Coconino Plateau Water Advisory Council
September 28, 2007
Flagstaff City Hall
211 W. Aspen Ave.
Flagstaff, Arizona
First Floor Conference Room
Water Advisory Council Members Present
Liz Archuleta, Chairman
Deb Hill, Coconino County
Joelynn Roberson, Hopi Tribe
Tom Whitmer, Arizona Department of Water Resources
Ron Sieg, Arizona Game and Fish Dept.
Matthew Capalby, ADEQ
Bob Michaels, Bureau of Reclamation
Brenda Smith, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Bob Hart, U.S.G.S.
John Rihs, Grand Canyon National Park
Carol Boyd, Coconino National Forest
Barry Baker, Tusayan
Lisa McNeilly, The Nature Conservancy
Mike Macauley, NRCD
Chairman Liz Archuleta called the meeting to order at 10 and those present introduced themselves.
Liz suggested they hear the other committee reports before moving to the TAC and discussion of the feasibility cost estimates.
The first report was given by the Public Outreach Committee (POC). Brenda Grey reviewed the website. There was discussion of linking to the member agencies. After further discussion Deb Hill, POC Chair, asked if the WAC members thought it was ready to go live, and everyone agreed it was good to go. There was discussion about putting out a press release to announce it.
There was discussion about adding an “ask an expert” area to the web site that would allow the public to type in a question and somehow it would be directed to an appropriate person for response. Deb Hill said that Don Bills was working on a list of FAQ’s. Liz thought that all sounded good but wanted to make sure a disclaimer would be provided. Deb asked for experts to volunteer to work on appropriate responses. There was discussion about categories and time frames for response.
Deb reviewed some other projects the POC was working on including a pamphlet about the WAC for distribution. Deb also mentioned that they were developing a power point presentation on “WAC 101” to describe who we are, what we do, and water on the Coconino Plateau. After some discussion it was decided that the POC would do a presentation to the WAC for review and approval.
Liz thanked Deb for all the work of the POC.
Next was a report from Tom Whitmer on the Statewide Water Advisory Group and other state legislative issues. Tom said that ADWR has been making presentations around the state about SB1575 that was passed last legislative session allowing Counties and cities the authority to require water adequacy for subdivisions. Tom said overall they’ve had positive response at the meetings.
Tom said that the SWAG has formed a new subcommittee to focus on potential projects around the state and that it is related to the rural water development fund.
The next agenda item was the TAC report and discussion on the new estimate for the feasibility study. Leslie Meyers, TAC Chair, distributed the draft plan of study including cost estimates and reviewed it with the WAC. She said that the TAC reviewed the first version last week at their meeting, and there have been some modifications subsequent to that, resulting in a current estimate of around $10 million. She explained that the estimate identified costs associated with each component or reach. She said there were discussions about doing a programmatic EIS rather than a complete one, which would delay some things to final design stage prior to construction but there would still be enough information to show fatal flaws.
She noted that there were significant costs associated with the EIS for Williams’ wells.
She noted that the last page identified some possible ways to reduce the costs, including the difference between a complete EIS and programmatic EIS, and different levels of effort in other areas. The overall range was just over $10 million to just over $13.5 million. Leslie said that they continue to refine the numbers.
Brenda asked if the Endangered Species Act was included. Leslie said yes, in the EIS.
Deb clarified that the EIS is part of feasibility and that paleontology and cultural resources are part of it. Leslie said yes.
Lisa asked about the time frame. Leslie said that it is still 3-4 years. Senator Kyl has encouraged a stepped-up two-year study she believes 3-4 years is still most reasonable.
Mike Macauley asked about using the Black Mesa pipeline alignment. Leslie noted that was not included as an alternative to move to feasibility. Don Bills said that it was evaluated as part of the appraisal study but fell out at that point due to technical issues. Mike asked about incorporating watershed restoration and watershed health as option. Leslie said that they looked at conservation but that future demands could not be met by those approaches. Mike clarified that he was describing methods about using the watershed to produce more water, not conservation measures per se.
There was discussion about the availability of Colorado River water and a pipeline not being the only answer, but a big part of it, and concerns with relying on groundwater.
Deb asked if the study will include the assumptions from the appraisal study. Leslie said they will work on that at the TAC level.
Liz clarified that range in estimates from just over $10 million to $13.5 million.
Lisa asked for clarification on the money associated with Red Gap and Williams’ wells. Leslie said that was discussed at the TAC meeting and in particular what information is already available in association with these segments of the alternatives.
Liz asked the WAC what they thought about leaving out any reaches which would change the previous decision of the WAC to study the alternatives. She expressed her concern that if they did eliminate any reaches they would lose the regional solution the WAC is pursuing.
Deb Hill said she agrees and would be concerned if they eliminated any segments for budget purposes that they would be making decisions without the feasibility level information.
Liz said she had spoken with Ryan Smith from Senator Kyl’s office and discussed the federal/local split. She emphasized that once she goes to Congress to get authorization and appropriation based on a number, she will not go back in the future to ask for more so it is imperative that they go with a number everyone is comfortable with.
Liz asked for input from the WAC on how they wanted to proceed. Tom Whitmer discussed ADWR’s financial contribution, potentially $500,000 a year depending on continued funding by the legislature through the Rural Watershed Initiative. There was discussion about the ability to provide in-kind matching contribution, although Leslie reminded everyone that the in-kind needs to go towards the scope of work. Liz said that the data entities already have should be identified initially to reduce the overall cost of the study.
There was discussion about whether there was a need to have a full financial allocation by the WAC members before going to DC and the general consensus was that is not necessary at this point. There was discussion about the Bureau of Reclamation’s stance to oppose all requests for feasibility authorization due to their budget constraints.
Liz asked the entities at the table what would be the best way to approach their organizations about what they can contribute, she said we would need to identify approximately $500,000 a year. Those present felt that they would want to meet with their own entity to discuss their financial abilities. There was discussion about possible grants and other agencies that may be able to assist in identifying funding.
Liz asked if the group is agreeing to advocate for approval based on the revised estimate. There was further discussion of the estimates. Brenda stated that they need to keep all water sources in as there could be some fatal flaws that will be revealed through the study.
After further discussion Tom Whitmer moved to pursue full feasibility (including all alternatives previously agreed upon) at $10 million level using the information discussed today. The motion was seconded by Matt and unanimously approved.
Carol Boyd made a motion to advocate for a 50/50 federal/local split, Mike seconded and it passed unanimously
The next meeting will be October 26.