More than 40 people attended the Nov. 10 public meeting at the Sedona United Methodist Church to voice their concerns over plans for a 1.5-million-gallon Arizona Water Company storage tank intended to  service southern Sedona.

Officials with Coconino National Forest hosted the recent meeting to seek public comment on four separate water tank alternatives. Arizona Water Company representatives proposed the storage tank for U. S. National Forest land southeast of the Chapel of the Holy Cross. A public comment period on the alternatives ended Monday, Nov. 15.

Alternative A would place the tank along the Broken Arrow Trail. Alternative B would locate the storage tank northwest of the Chapel of the Holy Cross, while D would place the tank in the Little Horse. Alternative C calls for no action to be taken in regard to the proposal.

EnviroSystems Management prepared the environmental assessment for the proposals. Arizona Water officials proposed the storage tank to meet what they called growing water demand for future residents and to maintain adequate fire and home services.

Area resident Corrie Cooperman, who lives in the Chapel area, attended the recent meeting. She said she did not support the water tank proposals in any form.

“They sadden me, but the one that saddens me the most is the Little Horse proposal, because it is a pristine area,” Cooperman said. “The other two, I wish something better could be done. One of the others has Jeep roads already in it. Another one has a pretty big edifice with a pretty gigantic parking lot. The Little Horse Basin has nothing but beautiful trails and it’s very pristine.

“It really hurts my heart to think of a mile-long road going into it with trees being chopped down and this gigantic water tank.”

Former state Sen. Tom O’Halleran, current president of Keep Sedona Beautiful, was also on hand for the meeting. He expressed his disappointment in what he called a short timeline in which to seek public comment on the matter of the proposed tanks.

“That’s very unfair, especially in how this environmental assessment has been worded,” O’Halleran said. “Secondly, the area of impact for the Little Horse site is semi-primitive. It is the second-highest ranking of an area that you can have. The only other area that has a higher ranking is a wilderness area.

Throughout the environmental assessment report it identifies time and time again the most impact that any of the alternatives had to scenic quality.”

Judy Adams, lands team leader for the Coconino National Forest, met with residents in the area during the Nov. 10 meeting. She said work first began on the project in 2008 with an initial Arizona Water proposal for the Broken Arrow area. Public concern, however, caused Forest Service officials to look at alternative locations.

“We look at the comments, and we look at other ways to address issues,” she said. “This is a draft environmental assessment document that’s out for review. It’s out for the 30-day comment period. When we sent the letter out announcing this public comment, we told folks that we were leaning toward Alternative D, the Little Horse alternative, but the other alternatives are still on the table.

“We could choose any one of the four, including a no-action alternative. No action certainly wouldn’t meet what the water company needs to provide as a utility. They are trying to provide a gravity flow system.

There’s an elevation at the top of the tank that needs to be there. It’s very limited as far as location is concerned.”

With the public comment period coming to an end, Adams said the next step would be to evaluate those comments and to possibly finalize the environmental assessment.

“The forest supervisor will make a decision and choose one of the alternatives. The forest supervisor, at the time we put this document out, was leaning toward the Little Horse alternative. There has not been a decision at this point,” Adams said.

When it comes to the Little Horse alternative, Adams said residents have expressed a variety of concerns, including the visibility of the tank, pipeline and road access, as well as construction work concerns, which could include a 40-foot construction road and a permanent 12-foot road.

“For that alternative, it is 4,000 feet of roadway,” Adams said. “People are concerned about that and having that new access point in the national forest. There’s concerns about visual quality all the way around, in all the alternatives.

“It depends on who is looking at it, where they’re looking at it from, and how many people can see it from different locations. Certainly the document includes mitigation measures. We will try and mitigate visibility as much as possible with color, with facing, with fencing that has texture and things like that, but it’s a water tank; it’s 1.5 million gallons; it’s visible.”

Keith Self, operations division manager for the Arizona Water Company, said his company determined a need for water storage on the south end of the Sedona system.

“The only available places at the right elevation to build a tank are on Forest Service property, so Arizona Water Company approached the Forest Service with a need and the Forest Service came back to us and said show us some alternatives.

“We came back with some alternatives, potential tank sites. This is part of the process that you go through when you go to the Forest Service for any kind of a conditional use permit. It’s a 30-day public comment period and we had one open house, which is normal, and people wanted another one, so we’re having another open house. It gives people a chance to comment on the alternatives,” Self said.

A 1.5-million-gallon tank, he said, would serve the needs of those living in the area today
and accommodate estimated growth.

“A lot of people want to live in Sedona. Along with that you need infrastructure. You need water, power and the system right now is a little short on storage. You need fire flow and you need water when you turn on the sinks,” Self said.

A new tank, he said, could serve the needs of the community for another 10 to 15 years.

“It’s hard to predict the growth when the economy recovers and the area starts growing again. This tank [the proposed tank] would still be sufficient for this side of town for a long time,” Self said.