Arizona Water Pioneers – Carl Hayden

Few people might equate silence with power but that’s just the sort of paradox that defined Carl Hayden. Known as the “Silent Senator”, on the occasions when Hayden spoke before Congress, it was always with brevity and impact. What little Hayden said usually spoke volumes to his colleagues. He was known as a man of “sterling character” and his solid reputation and modesty helped usher in an era of water projects which would tame the West. He will especially be remembered as a persistent, driving force behind the massive Central Arizona Project (CAP), which ultimately helped Arizona acquire the water resources needed to become the burgeoning state it is today.

Hayden had a natural understanding of the importance of water in the West. He knew early on that the West’s greatest challenge with water was there was either too little or too much. As a child he experienced the great flood of 1891; one of the largest floods known to hit the Phoenix area.  This flood was devastating to the frontier town which was cut it off from communication with the outside world for three months. Farms, homes, bridges and more were wiped out. Families were displaced and several people were killed by the raging torrent. Locals began to clamor more fervently for controlled sources of water.  Hayden saw the destruction first hand which provided him with valuable insight on Western water issues.

In addition to his understanding of water issues, Hayden also had the benefit of political longevity. He was so well regarded by the citizens of Arizona that his political career spanned an impressive sixty-seven years. He began his calling at the local level, serving in a number of local and county positions within territorial Arizona. When Arizona became a state in 1912, he was elected to the House of Representatives for seven terms.  He then became a U.S. Senator in 1926 and remained there until he retired in 1969.

His support for consistent and reliable water resources in Arizona began with one of the first federal reclamation projects – the Salt River Project. The purpose of the newly founded Reclamation Service was to “reclaim” arid lands by providing a regular source of water for irrigation. At the time, the federal government believed that irrigation was at the heart of making land hospitable enough for settlers to move west. Without a reliable source of water, it was very tough for early pioneers to make a living.

Hayden was also successful in getting an engineering study completed for his Gila River constituents who wanted piece of the reclamation service pie. This ultimately led to the construction of the Coolidge Dam on the Gila River and the San Carlos Irrigation District.

In the 1970s, he wrote and secured passage of a provision which allowed local water-user associations to ultimately take over the maintenance and operations of federal reclamation projects. This seemed to make life easier for the locals as well as the feds.

His ultimate water resource accomplishment would culminate when the Central Arizona Project was finally authorized through the Colorado River Basin Project Act in 1968. He carried forward a collective vision from the 1920s for a centrally located Arizona water project but was unable to overcome continued resistance by various factions and special interests both inside and outside of the state.

The history of the Colorado River water allocations are far too complex to express in a couple of paragraphs. Suffice it is to say that it took decades of committees, meetings, negotiations and eventually multiple Supreme Court cases to work though some of the water rights issues pertaining to the Colorado River.

The finalized Central Arizona Project would provide much needed water for the rapidly growing state.  The CAP is now one of the nation’s largest and most expansive water resource projects. It flows an impressive 336 miles from the Colorado River’s entry point at Lake Havasu and ends about 14 miles south of Tucson. Its flow provides water to more than 5 million people.

Hayden’s support for western water projects also extended outside his home state of Arizona.  Hayden supported Oregon with the Bonneville Lock and Dam and other water projects seeking to control the Columbia Rivers.  He also backed some projects in California, Arizona’s water nemesis, mainly because he saw the greater good that could come from such an approach. He helped secure federal funding for northern California’s Central Valley Project and supported southern California’s Metropolitan Water District.

Bruce Babbitt, former U.S.  Secretary of the Interior and former Governor of Arizona may have summarized Hayden’s career contributions the best when he stated: “Westerners living in the modern era and those of future generations would always be indebted to Hayden for his help in bringing life-giving water to arid lands and the countless benefits that flow from multiple-use developments of the river resources of the western United States.”*

 

* Babbitt quote from the Introduction to “Vision in the Desert – Carl Hayden and Hydropolitics in the American Southwest” by Jack August, Jr.; page 2.

Bibliography:

August, Jack L. Jr. “Vision in the Desert – Carl Hayden and Hydropolitics in the American Southwest”. Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, 1999.

History of Central Arizona Project, Central Arizona Project website. http://www.cap-az.com/about-us/history. Accessed 5-March 2017.

Hundley, Norris Jr.  “Water and the West – The Colorado River Compact and the Politics of Water in the American West.” University of California Press, Berkley, 1975.

Powell, James Lawrence. “Dead Pool – Lake Powell, global Warming and the Future of Water in the West”. University of California Press. Berkley, 2008.

“With a Crash – Fell Many Adobe Homes Last Night”, Arizona Republican, 20 February 1891, pp. 1, 4.

Arizona Water Pioneers – William Beardsley

beardsleys-crop
William Beardsley (left) and his son Robert Beardsley, around 1920. (Photo courtesy of Library of Congress, HAER ARIZ, 7 -PHEN.V, 5.8)

Like a late-blooming teenager, 19th century Arizona was still trying to define itself.  Soldiers, miners and rugged pioneers gradually made their way to Arizona to begin life anew in a challenging landscape. These early pioneers quickly realized water was both the key to their survival as well as a powerful force to reckon with. Water, in the Arizona territory, was a double edged sword – there was either too much or too little.

By the late 1800’s, entrepreneurs and visionaries realized Arizona needed consistent, reliable and controlled sources of water to kick-start its growth. In their mind, the best way to meet this goal was by damming rivers and building canals to deliver water where it was needed. Tens of thousands of men were involved in engineering and building dams and canals from one end of the state to the other. One man, unknown to many current Arizonans, devoted a large part of his life to ensuring central Arizona would have the water it needed.  This man was William Beardsley.

What was notable about Beardsley was the fortitude with which he pursued his mission of building a dam and canals to store and divert water.  He would endure a series of setbacks over a 40+ year period that would culminate in a controversial, multiple-arch dam harnessing the Aqua Fria River. Such long term persistence and commitment is a rarely seen among men in any age.

Beardsley was part of a group of “speculative businessmen” who banded together to privately develop the Aqua Fria River. They wanted to harness the river by building a reservoir, diversion dam and series of distribution canals. Work on the diversion dam and canals began in 1892 but stopped 3 years later due to lack of funds. To make matters worse, in the fall of 1895 a flood tore away the west side of the preliminary dam. Things looked bleak. Beardsley was unable to raise money and legal complaints from unpaid contractors forced him into bankruptcy.

The story could have ended here but in a fairy-tale twist, a group of Beardsley’s associates from Ohio took possession of the assets and deeded them back to him so he could continue work on the project. For years he tried to restart the endeavor but the project remained stalled.

As 1902 approached, he started to run into issues with the federal government, specifically with the Department of Interior and the newly found Reclamation Service (now called the Bureau of Reclamation) who was the 800-pound gorilla in Arizona’s water world. Technicalities with surveys and public lands would hold the project up for another 17 years.

Finally in 1919, construction began on a multiple-arch dam designed by engineer Carl Pleasant. This style of dam was selected due to its strength and economy to build. William Beardsley died in 1925 and his son Robert would ultimately finish the project. The dam would be named the Carl Pleasant Dam in 1926 and then renamed the Waddell Dam in 1964 after an investor from New York.

More issues would follow the construction of the dam. Cracks appeared in the buttresses of the dam and much controversy loomed over its safety.  Several engineers poured over plans and reviewed the integrity of the dam. None seemed to agree on the significance of the cracks. Ultimately, modifications were made to ensure the dam’s safety. The required upgrades were completed in 1936.

Historically this dam was unique because it was the only Salt River Valley water storage project successfully completed by a private interest. All the other central Arizona water storage schemes were developed with federal government assistance.  It was also the world’s tallest multiple-arch dam; quite an accomplishment for a private outfit.

Today the project is known as the Maricopa Water District (MWD) which provides power and water service to 60 square mile area west of Phoenix. The new Waddell Dam (built in 1994 and successor to the original Waddell Dam) and resulting Lake Pleasant hold 157,600 acre-feet of water. Water is feed through the 33 mile Beardsley canal and diverted for use through a series of laterals and sub-lateral piping. This lateral piping system is almost 100 miles long. The MWD also has an “interconnect” with the Central Arizona Project (CAP) for collaborative use of the regions water.

What started out as a construction project with his brother George, turned into a multi-generational water business with his son, Robert. Thanks to the fortitude and sheer determination of William Beardsley, the Phoenix area will have water and power for generations to come as well as a beautiful lake for recreation.

Beardsley family – Arizona thanks you!

Bibliography:

  1. Waddell Dam (Pleasant Dam). “Photographs – Written Historical and Descriptive Data”, Historic American Engineering Record, National Park Service, Western Region, Department of the Interior, San Francisco, California, HAER-ARIZ-7-PHEN.V.5.
  2. Giordano, Gerald. “Images of America – Lake Pleasant”. Arcadia Publishing, Charleston, SC, 2009.

Abracadabra – Water from Thin Air!

Technologies are now available which can create water from air – or so they say.  The idea may not be so far-fetched. After all, clouds are merely water vapor floating in the sky. But is this technology viable? Can the sky’s moisture really be harnessed in quantities large enough for human consumption? Let’s take a look.

abracadabra-pix

About a decade ago an Australian man, Max Whisson, garnered a lot of attention for his wind powered machine which could produce water from air. His contraption, initially called the “Whisson Windmill”, harnessed wind to turn vertically aligned blades on his uniquely designed windmill. The turning blades were cooled with refrigerant and had a special coating applied which allowed the condensate (water) to run-off the blades and be collected.  Whisson claimed his machine could produce 2600 gallons of water from the air per day.1

Some people discounted Whisson’s claims and calculations. On the “SkepticForum” website, blogger “Major Malfunction” contested Whisson’s production estimates of “around 7,000 liters per day, even in a light breeze”.2 Using math “which a 16-year-old school kid should be capable of doing in a matter of minutes”, Major Malfunction showed Whisson was off by three orders of magnitude in his production calculations.3

The skeptical blogger may have been onto something. In spite of the flurry of press Whisson received for his invention, he apparently never got any financial backing to bring his idea to fruition. The website related to his patented invention, MAX WATER at “waterunlimited.com” essentially goes nowhere and doesn’t provide any useful information. However, there is a wiki site (PESwiki.com) that offers some additional insight on Whisson’s patents and provides a listing of 2007 news reports on his windmill idea.4

Another water-from-air technology which made US headlines in 2006 is called AquaMagic. Jonathan Wright and David Richards developed “a machine that filters air, condenses the moisture in it, purifies the water and then dispenses it from a spigot on the side” of a trailer. 5 Their intention was to “help first responders and emergency personnel get the hydration they need to do their jobs” at large-scale events, such as Hurricane Katrina.6 The inventors toured 183 cities within the hurricane zone of the United States and also went to South Africa to see if there machine would work well in that environment.7

The AquaMagic machine is pricey with machines staring at $35,000. While they can produce about 120 gallons (1,000 16 oz bottles) of water per day, they use 50 gallons of diesel fuel during the process, making this technology less sustainable than Whisson’s Windmill which solely relies on wind power.8 Scientists and Public Health professionals pointed out that while the AquaMagic machine does have merit, “there are cheaper and easier ways to provide large-scale water purification if cleanliness is the main issue.”9

A broader online review of water-from-air technology shows very few viable options. Most of the designs referenced on the web went to non-functioning websites or broken links. The assumption being these ideas never got any traction. (See “The Conscious Media Network” referencing designs by airwatercorp.com, vapaire.com, globalrainbox.com and others.10)

However, could we have stumbled upon a new conspiracy theory? Maybe the designs were so innovative the patents were bought by international corporate water interests and squashed in perpetuity to maintain a worldwide strangle-hold on water markets. After all, financial projections for the bottled water industry expect the demand to reach $279.65 billion US dollars by 2020.11 Sounds almost believable, doesn’t it?

As it stands now, the only water-from-air technology which seems to have a current market is manufactured by Aqua Sciences of Florida. Their technology runs air over a salt compound which attracts and binds water molecules. A “proprietary hygroscopic water extraction process” removes the salt concentrate from the liquid to create pure water.12

A quick review of the Aqua Sciences website reveals award-winning technology which was field tested during the disastrous Haitian earthquake in 2010 and also in the Saudi Arabian deserts. Their website implies a contract with the US Military on their “Our Products” page and boasts of coverage by major television networks such as Fox News, CNN, NPR, ABC, NBC and the Wall Street Journal.

Could Aqua Sciences really be a viable and scalable option to pull water from the sky? Guess we’ll have to wait and see. While the Aqua Sciences website is still up and running, the most recent online news seems to be from 2015. Wonder if they’ll be bought out by global water interests too?

References

  1. Josh Clark “Why can’t we manufacture water?” Posted 2 November 2007. HowStuffWorks.com. Accessed 6 February 2017
  2. The Skeptic Forums Society. “Whisson’s Windmill” blog by “Major Malfunction.” Posted 11 June 2007. Accessed 6 February 2017.
  3. Ibid.
  4. Munsey, Andrew (editor). “Directory: Max Whisson’s Gust Water Trap Apparatus.” Posted 14 June 2016. PESWiki.com. Accessed 6 February 2017.
  5. Struglinski, Suzanne. “Make water out of air? Utahn goes with the flow” Posted 1 October 2006. Deseretnews.com. Accessed 7 February 2017.
  6. Ibid.
  7. Ibid.
  8. Ibid.
  9. Ibid.
  10. Tresnor, Jules (web master). “The Conscious Media Network.” Posted 2007. Tesla3.com “Human > Water from Air”. Accessed 7 February 2017
  11. Transparency Market Research. “Bottled Water Market – Global Industry Analysis, Size, Share, Growth, Trends and Forecast 2016 – 2024.” Posted 13 October 2016. transparencymarketresearch.com. Accessed 7 February 2017
  12. “Aqua Sciences – Global Leader in Atmospheric Water Generation” Posted 2015. com. Accessed 7 February 2017

“Protein Gets Out Protein”

Do you remember the Era Plus detergent commercial from 1987 which touted the use of protein as an ingredient to help get out protein stains like grass and food? Essentially what they were saying is “like dissolves like.”  Even though water is known as the “universal solvent” because it has both a positive and negative charge, there are some things water simply won’t dissolve, like oils and grease.

So why am I mentioning it? Fracking is occurring at alarming rate around the country. The process uses a water-based concoction of chemicals to force oil and natural gas out of tight shale formations. If oil and water don’t mix then what are the chemicals they include to help extract the oil from the formation? Well most of the oil companies will tell you that’s “proprietary” information – meaning they it’s a trade secret and they don’t have to tell you.

Dr. Dave Healy of the University of Abedeen, U.K. noted in a July 2012 study that while there isn’t a lot of peer reviewed scientific research into the potential environmental impacts of fracking, he believes “there are potentially significant risks from the nature and fate of the fluids used in the drilling and fracturing processes as well as the effects of the natural gas released.”

The FracFocus online chemical disclosure registry states “although there are dozens to hundreds of chemicals which could be used as additives, there are a limited number which are routinely used in hydraulic fracturing.”  On their website they list 58 chemicals commonly used in hydraulic fracking.1 Some of these are petroleum distillates or oil derivatives that act as “carrier fluids” or lubricants to help transport materials into or out of the wellbore; essentially they are petroleum products which help get out petroleum products.

Petroleum distillates are a class of hydrocarbon solvents which include mineral spirits (paint thinners), kerosene, naphtha (used in moth balls), and Stoddard solvent (dry cleaning solvent). They are controversial among environmental and water advocates because of known or suspected health impacts. Naphtha, for example, may have chemical components which are carcinogenic or teratogenic such as benzene and toluene.

Do these chemicals sound like anything you’d like deliberately pumped into the ground under high pressure?

References:

  1. Healy, Dave. “Hydraulic Fracturing or ‘Fracking’: A Short Summary of Current Knowledge and Potential Environmental Impacts”. University of Aberdeen, UK. July 2012.
  2. “What Chemicals are Used?” FracFocus. No date. Web. 27 November 2016.

The Hard Truth about Soft Water

Salt… It’s a known killer but probably not in the way you think. Most of us know the health impacts of too much salt in our diets, such as heart disease, high blood pressure, and edema. Though few of us probably think about how salt from our water softeners may hurt our landscape plants.

“Hard water” is water containing large amounts of naturally occurring calcium, magnesium or other minerals. These minerals interfere with the cleaning power of household soaps and detergents by reducing soap’s ability to lather.  They react with ingredients in soap to produce a sticky scum which can cause plumbing problems.

Calcium and magnesium tend to be less water soluble than sodium and will “precipitate” or come out of solution as a pasty “scale”.  You may have seen evidence of scale as a white coating on the inside of your tea kettle, hot water heater, pipes or other containers which hold water. Scale impedes water flow through pipes and is a poor conductor of heat creating two undesirable situations for your household.

The byproducts created by water softeners are what can harm plants.  Most softeners contain several cubic feet of plastic resin coated with sodium ions. As tap water flows through the conditioner, the positive calcium and magnesium ions are “exchanged” with the positive sodium ions on the resin. They essentially switch places. The calcium and magnesium ions stick to the plastic resin and the sodium ions are released into the tap water. This is why softened water has a mild salty taste.

Eventually the plastic resin becomes loaded with calcium and magnesium and needs to be “recharged” with sodium. That’s where the sodium chloride pellets we buy come into play. Every few days, the water softener flushes out the hard minerals with a concentrated brine solution and replaces those minerals with sodium. The excess salts are discharged as part of household wastewater.

If landscape plants are watered with soft water, they can be “burned” by the sodium in the softened water. Symptoms of salt injury include stunted growth, yellowed foliage and leaf margins which begin to curl and turn brown. These symptoms are similar in appearance to drought stress and can be easily misinterpreted in our arid environment.

So what to do? Fortunately most professional installers are aware that water for outside use needs to remain separate from household water and they take the necessary steps to keep them apart.  Occasionally this separation step gets bypassed. In such cases, homeowners concerned about their landscape plants can switch to potassium chloride as their water softening salt.  Potassium is a macro-nutrient that plants need and won’t harm plants like sodium.

While at the Water Wise program, I perform residential on-site visits and was often asked whether it is important to separate soft water from outside spigots. Many of these visits were for people just moving to Arizona from moister states and they are not familiar with our dry climate. My response was usually very simple. Moist locations have a lot more precipitation than we do which helps flush salt out of the soil and away from plants, minimizing damage. Here salts build up in soils.

Does this mean you shouldn’t use water softeners? No, but it does suggest you need to have a better understanding of how your plumbing should complement your plants. Before installing a conditioning system, get details on how it will be installed and be sure the installers know about your landscape needs.

If you already have a system installed that does not separate inside and outside waters, consider switching to potassium chloride as your water softening salt. Your plants will thank you if you do!

 

Paving the Way with Porous Pavement

Here’s an engineering riddle:  What has the texture of a Rice Krispie treat but is strong enough to support a fire truck? No, it’s not a snack for Superman. It’s permeable pavement.

pervious-concrete
Photo – National Ready Mix Concrete Association (used with permission)

Permeable pavement, also commonly referred to as pervious or porous pavement, is often created using either asphalt or concrete.  It can also include a wide variety of materials such as open-joint paving blocks (called pavers), decomposed granite or gravel pavement, synthetic turf, crushed glass and even wooden decks or boardwalks. The main advantage of all these options is the ability of the material to allow water to flow through it. According to SustainableConcrete.org some pervious concrete, allows “over 300 inches of water per hour to pass through.”

Porous pavement has been around for a few decades and its applications are increasing. Primarily developed as a form of stormwater control, it allows rainwater to seep into the ground instead of contributing to storm drain run-off. Moisture prone states have been using this technique since the 1970’s to control runoff, erosion, flooding and to help recharge aquifers close to the surface.

This technology is gaining new ground in thirsty states like Arizona and California. ConcreteNetwork.com noted that western states have shown an interest in using pervious concrete for its environmental benefits. “For example, pervious concrete is helping communities in California and Washington restore groundwater supplies and reduce pollution of coastal waters, which can endanger fragile aquatic ecosystems and even swimmers.”

Here in Arizona, a number of communities throughout the state have employed pervious pavement in Green Building applications. Flagstaff featured Arizona’s first use of pervious concrete at a parking lot near the Applied Research & Development building, an award winning LEED building at Northern Arizona University.

The City of Scottsdale installed pervious concrete parking at a Park & Ride on Thunderbird and Scottsdale Road in 2014.  Scottsdale Green Building Project Manager Anthony Floyd noted several benefits from using the material. He specifically mentioned how this application acts as an alternative retention basin and therefore re-appropriates land that ordinarily would be dedicated to a retention basin. Also the large pore space or “voids” within the material helps mitigate the heat island effect common in urban areas.

Gary Meyers, Senior Project Manager for the Scottsdale Park & Ride project stated the project has been “well received” and gave the technology a “thumbs up” with “no performance issues to date.”

In addition, Arizona State University (ASU) installed pervious pavement at a parking lot located at the ASU Art Museum in Tempe in 2007 and the City of Glendale installed 140,000 square feet for the Glendale Park & Ride in 2008.

Progressive Hardscape of Phoenix was the primary contractor involved in the Scottsdale, Tempe and Glendale projects. Mike Riggs, General Manager of Progressive Hardscape noted that the cost of permeable concrete is coming more in line with conventional concrete and the applications are increasing. Riggs shared that, depending upon project size and location, the unit cost of permeable concrete can range between $6 – $8 per square foot; about 20% more than typical concrete.

To really determine the viability of using permeable pavement as an alternative to conventional materials, the overall project goals need to be assessed. When considering the environmental benefits, the ability to re-appropriate the land as well as the cost of typical stormwater management systems, permeable pavement can often be a viable economic alternative.

All this is encouraging news for drought prone states like California and Arizona where water retention and infiltration is a key component of economic growth.

– Sandra Hurlbut

Sushi, Seaweed and Sewage

Ah, the delectable taste of sushi. Depending upon on the type of sushi you choose, those tidbits of tastiness embraced in a dark green “nori” wrap are actually encased in seaweed. “Seaweed?” you say. Yes. Seaweed.

Nori is the Japanese name for edible seaweed species of the algae genus Porphyra. While this algae has been a delightful addition to cuisine for centuries, other forms of algae are being put to use in industrial applications ranging from biofuels to wastewater.

algaewheel-closeup
Algaewheel image used with permission.

Arizona can pride itself on being on the cutting edge of algae biofuel research. In the Fall 2014 issue of Arizona Water Resource, The University of Arizona, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Water Resources Research Center (say that three times, fast), reported on two algae testbed projects being funded by the U.S. Department of Energy. The goal of this research is to promote advances in algal technology while being sensitive to the emerging technology’s water footprint.

Essentially what researchers are trying to do is figure out the best conditions to produce a large quantity of algae-based biofuel with minimal water usage. Algae’s high lipid content and the fact it is a renewable resource are two reasons it is suitable as a biofuel.  Currently “estimates for water use range from 3 gallons of water per gallon of algal biofuel to a thousand times that quantity.” With such a disparity, clearly more research needs to be done to minimize water use while maximizing biofuel production. Still, as oil supplies continue to dwindle, we can remain hopeful that algae may become a potential alternative renewable source of fuel.

Another promising algal innovation is from an Indianapolis based company called OneWater. They have developed a small scale waste water treatment system called the “Algaewheel” which was awarded the 2015 Water Environment Federation (WEF) Innovative Technology Award.

Typical waste water treatment systems use a mixture of microorganisms called “activated sludge” to breakdown waste products using a series of aeration tanks, clarifiers, filters and digesters. Most treatment plants are large scale and serve an entire community. They are expensive to build and operate and are usually located on the outskirts of town to reduce the nuisance conditions of odor and noise,

The Algaewheel system is remarkably simple. True to its name, it is essentially a series of rotating wheels coated with a biofilm of algae. OneW
ater’s company website describes the process saying “Algae grow on rotating wheels, using light, CO2 and nutrients. Algae produce oxygen, consume carbon-dioxide, and generate polysaccharides (sugars). Bacteria consume the oxygen and sugars and produce carbon dioxide – completing the cycle.”

The Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) retrofitted their seasonal waste treatment plant at Summit Lake State Park with an Algaewheel system with very good results. Commonwealth Engineers, the consulting engineers for the IDNR Summit Lake project, noted seasonal waste treatment systems have special challenges because the variability in flow rate and load can make it difficult for small treatment systems to meet permitted effluent levels.

Commonwealth Engineers has been pleased with the results at Summit Lake State Park. Their website mentions several benefits the Algaewheel waste water system offers.  Specifically, “it is modest in cost, easy to operate and maintain, readily meets effluent standards even with high variability in flows / loadings, and is operated at a fraction of the electrical costs required by competing “activated sludge” package plant facilities.”

So next time you’re out for sushi, remember that algae isn’t just for lunch anymore.

– Sandra Hurlbut

*I wrote this article in the Fall of 2015 for the Southern Arizona Contractors Association.