MINUTES
Coconino Plateau Water Advisory Council
May 30, 2008
USGS Building #3
2255 N Gemini Drive,
Flagstaff, Arizona 86001
Water Advisory Council Members Present
Liz Archuleta, Chairman, Coconino County
Carl Taylor, Supervisor, Coconino County
Joelynn Roberson, Hopi Tribe
Lena Fowler, Navajo Nation
Joe Haughey, City of Flagstaff
Barry Baker, Tusayan-Valle
Bob Michaels, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
Brenda Smith, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Rory Steinke, Coconino National Forest
Matt Capalby, Arizona Department of Water Quality
Tom Whitmer, Arizona Department of Water Resources
Nikolai Lash, Grand Canyon Trust
Jean Calhoun, The Nature Conservancy
Liz Archuleta, WAC Chairman, opened the meeting and began with introductions by those present.
A motion to approve minutes was made by Bob Michaels, seconded by Tom Whitmer, and passed unanimously.
Brad Hill provided an update on the City of Flagstaff Red Gap Ranch Project. There are two issues of concern – land stewardship and water resources. He said this includes what the city plans to do with the land, restoration, and identifying wildlife corridors.
In terms of water supply, Brad explained that there are three phases in evaluating feasibility of the project. The first requires looking at four different alignments and selecting one. The second concerns the geotechnical, biological, social, and environmental elements. The third is to prepare a report of this compiled information.
During this first phase of the project the goal will be to conceptualize the design of the pipeline and facilities and to select the preferred alignment. All relevant Federal, State, Tribal, and environmental laws and permits will be identified with many opportunities for public meetings. Ten engineering firms have been evaluated, three have been interviewed. This information will be taken to City Council in the next week for approval. This first phase should take roughly 18 months to complete.
Brad completed the update and asked for questions. A question was asked as to how this study is being integrated with the Bureau of Reclamation feasibility study. Brad said that engineering will be done in compliance with Reclamation and that this will be part of the city’s in-kind contribution to the feasibility study.
Nikolai Lash asks how this project intersects with tribal needs, tribal water supply and desire to develop water in the same area. Brad responds that there has been communication with the Navajo and Hopi and have engaged them throughout this process. Nikolai also questions funding and Brad responds that that is a parallel process and will have hard numbers at the end of the 18 month period.
Another question was asked about the time line for all the phases. Brad replies that it depends but that it will be long term, in line with 20 years. This phase will run about one and a half years and next will come the environmental piece.
Liz asked what ideas are being considered for land stewardship. Brad said that they are actively looking at range management and land restoration. They are working with the Natural Resources Conservation Service, Natural Resources Defense Council, and AZGD; and are addressing livestock and wildlife concerns.
Carl Taylor inquired about the possibility of using renewable energy sources for pumping. Brad answered that alternative ways are being looked into to reduce electricity costs and needs.
Coconino County Supervisor Deb Hill asked if there is an alignment selected. The response from Brad is that there are four or five linear features that would be logical to consider including I-40 and power lines, high pressure gas lines, etc.
Brenda Smith asked about the amount of pumping that will take place by the city. Brad answers 8-16,000 acre feet, consistent with the Bureau of Reclamation report.
Lena Fowler asked if the $1.8 million is part of the City’s commitment to the Western Navajo Pipeline. Brad affirms this.
Jean Calhoun asked about the kinds of pump testing that has occurred. Brad said that there has been scientific work, a 3-day and 7-day test prior to the City’s purchase of the land and are working with the regional USGS. The wells are only in the C-aquifer.
Robert Kirk asked if the Lake Powell pipeline is taken into account. Brad said, yes they were considering that.
Lena asked if the City plans to commit funds to the Navajo Project. Joe Haughey responded that they consider all alternatives working together. The City of Flagstaff supports the Western Navajo Pipeline as well.
Next on the agenda was a report from Technical Advisory Committee which was given by Joelynn Roberson. She reported that the At Risk Water Conference went well and was beneficial. Furthermore, that the Bureau of Reclamation is doing work for and with the tribes, some preliminary geotechnical and field work to understand the depth of rock and total depth to ground which will help with looking at cost issues.
Don Bills provided an update on the USGS regional groundwater flow model. He said that they are awaiting final numbers from the Hopi, Navajo, and City and that the model is still going through the calibration phase. They cannot yet do a simulation and are waiting on projections for Yavapai County.
Tom Whitmer gave an update on SWAG and other State water issues. He reported that new water adequacy rules are being drafted and that meetings are continuing through July. They are looking to take these by August to the Secretary of State and then they will go to the Governors Regulatory Review for final adoption. www.azwater.gov contains the most current regulations.
Sue Pratt reported on the Arizona Water Institute workshop that took place at the end of April. She said that it was part of the TAC’s research project to develop a methodology for assessing at risk water resources, and the group will be meeting in the next few weeks to determine next steps. There will be a final report at the end of the year.
Liz gave an update on the meeting with Senator Kyl, noting that Lena, Joelynn, Joanne, Rick, Sue, Joe, Tom met with the Senator for the purpose seeking authorization for the feasibility study. She reported that Senator Kyl does not feel that Congress would authorize this, as there is no available funding. He suggests waiting for the water rights settlement but there are a few other ways to get it funded; one being to link it to the Rural Water Act forthcoming in the next year. Another would be for the Bureau of Reclamation to do portions of it that they can without full authorization of the study. Senator Kyle will write a letter to the Reclamation to ask them to start work even without full-fledged legislation. Liz noted that he expressed appreciation for the work of the WAC and their regional approach.
Patricia Cox reported on the Public Outreach Committee. Work is being done on a power point presentation for CPWAC that will address who is involved and what is being done so that this can be combined with speaker guidelines and a brochure. This should be ready by July. The Committee has completed all goals in the strategic plan.
Deb said that the Public Outreach Committee had determined that they were not the right group to develop a water ethic, as assigned with the last strategic plan. The committee proposes an ad hoc subcommittee to address this issue. Liz mentions that if anyone knows of any speakers on this topic to let her know so they can invite them to the retreat and that if anyone wants to be on the subcommittee to let her know.
No SWAG meeting since the last WAC meeting, the next one is scheduled for June 13 concerning the Water Development Fund.
Next was discussion regarding possible agenda items for the July 25th and future meetings. Suggestions include input from the group on advocacy authority, update from Sue on the At Risk Water Conference, LCR status briefing, update on the Rural Water Supply Act and draft rules, a report from Joan Card from ADEQ on the impact of water quality on adequacy, a report on endocrine disrupters in the water, and to talk about community concern regarding shallow wells and flooding impacts on septic tanks.
There were some final discussions in preparation for the retreat, included staffing, budget, and discussion of legal status of the WAC, one suggestion was to consider non-profit status in order to pursue grants.
Meeting adjourned at 12:10 p.m.