MINUTES
Coconino Plateau Water Advisory Council
April 25, 2008
USGS Building #3
2255 N Gemini Drive,
Flagstaff, Arizona 86001
Water Advisory Council Members Present
Liz Archuleta, Chairman, Coconino County
Deb Hill, Supervisor, Coconino County
John Kocjan, City of Page
Joelynn Roberson, Hopi Tribe
Lena Fowler, Navajo Nation
Barry Baker, Tusayan-Valle
Bob Michaels, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
Brenda Smith, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Rory Steinke, Coconino National Forest
Ron Sieg, Arizona Game and Fish
Matt Capalby, Arizona Department of Water Quality
Tom Whitmer, Arizona Department of Water Resources
Virginia Riedel, Coconino NRCD
Liz Archuleta, WAC Chairman, opened the meeting and began with introductions from those present.
The first item on the agenda was discussion of funding and financing CPWAC operations and projects. Tom Whitmer introduced the topic by giving background to the establishment of watershed groups around the state. He said in the late 1990’s there were 17 watershed groups, now there are 12 actively supported by ADWR. He said that four groups have paid coordinators and those are the Yavapai County Water Advisory Committee, Upper San Pedro Partnership, Gila Watershed Partnership, and the Northern Arizona Municipal Water Users Association. He proceeded to review the funding and budget for each of these entities.
Yavapai County Water Advisory Committee is funded by each city/town and the County contributing $1 per person annually. This generates over $220,000 annually which is used to employ a full time coordinator and to assist in funding water resource studies. He said the coordinator is an employee of the County which serves as the fiscal agent for the group.
Lena asked if the tribes contribute. Tom said he was not sure, he thought they may be included in the County unincorporated portion.
The Upper San Pedro Partnership has an executive director who develops an annual administrative budget and Sierra Vista, Fort Huachuca, Cochise County, and The Nature Conservancy contribute funding. The 2008 Administrative budget was $152,000 which includes a full time coordinator and part-time admin staff. He said that contributions fluctuate, but this budget includes $44,000 from Cochise County, $24,000 from Sierra Vista, $42,000 from Fort Huachuca, $36,000 from The Nature Conservancy, and $6000 from a private developer.
Deb asked if the private developer has a seat at the table. Tom said yes, they own thousands of acres and had submitted a request to be a member.
The Gila Watershed has been around since the early 1990’s and is the oldest watershed group in the state—known as the “Gila Monster.” Each city/town and the County contribute $1 per person annually. This generates about $40,000 annually which is used to employ a full time coordinator. The partnership also provides a percentage of all grants obtained by the coordinator up to a combined salary of $75,000.
The Northern Arizona Municipal Water Users Association (NAMWUA) has their TAC develop the annual budget. Half of the budget is split evenly between the nine member cities. The remaining half of the projected budget is divided among the nine member cities based on population. The annual budget is approximately $33,000. The coordinator’s expenses are currently averaging $1000 per month. The member cities are Payson, Williams, Flagstaff, Prescott, Prescott Valley, Cottonwood, Clarkdale, Sedona, and Chino Valley. He said that costs that exceed projected budget are divided among the members.
Liz said they will be addressing this more at the June retreat and try to come to a decision whether one of these models or some other method would work best for the CPWAC, the members will need to take this discussion back to their member agencies. Liz said that she would work with Sue in coming up with a budget proposal. Don Bills asked if anyone has estimated in-kind contributions and suggested other member agencies do so.
Leslie noted that in Yavapai County the TAC is chaired by the coordinator and that there are no other committees, she asked how other WAC’s work. Tom said the USPP is more like the CPWAC in that the coordinator attends meetings but doesn’t chair them.
Virginia asked if Tom attends all other WAC meetings. Tom said ADWR is represented either by him, John Fortune or Leslie Grazer.
Next item on the agenda was a report from the Statewide Water Advisory Group (SWAG). Tom discussed ADWR’s conceptual revenue sources for the water resources development fund which had first been presented to the WAC by Tom Carr at their March meeting, and presented to the SWAG at their last meeting. Tom reminded everyone about the creation of the fund which is housed in WIFA, but there is no funding and that’s why ADWR came up with some recommendations for potential revenue sources. (A copy of ADWR’s power point presentation is available from CPWAC)
Tom said that when this was presented to the SWAG the general response from Phoenix/Tucson was that don’t want to pay for rural projects, AMWUA thinks rural Arizona should pay for their own water development projects, and developers oppose impact fees on new construction. Tom said they hope to enlist support from rural areas, particularly those around the cities in Phoenix area.
Matt mentioned Pat Mulroy’s approach to Las Vegas, noting that the rural areas control the metro water sources. Tom said that it is different here due to SRP’s control of the water. Matt said it is then an SRP watershed approach, not rural vs. metro.
Deb noted the irony of this in light of the SWAG discussions behind SB1575 and related Water Development Fund. She asked for recommendations in pursuing political support. Deb suggested transaction tax on water recreation as a possible source as well-e.g. boats, swimming pools, etc.
Cynthia White, Friends of Flagstaff’s Future, said they should capitalize on tourism relative to water use-tied to Deb’s suggestion.
Liz said they will be looking for advocacy as this discussion progresses.
Tom said that Dave Brown from Apache County had raised a good point about the rural water use for power plants serving metro areas.
Next on the agenda were committee reports. Don Bills reported for the Technical Advisory Committee, noting that the At-Risk Water Resources Research Project was progressing and that the workshop would be held next week. Don reviewed the regional groundwater flow model scenarios that the TAC was considering, noting that these are related to the scenarios reflected in the appraisal level study and which will be considered with the feasibility study. There are three scenarios: future without a project-relying on groundwater to meet projected future demands; tribal demands met by project and all non-tribal met with groundwater; and all tribal and non-tribal unmet demands met by pipeline—with this scenario groundwater would still be relied on to meet current demands at the same rate with no new pumping. Don said once the model is run the TAC will report back to the WAC. Brenda asked how much additional model runs would cost. Don didn’t have that information. Don noted that the non-tribal demands are based on 20% conservation. Liz asked for a vote of the WAC to support using these scenarios. On a motion by Brenda, seconded by Ron the WAC unanimously supported this proposal.
Next was a report from the Government Affairs Committee with Joelynn Roberson reporting on behalf of Joanne Keene. She reviewed the advocacy efforts that have been made, also mentioned that the committee was developing a plan for outreach to the legislature.
Matt Capalby suggested including candidates for local elections in outreach, as there is some misinformation out there in regard to WAC and any pipeline or other projects. Cynthia White said she would like to play a role in getting accurate information out to the community.
Liz said that in terms of advocacy in pursuing authorization for the feasibility study, she would like the Executive Committee to meet with Senator Kyl and asked the WAC to authorize this. Tom mentioned that the fall back position is still the rural water supply act.
Patricia Cox made the report for the Public Outreach Committee. She distributed a brochure that the committee had developed and asked for comments. She said they are developing speaker guidelines, and gave more information on the website. Liz thanked Deb Hill for all of her work as the chairman of the Public Outreach Committee.
Next was discussion of the retreat. Holly Yeager worked through the agenda and distributed the pre-retreat survey. Liz said that they are trying to find a speaker to be motivational in regard to the topic of a “water ethic.”
After further discussion Liz announced that the next meeting was scheduled for May 30 and adjourned the meeting.