Coconino Plateau Water Advisory Council
March 30, 2007
USGS Building #3
2255 N Gemini Drive,
Flagstaff, Arizona 86001
Water Advisory Council Members Present
Liz Archuleta, Coconino County, WAC Chairman
Lena Fowler, Navajo Nation
Jerry Sekayumptewa, Hopi Tribe
Tom Whitmer, Arizona Department of Water Resources
Brenda Smith, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Ron Sieg, Arizona Game and Fish Department
Bob Michaels, Bureau of Reclamation
Nora Rasure, Coconino National Forest
Bob Hart, USGS
John Rihs, Grand Canyon National Park
Palma Wilson, National Park Service
Barry Baker, Tusayan
Michael Macauley, Coconino NRCD
Lisa McNeilly, The Nature Conservancy
Bill Linville, Doney Park Water
Nikolai Ramsey, Grand Canyon Trust
Liz Archuleta, Chairman, opened the meeting and introductions were made by those present. On a motion by Tom Whitmer, seconded by Ron Sieg the minutes were approved as submitted.
Larry Stevens, curator of ecology at the Museum of Northern Arizona, began his presentation on Coconino water resources and heritage waters in particular by stating that springs are very important due to their high biodiversity and that they are threatened by human activity. Larry noted that Arizona is second to Oregon for the number of springs, and that they only know about one-quarter of the springs in the state. He showed a map of named springs and said that water stored in the ground is between 3000 to 10,000 years old. He described the types of springs and complexity of springs. He noted that there is significant diversity with springs and the important role they serve in attracting and supporting upland species.
Larry mentioned that there is a Heritage Water Proposal with funding available through the Arizona Water Institute to take stock of water resources statewide. The proposal is to identify those that are important hydrologic resources and develop criteria for nominating a site-such criteria include hydrological/biological, cultural, historic, and legal significance. Larry said that there will be a symposium at MNA in late May or June.
The next item was a presentation by Abe Springer on the Arizona Water Institute. Abe reviewed the organizational structure which includes the vice presidents for research at all three state universities. He said that their research themes were hydrologic information system. They have one year appropriation and are looking for permanent appropriation through the universities. Abe reviewed some of the projects that have been funded through AWI including heritage waters, technology, water quality/treatment, fund ADHS analytical facility lab, estrogenic compounds removal at wastewater treatment, tribal support, and, watershed assistance.
Abe said that the Hydrologic information system includes web-based access to water related data. He gave the web address of www.sahra.arizona.edu/wells/ for well data. There was some discussion about collaborative efforts with state agencies for sharing information on web sites.
Liz asked about possible liaison from the WAC to the external advisory board. Abe suggested that the WAC identify a couple of representatives for future vacancies. He said that there may be money available from the institute to support WAC efforts.
The next item on the agenda was a report from the Technical Advisory Committee. Leslie Meyers, TAC chair, gave an update on the feasibility and scoping process. Leslie said that the TAC spent most of their meeting going through the strategic plan, she distributed their report and reviewed it with the WAC.
She said that the USGS is developing a regional groundwater model and will make a presentation to the WAC in the late summer/early fall.
In regard to the conservation goal #5 the TAC needs more direction from the WAC on what the conservation award would be.
Leslie said that a sub-group had been formed to address some of the environmental goals, and their first issue is to define the geographic area to study. They will come back with a recommendation to the WAC on this matter.
Brenda asked if Abe and the sub-group would continue to work on environmental goals 1,2, and 3. Leslie said yes, they will continue to move forward.
Liz thanked Leslie and the TAC for developing a work plan and suggested that monthly reports with brief updates, or longer if more substantial.
The next item was consideration and a vote on the TAC recommendation to focus on three alternatives for the feasibility study. Leslie said that the TAC is recommending that an EIS be done concurrent with the feasibility study. She said that the EIS will compare all of the alternatives, but the TAC recommends that the scope of the feasibility focus on three alternatives, and that the feasibility add demand areas for the Hopi Reservation , and other Navajo communities if they so desire.
Liz reviewed background, noting that the WAC voted in August to move forward to feasibility. Today they are just considering the current recommendation from the TAC. Liz noted that some of the members already have this on their Federal legislative agenda and have been lobbying their congressional delegation. These include ADWR, Navajo, City of Flagstaff, and Hopi. She noted that the County doesn’t have it on their official federal agenda but will soon. Liz said that she would be asking the Government Affairs Committee to put a formal group together with key messages for lobbying.
Brenda Smith said that she agrees with the TAC recommendation. She has a concern about leaving the Lake Mead alternative out, but provided it is reviewed in the EIS and can come back if it deemed appropriate to do so.
Nikolai noted that the EIS process will require comments from the larger public, which would address all alternatives.
After further discussion Liz asked if there was any opposition to the TAC recommendation, and there was none.
Ray Benally said that they don’t need to include Leupp and Dilkon in this study as they are being addressed in other studies.
Liz asked Ray if it would be harmful to include them. Ray said yes, given direction by their attorneys. Lena said that Leupp has not asked the Navajo Nation to be included. Discussion ensued regarding this matter. Lena said that she appreciated everyone’s input and concern for the communities but that the Navajo Nation has taken a position and she asked that the WAC respect that.
Liz called for a motion related to the TAC recommendation to focus the feasibility on three alternatives, proceed with the EIS concurrent with the feasibility, and to add the Hopi reservation. Bob moved approval, which was seconded by Tom and unanimously passed.
The next item on the agenda was a report from the Government Affairs Committee. Brenda Smith said that they were working through the strategic plan and developing a work plan. They were hoping to have a join meeting with the Public Outreach Committee to discuss some overlapping items. Liz asked if an advocacy/lobbying group would be established. Brenda said yes, Tom would be developing some key messages for that group to use.
The next item was a report from the Public Outreach Committee. Pat Cox said that the logo designs have been narrowed down to 3 or 4 from the original 16. They will be sent out to the WAC to vote on. They are working on their strategic plan assignments as well. The County has agreed to host the web site and is developing the draft organization of that.
The next item was a legislative update from Tom Whitmer. Tom reviewed the water adequacy bills SB1575 and HB2693. He said it will require a unanimous vote of the County Board of Supervisors to adopt an adequacy ordinance, and that there are some exceptions that can be authorized. He said that there will be a session law that will enable DWR to facilitate a process to define adequacy based on specific regional basins.
HB2692 is the Water Development Fund Bill which would be housed under WIFA and has been expanded to include “designated water providers” otherwise limited to cities/towns/and counties that have adopted adequacy requirements.
The other bill was HB2484/SB1638 which is the well contamination bill. Tom said the SWAG will continue to address key issues.
The next item was nomination for chair and vice chair. Liz discussed this and said that she wanted to raise the issue today for elections at the next meeting.
In regard to the executive and finance committees, Liz said these were recommended through the Strategic Plan and the need for money is starting to come up so that a budget will be necessary. She said the executive committee would be to assist the chair and was intended to include the chair and vice chair of the WAC, all subcommittee chairs, and an ad-hoc member.
It was suggested that the awards development per the TAC question should be one of the first items for discussion by the executive committee.
The next meeting was announced for April 27 and the meeting adjourned at 11:54.