Coconino Plateau Water Advisory Council
February 23, 2007
USGS Building #3
2255 N Gemini Drive,
Flagstaff, Arizona 86001
Water Advisory Council Members Present
Eunice Tso, Vice-Chair, Navajo Nation
Deb Hill, Coconino County
Joe Haughey, City of Flagstaff
John Kocjan, City of Page
Jerry Sekayumptewa, Hopi Tribe
Tom Whitmer, Arizona Department of Water Resources
Brenda Smith, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Scott Reger, Arizona Game and Fish Department
Bob Michaels, Bureau of Reclamation
Nora Rasure, Coconino National Forest
Stu Lovejoy, Kaibab National Forest
Barry Baker, Tusayan
Michael Macauley, Coconino NRCD
Lisa McNeilly, The Nature Conservancy
Charlie Schlinger, NAU
Eunice Tso, Vice Chairman, opened the meeting and introductions were made.
Eunice noted that the approval of the January minutes will be on next months’ agenda.
The first item for discussion was an update on the feasibility study and process. Leslie said that her best estimate is that it would take four years and $2 million to do a feasibility study, but that was dependant on the number of alternatives that are studied. She noted that with a 50/50 cost share that would be $1 million federal and $1 million non-federal, some of which would come from ADWR. She noted that the time frame and cost are subject to change, but that was her best estimate. Eunice asked about in-kind resources. Tom said they can’t with federal-to-federal but he expected that WAC members will be looking at that type of in-kind match.
Eunice asked if Reclamation would do the work in-house or contract it out. Leslie said the plan of study will list the tasks and identify who is responsible for doing what and cost estimates. She said the plan of study is all they can do without authority to proceed to feasibility.
Eunice asked about the schedule. Tom said that they are currently seeking authority, and mentioned that there are two other areas in the state that are looking for similar congressional authorization. He said that there has been a briefing with Sen. Kyl and others in the Arizona congressional delegation about all three. He noted that Navajo and Flagstaff have also been lobbying Kyl.
Tom then gave a power point presentation that was a refresher on the appraisal study, and also explained the TAC recommendation regarding limiting the focus of the feasibility study.
Tom reminded everyone that the appraisal study confirmed that there would be an unmet demand to 2050. He reviewed the background, evaluation, and filters that were used. He reviewed the alternative supply-distribution lines to the identified demand centers. He discussed the limitations on length, costs, etc., that were used to filter the initial 11 alternatives. He said those 11 were narrowed down to six alternatives, and they were then evaluated for completeness, effectiveness, efficiency, and acceptability. He said the results of that evaluation were as follows: alternative 5 (Lake Mead) was too costly; alternative 6, there is no authority for the Grand Canyon National Park to deliver water to Williams; the R-aquifer, which was the basis of alternative 4, had uncertain yields. In light of this, the recommendation of the TAC would be not to focus on these three alternatives.
Tom said that the TAC recommendation was that an EIS be done as part of feasibility, with the emphasis on components of alternatives 1-3. Tom emphasized that it wouldn’t exclude the others, but they would not be the focus. Tom said that is not to say that they wouldn’t be elevated in consideration, depending on what comes up in the Study.
Lisa asked about the Lake Powell pipeline to Williams. Tom said it is part of alternative 3 which includes a variety of distribution line scenarios from Lake Powell.
Joe Haughey said that certain assumptions made in the appraisal study now appear to be changing, in particular the ability to use Colorado River water. He asked if they will be re-evaluated through the feasibility study. Tom said yes, they will be reviewed in more detail. Joe said he was comfortable with the demand-related assumptions, but has concerns with the supply-related assumptions.
Tom said that the demand centers could be expanded through the feasibility study—such demand centers could include Hopi villages, and Navajo chapters of Dilkon and Leupp.
Deb asked how that would happen. Leslie said that they already have a request from Hopi to be added, and the WAC has agreed to that. Technically it would involve incremental expansions of adding pipeline to certain areas, and it makes sense to do it now through this process.
Mike Macauley asked what water right priority has settlement given to Navajo and Hopi. Tom said they were unquantified water rights.
There was discussion regarding the Colorado River water which will be available in 2010 through the Indian Water Rights Settlement Act. Other options include Colorado River water rights in tied to Yuma, and other tribes with Colorado River Water rights.
Mike stated that 80-85% of water used in agriculture actually goes back into the system, unlike urban water. He noted that this is never taken into account when talking about water users.
Charlie Schlinger asked that as the demand centers are added would they expand the supply to include the N aquifer. Tom said he doubted it. Don Bills said that the study doesn’t address any existing water sources that will remain in use, if Hopi and Navajo are using N aquifer water now.
Mike asked about watershed health. Tom said that the TAC is working on that issue as a result of the strategic plan. Mike asked if there had been any thought given to “renting” the Black Mesa Pipeline instead of building a new one. Tom said that it is in bad shape and would cost a lot to fix it. Leslie said that they could look at that, especially with the Lake Mead option. A cost/benefit analysis could be done through the EIS.
A question was asked about any limitations based on interbasin transfers if other geographic areas are added. Tom said that early discussions included some communities to the south, but there was no real interest from those cities and towns. He said that there would not be interbasin transfer issues related to surface water. He said that there are issues associated with the allocations for upper and lower basin Colorado River Water and where they are used. He said this issue also affects New Mexico and Utah.
Deb asked about timing for adding the new pieces to the study. Tom said that there is no timeline for that now.
Charlie asked how the feasibility study will treat the proven uncertainties of surface water supplies. Leslie said they will have to be pretty specific since the outcome of the study will be a recommended project for construction.
Kurt Harris, audience member, asked about the proposed alignment for the Lake Mead pipeline alternative following the Black Mesa pipeline. Tom said it was deliberately drawn that way.
The next item on the agenda was a report from the Government Affairs Committee. Eunice said that they are in the process of reviewing the tasks assigned to the GAC in the strategic plan and getting into more detail with those. She said that they will be developing a white paper for common message and want to work with the Public Outreach Committee to work on that together. Brenda suggested a joint meeting with the GAC and POC in April.
Eunice said that they weren’t planning anything for Arizona Water Day with the state legislature this year, but the GAC suggested hosting a WAC day in Flagstaff during the summer.
Tom said he was still looking into arranging a briefing with Kyl’s staff.
Deb Hill gave the update from the Public Outreach Committee. She said that they are moving forward with the strategic plan objectives regarding water education, particularly looking at existing programs and making them available as a resource. She reported that the POC was working on a logo and developing a web site. She said that Coconino County has agreed to host the site and will be using the Upper San Pedro Partnership site as a model. Brenda Grey with Coconino County will be the lead, and they may have the web site up by next month’s meeting.
Leslie asked that they revisit the TAC report item from the agenda, noting that the reason for Tom’s earlier presentation was to identify TAC’s recommendation that the feasibility focus on three alternatives, and they are asking the WAC to approve that approach.
Eunice said that the WAC may want to review it in more detail and provide comments before voting.
Discussion ensued regarding the proposal. It was clarified that the recommendation is not just for three alternatives, but rather for focusing on the components of alternatives 1-3. It was emphasized that if the WAC supports this recommendation it would not drop the other alternatives from further consideration, and they could come up again as higher priority, but it would allow the scoping to focus on what the filter identified as the more feasible alternatives.
Nora asked to clarify that it was being suggested that the WAC take a month to review the power point and then come back next month to vote on the TAC recommendation.
Ray Benally said that time is a real concern as it relates to federal funding. He said they need to show that something is underway as there is much competition for the money. Joe Haughey concurred and felt they needed to move forward.
Deb Hill asked if one month would really make that much difference. She noted that not all members were represented at the table today.
Eunice asked if the WAC representatives wanted to provide formal written comments.
Tom reminded everyone that they had already voted to go forward and seek authorization for the feasibility study. He said that all that is being recommended at this point is to narrow down the focus of the scoping.
Deb said she was concerned and asked for a bit more time to consider it and requested that the WAC take a formal vote on the recommendation.
Tom suggested that the WAC take formal action at the March meeting, but in the meantime the TAC will continue with this track in mind. Tom said that the scoping document will ultimately be run by the WAC for approval before proceeding.
Mike said that the earlier issues are brought up the better, he would prefer to have a full discussion at this point rather than down the road.
The final item on the agenda was a report from Tom Whitmer on the Statewide Water Advisory Group (SWAG) and other legislative issues. Tom said that there were quite a few water-related bills introduced, but most of them are now dead. He reviewed the list he compiled dated February 21, 2007.
The meeting adjourned at 12:00 p.m.