RAINBOW LAKE
Conservation Company, Inc
Conserving Arizona's Water
Reprinted from www.wmicentral.com
Privatization concerns ripple across Rainbow Lake community
Concerns about the future of Rainbow Lake, public access, fish stocking, water rights litigation and the long-term health of one of the White Mountains’ most recognizable landmarks dominated a June 1 Zoom board meeting of the Rainbow Lake Conservation Company.
Residents, lakefront property owners and conservation advocates spent nearly two hours discussing a proposal by the Show Low/Pinetop Woodland Irrigation Company that could fundamentally change how the lake is used and accessed.
“The irrigation company is in a situation where the amount of money that they bring in every year is going to litigation costs,” RLCC Board President David Derickson said.
According to Derickson, the irrigation company receives approximately $70,000 annually through water-use dues and has lost approximately $36,000 in annual contributions from the Town of Pinetop-Lakeside that had supported Woodland Lake over the past three years. He said the company also continues to spend approximately $10,000 per month on attorneys involved in water-rights matters stemming from the Hopi and Navajo water-rights settlement.
Debbie Yost noted that RLCC also has contributed $36,000 annually for the past three years and that 95% of that money was contributed by homeowners at the Shores.
“The litigation established that the irrigation company is entitled to the water rights that it has,” Derickson said. “I don’t understand why they have to pay $10,000 a month to an attorney in St. Johns establishing water rights that have already been established.”
Yost encouraged attendees to consider the irrigation company’s perspective as well.
“I am trying to put myself in the shoes of the local families who created Rainbow Lake from Walnut Creek by creating a dam 110 years ago for the purpose of saving water for irrigation needs,” she said. “There needs to be a contributory cost to maintaining a recreational lake enjoyed by the public. We can’t just say the irrigation guys are the bad guys.”
Several participants said they believe the irrigation company is considering user fees as a way to generate additional revenue.
“The idea is that each lakefront owner will have to pay something for the usage of the lake,” Derickson said.
While no formal proposal has been presented publicly, attendees repeatedly referenced estimates that between $100,000 and $150,000 annually may be needed to address maintenance and legal costs.
Concerns over privatization
The possibility that Rainbow Lake could become a private-use lake generated some of the strongest reactions during the meeting.
Ted Sykes questioned what effect privatization could have on fish stocking and public recreation.
“If they make it a private lake, Game and Fish will not treat it as a public lake and they will not stock Rainbow Lake,” he said.
Julie Elliott said conversations with the Arizona Game and Fish Department indicate those concerns may be justified.
“They have made their last stocking of the lake and will not do it again when the agreement expires in October,” she said.
Participants worried that losing fish stocking could affect not only anglers but also local businesses that rely on tourism generated by the lake.
“There are two commercial fishing operations on the lake and somehow they have to satisfy that there will be fish to catch for their customers,” Derickson said.
Don Lawhead said the consequences could ripple throughout the community.
“The loss of tourism, the closing of restaurants, the devaluation of the properties,” he said. “Everyone needs to be united so that it doesn’t become a private lake.”
Is privatization practical?
Several attendees questioned whether converting Rainbow Lake from a publicly accessible community resource to a private-use facility would be financially or legally feasible.
“My feeling is that the irrigation company has not looked at the cost of privatization,” Derickson said. He pointed to potential costs that could include enforcement, liability insurance and administration.
“If you don’t pay the amount of money for the usage fee, then there is the cost of enforcement that Navajo County Sheriff’s Office would have to incur to come and police the lake for trespassers,” Derickson said. “The sheriff won’t police the lake for free.” He also questioned whether any revenue generated through user fees would ultimately outweigh those expenses.
Others raised concerns about the legal and tax implications of changing the lake’s status. “A tax-exempt status going to private is a very complex process,” Mark Letendre said.
Lawhead noted that privatization could also create significant tax consequences. “The amount of money that Navajo County could tax it would be outrageous,” he said.
The discussion highlighted concerns that privatization could create new financial and legal burdens while jeopardizing public access and recreation opportunities that have existed for generations.
Previous investments raise questions
Several attendees questioned whether years of investment by community members and conservation groups should factor into future decisions about the lake.
The RLCC previously raised approximately $500,000 and contributed about $300,000 toward infrastructure improvements designed to stabilize water levels and reduce losses through seepage and evaporation.
The improvements included piping portions of irrigation infrastructure that had previously allowed substantial water loss.
Eileen Thompson said studies had shown large amounts of water were being lost through unlined ditches.
“Most of the water they were taking out was lost to evaporation or seepage,” Thompson said. “Now there are some pipes due to the efforts of Rainbow Lake Conservation Company.”
Paul Horton, who said he recently prepared a memorandum outlining possible legal options, questioned whether the irrigation company has obligations tied to those investments.
“We paid them $300,000 to fix their irrigation system with the expectation that they would maintain the water level at the lake,” he said.
Looking for solutions
While many participants opposed privatization, Yost said she believes the conversation should focus on solving the underlying financial challenges rather than assigning blame.
“We are looking at $100,000 to $150,000 a year to solve this problem,” Yost said.
She also questioned whether continued litigation would ultimately benefit anyone involved.
“Litigation is for the benefit of the lawyers,” Yost said. She acknowledged the irrigation company’s ongoing expenses, including legal fees, dam maintenance and infrastructure costs, and said any long-term solution would likely require cooperation and financial contributions from multiple stakeholders.
Several participants said they recognize the company’s challenges and are willing to contribute toward solutions.
“We are 100% looking at their point of view and 100% willing to contribute money,” Robin Serna said.
Serna said ongoing discussions with irrigation company representatives continue and that the goal remains finding a solution that benefits the entire community.
“It’s not about not wanting to contribute,” she said. “We recognize and are willing to help and pitch in and pay.”
Serna added that conservation advocates have repeatedly tried to open negotiations. “We literally said, ‘Name your price.’”
As the meeting concluded, participants repeatedly returned to a common theme: Rainbow Lake is more than a water source or a collection of waterfront properties.
“We have put a lot of money into the lake and we want to keep it clean and full,” one resident said.
Thompson, who said she has worked on lake issues since 1993, reminded attendees that Rainbow Lake remains unique among Arizona lakes.
“We are one of the few lakes that is not totally dependent on snowfall and rainfall,” she said. “It is partially spring-fed.”
Throughout the discussion, residents acknowledged that both sides face legitimate concerns.
The irrigation company needs a sustainable way to fund its operations and legal obligations, while community members want to preserve public access to a lake that has become part of the White Mountains’ identity.
As the conversation continues, many hope the answer will come not from doing things the way they have always been done, but from finding a solution that reflects what Rainbow Lake has become: a resource valued by far more people than those who hold water shares alone.