repayment obligation to the United States for the construction costs of the CAP system.
[Link] |
 | BOOKS |
 |
|
| Title |
Purchase |
Contributor |
|
| Start Date |
End Date |
Type |
Title |
Contributor |
|
| Date |
Category |
Headline |
Article |
Contributor |
|
| INFORMATION LINKS |
|
|
|
