Coconino Plateau Water Advisory Council
October 26, 2007
Hopi Tribal Offices
5200 E. Cortland Blvd., Suite 200
Flagstaff, Arizona
Second Floor Conference Room
Water Advisory Council Members Present
Joelynn Roberson, Hopi Tribe, WAC Vice Chairman
John Davison, City of Flagstaff
Ray Benally, Navajo Nation
Tom Whitmer, Arizona Department of Water Resources
Scott Reger, Arizona Game and Fish Dept.
Bob Michaels, Bureau of Reclamation
Brenda Smith, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Don Bills, USGS.
Joe Stringer, Coconino National Forest
Barry Baker, Tusayan
Pud Colquitt, Sedona
Lisa McNeilly, The Nature Conservancy
Nikolai Ramsey, Grand Canyon Trust,
Joelynn opened the meeting and asked everyone to introduce themselves.
The first item of business was approval of minutes from the August 31 and September 28 meetings. On a motion by Tom Whitmer seconded by Brenda Smith the minutes were approved as submitted.
The next item was an update on the NCAWS feasibility study cost estimates and plan of study. Leslie Meyers, Bureau of Reclamation, made this presentation. She noted that there have been three TAC meetings to discuss the estimates since the September WAC meeting. She distributed the most recent revisions as of yesterday. She said that they have filled in a couple of blocks since the last WAC but one that they are still waiting on is the Denver estimate for the Cameron to Grand Canyon/Tusayan reach. The total cost estimate for the feasibility study is now $13,111,000.
Lisa McNeilly asked about the EIS. Leslie said they are now back to recommending a complete EIS instead of a programmatic one.
Leslie gave a TAC report as well, stating that at the meeting yesterday the TAC started discussing the strategic plan again, and had approved a letter drafted by Don Bills in support of the continuation of the C-Aquifer monitoring program and asked for the WAC to vote in support of sending it to the appropriate BIA officials.
The discussion returned to the feasibility study cost estimates. Tom noted that the current proposal increased from $3,000,000 to $13,000,000. He clarified that the original estimate was based on the San Juan (Navajo-Gallup) study, which turns out to be really an appraisal level study and not feasibility level. Tom said that they also looked at other feasibility studies proposed or underway nationwide, and the current figure is in the ballpark.
Joelynn said that there have been a number of meetings to discuss the current proposal and agreed with Tom that the current proposal is consistent with others around the country.
Joelynn asked for questions and there were none at that time.
Tom said that they have talked to demand centers including Williams and Grand Canyon and they are on board with this proposal and want to remain in the study.
Joelynn noted that the bottom-line $13 million does not provide for any contingency. She said that some of the work that’s been done or will be done can off-set these costs. She also talked about the cost-sharing opportunities.
Tom noted that the final number would change based on Denver’s estimate for the Grand Canyon portion. Brenda clarified that that is the Cameron to Grand Canyon to Tusayan reach.
Don said that the total amount will be split between federal and local.
Tom said that the time frame for the study would be that the reach between Lake Powell to Cameron would be first, completed within 18-24 months. The complete study would take 4-5 years.
Tom said that components not presented in the current document but that are part of the study include the political, legal, and institutional aspects. He said that these will also be addressed through the feasibility study and that the TAC will take the lead on a lot of that.
Nikolai asked if they will be looking at the C-aquifer as well as the pipeline alternative. Tom said yes, it is included under the Red Gap Ranch. Nikolai asked for clarification on the Grand Canyon/Tusayan water. Tom said that the appraisal study for Grand Canyon which was done separately includes an objective to keep Roaring Springs’ water in the Park and only sell to Tusayan in case of emergency.
Barry Baker concurred and said that John Beshears from the Park told him they are still considering the infiltration gallery alternative.
Nikolai said that there are major concerns with Tusayan pumping affecting springs in the Park. It sounds like they won’t be coming up with an alternative to groundwater pumping in the near future.
Tom asked if there was general agreement with the current proposal or if anyone had heartburn with it. There was no further discussion. After a point of order was made that they should take a vote Tom made a motion to pursue feasibility authorization for the current plan of study presented today with an estimate of $13,000,000 subject to final amount per Denver’s estimate for the Grand Canyon/Tusayan reach. Lisa seconded the motion. There was a call for a vote. Sue Pratt noted that she and Joanne Keene would be voting proxies for Coconino County representatives Liz Archuleta and Deb Hill who were both absent. The vote passed by consensus with no opposition.
Joelynn reminded everyone that the WAC had already voted to pursue a 50/50 Federal/Local cost share.
The next item on the agenda was report from Joanne Keene, Government Affairs Committee Chair. She said that the GAC had met this morning and discussed the next advocacy trip to DC. They are planning to go November 5-7 and she noted that they will be modifying the draft legislation based on the new estimates. Tom asked who would be going to DC. Ray Benally said he thought Stanley Pollock would be there representing the Navajo Nation. Joelynn said she and Scott Canty from Hopi, Joe Haughey from Flagstaff, County representatives, and maybe Cheryl Lombard from The Nature Conservancy.
The next item was an update from Tom on SWAG and other legislative issues. Tom said that there hasn’t been a lot of activity but discussed a few of the subcommittees.
He said that the SWAG will be meeting on November 30 to consider proposed legislation from the lot split subcommittee chaired by Deb Hill, Coconino County Supervisor. He explained the problems related to county lot split authority and the new adequacy requirements. He said that the subcommittee will be proposing legislation and see if the SWAG will support it.
Tom said the third subcommittee hasn’t met yet, they will be addressing Rural Water issues. He also mentioned that the Rural Water Development Fund did not have any appropriations.
Tom said that there was a private well subcommittee which submitted a white paper to the SWAG last year that supported monitoring of private wells, but it was not endorsed by the SWAG.
Next, Tom discussed SB1575, the Water Adequacy Bill that was passed by the legislature last session. Tom reviewed the history of ADWR adequate/inadequate supply determinations outside of Active Management Areas (AMA). He explained the provisions of SB1575 that allow County’s to adopt adequacy requirements for subdivisions, noting that it requires a unanimous vote of the Board of Supervisors to do so. He said if a county does adopt an adequacy requirement then all cities and towns within the county must adopt it as well. Cities and towns can opt in on their own if the county does not adopt the requirement. He said there are some exemptions, one is for hauled water and one is if a significant amount of capital has already been expended by the subdivider. Tom said ADWR is currently drafting rules related to the new law. He said that the current definition of adequacy states that it will “not cause water table to decline below 1200 feet from surface.”
Tom said that during the rulemaking process they will look at several groundwater basins outside of AMA’s and will try to develop adequacy that is more specific to those basins. He said that after the first of the year they will do another series of public meetings around the state, presenting the draft rules. Right now Cochise is the only county that has indicated they will adopt without waiting for the new rules.
Nikolai asked if a county opts in before the rules are completed if it is implementable. Tom said yes, under the existing rules. In response to another question, Tom clarified that if a county adopts the adequacy requirements under SB1575 it is for all future subdivisions, not on a case-by-case basis, and that it can’t be rescinded once it’s adopted. There was more discussion about the concern of counties that the adequacy would prompt more lot splits which would not have to demonstrate adequacy.
Pud Colquitt asked how this affects private water companies. Tom said that if a City or Town adopts the adequacy requirement it would apply to the local provider. There was discussion about Sedona being split by two counties.
Barry asked Tom who was working on the R-aquifer science for this. Tom said no one was yet, that they would be looking at the USGS model.
Don Bills mentioned that the City of Williams is still pursuing their own information for new wells. He said that the R-Muav aquifer is included in the USGS regional groundwater model.
In concluding the meeting Joelynn pointed out that the November 30 SWAG meeting conflicts with the next WAC meeting. The discussion next month would be a report from the DC advocacy trip. Joelynn said that the November 30 meeting would also be at the Hopi Tribal offices.
Lisa asked about the status of the AWI grant. Sue Pratt explained that the proposal had been submitted and they were waiting to hear back. Sue said that the research grant was based on one of the environmental goals from the strategic plan related to developing criteria for identifying and prioritizing at-risk water resources. She said that Abe Springer is the project lead.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at noon.