MINUTES
Coconino Plateau Water Advisory Council
November 30, 2007
Hopi Tribal Offices
5200 E. Cortland Blvd., Suite 200
Flagstaff, Arizona
Second Floor Conference Room
Water Advisory Council Members Present
Liz Archuleta, Coconino County, WAC Chairman
Joelynn Roberson, Hopi Tribe, WAC Vice Chairman
Joe Haughey, City of Flagstaff
John Kocjan, City of Page
Lena Fowler, Navajo Nation
Tom Whitmer, Arizona Department of Water Resources
Matt Capalby, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
Ron Sieg, Arizona Game and Fish Dept.
Bob Michaels, Bureau of Reclamation
Brenda Smith, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Bob Hart, USGS
Joe Stringer, Coconino National Forest
Barry Baker, Tusayan
Pud Colquitt, Sedona
Lisa McNeilly, The Nature Conservancy
Joelynn opened the meeting and introductions were made by those in attendance.
The first item of business was approval of minutes from the October 26 WAC meeting. On a motion by Tom Whitmer seconded by Brenda Smith the minutes were approved as submitted.
Joelynn suggested they rearrange the agenda and have Lena Fowler give her presentation on Navajo Nation Water Issues next. Lena said that represents the Navajo Nation Water Rights Commission on the CPWAC. She began her presentation by giving some background on the Commission and what their purpose is. She then showed the video “Water for a Nation” which shows how residents on the Navajo Nation obtain their water, which is primarily by hauling it. Lena talked about the proposed San Juan pipeline which is part of the Navajo water settlement with New Mexico.
Lena distributed copies of a map entitled “Waters of the Navajo Nation” and gave a power point presentation. Lena gave said that the Navajo Nation covers 27,000 square miles and includes 17 million acres within the states of Arizona, New Mexico and Utah. She noted that the nation is in both the upper and lower basins of the Colorado River. She said that there are about 175,000 Navajos living within the boundaries of the Nation.
Lena gave some background on the Navajo Tribal Utility Authority which provides electric, water, natural gas, and wastewater treatment to parts of the Nation.
She addressed the challenges for hauling water, which is the primary source for most of the residents on the Nation, noting that of the 6,184 miles of road only 1373 miles are paved and the majority dirt or gravel. She addressed the role livestock ponds and windmills play in the water picture, and noted that treatment of water for drinking is a big issue.
Lena identified some major challenges for the nation including the difficulty of attracting businesses to an area that has little or no infrastructure. Lena concluded by saying that we are all in a regional situation and that the only way Navajo will get the water they need is from the options spelled out in the North Central Arizona Water Supply Study.
Robert Kirk, a hydrologist with the Navajo Nation Department of Water Resources Water Management Branch spoke next, addressing the technical aspects of the Department. He said that the DWR offices are located in Fort Defiance, noting that they cover a large area that is across three states. He said that the DWR includes 20-25 employees in the water management branch with 4-5 hydrologists. Robert said that the San Juan settlement is their major focus right now.
Robert said that it is a large nation, with 110 chapters. He said that there are a lot of deficiencies, noting that on average 40% of the population are below the poverty level, and in some areas it is 70%. He addressed the number of people hauling water.
Lena noted that the average water use for those hauling water is 10-15 gallons per day per family, versus an average in areas off of the Nation of 160 gallons per day. There was further discussion on hauling water, the use of livestock (non-potable) water, and the cost for hauling now versus when the pipeline is completed.
The WAC thanked Lena and Robert for their presentations.
The next item was a report from the Washington D.C. advocacy group who had just returned from their last visit in pursuing support for authorization of the feasibility study. Liz asked for those who attended to report on the visit. Tom Whitmer said that they met with the entire Arizona Congressional delegation, except Jeff Flake. He said that getting the support of Senator Kyl is key to getting the feasibility study authorization. Tom said they met with Ryan Smith from Senator Kyl’s office. He said they discussed the increase in the cost estimate, reminding everyone of the changes. He explained that the original cost estimate of $3 million was based on the cost estimate for the Navajo Gallup study, but it turned out that did not include an EIS, for one thing. Tom also noted the significant differences in the two studies, including the fact that the Navajo Gallup only includes 90 miles of pipeline and ours is over 355 miles of pipelines, includes well fields, and also addresses the needs of 13 demand centers. Tom mentioned a few items that Ryan Smith had raised, including identifying a federal nexus for the demand centers that aren’t part of Hopi and Navajo, and the possibility of pursuing the study by reaches. Tom said that they had explained the federal nexus related to the endangered species act, the springs in Grand Canyon, the national park being a federal facility, etc.
Joelynn said everyone was very positive. She said they explained that the $13 million was the bottom line and did not include any contingency.
Liz said that they need to strategize next steps and said that the Executive Committee addressed this at their meeting yesterday. She said that they will get the necessary information to respond to the questions that had been raised and to get everyone to re-commit to the full feasibility and provide revised letters of support from the WAC members.
Liz asked the WAC to recommit to pursue authority for the entire feasibility study, but to phase in paying for it. She said if anyone thinks they need to go in a different direction, today is the day to bring it up.
Matt Capalby asked if there is any anticipated opposition once the legislation is introduced.
Tom said that the WAC is an inclusive group and doesn’t anticipate any. Liz said that they have over 20 local partners as part of the WAC and sees the strength in the regional approach. Joanne Keene agreed and also noted the transparency of the process.
Liz asked if everyone is fine with staying the course as presented. There was full agreement by the members present with no one expressing any opposition.
Liz said that the goal is to get the letters of support by the next WAC meeting which will be December 14.
The next item on the agenda was a report from the TAC. Leslie gave this report starting with the feasibility study discussion. She noted that the decision to pursue a full EIS was based in part on the fact that it was only estimated to be $600,000 more than a programmatic one, but that the Bureau also saw it as the more appropriate approach. She said that they will prepare a written explanation to distribute to the TAC for review and to then provide to Ryan Smith. Leslie noted that if for some reason any component of the study were to be eliminated at some phase of the study, the EIS for that component would be eliminated as well.
Next, Leslie discussed the cost share agreement. She said that they will start in January looking at turnouts, demand locations, etc. She said that they will need to identify the parties who will participate and how that will work. She said that all parties who will be participating financially or in-kind will need to sign a cost-share agreement before they commence work. Liz said that they will look for guidance from the TAC on what can be used for cost-sharing and what work needs to be done. Tom mentioned the need for increasing funding of the Rural Watershed Initiative.
Liz said that she would like a presentation from the Utah representatives for the St. George pipeline to discuss their financing model.
Matt Capalby mentioned WIFA funds. Tom noted the Rural Water Development Fund as a possible source as well.
Bob Michaels reminded everyone that federal money can’t be used for the local share.
Leslie said that in regard to the strategic plan, the TAC has done a lot this year and will be making a report at the December 14th meeting. She noted that the Arizona Water Institute Grant was funded after all and will help meet additional goals.
Tom mentioned that Leslie will be sending out requests to water providers and demand centers to identify locations and verify demands from the appraisal study.
The next item was proposed bylaws amendments. Liz noted that they would discuss them this month and take a vote next month. She also mentioned that the City of Sedona had made a request to become a voting member of the CPWAC.
Liz said that the proposed bylaws changes included the formation of the Executive Committee, stating that they are not intended to be a decision making authority but would advisory to the WAC. She said that she expects they would meet monthly in advance of the WAC meetings.
Other changes include removing BLM as a member, formally establishing the Vice-Chairman position through the bylaws, and addressing some membership criteria. Liz read the proposal that if a member organization did not have representation at four consecutive meetings they would be deemed as a resignation. Liz explained the thought process behind it noting, however, that she was not part of the discussion with the Executive Committee and had some different thoughts on it. Don suggested that they have some follow-up with the member before just dropping them. Liz said that she would contact them first. Lisa suggested moving them from voting to non-voting. Tom said that the WAC is moving into important discussions and they need the level of commitment from the membership. Matt suggested outreach to Havasupai and Hualapai tribes and asked if they could be teleconferenced in for meetings. Lisa suggested “unexcused absences” and notification of the pending action be included in the proposed changes.
The next item on the agenda was a report from the Public Outreach Committee which was given by Patricia Cox, committee member. Pat said that the web page is up and can be reached at www.cpwac.org. She said that meeting agendas will be put on the site when they are issued and minutes after they are approved. She asked everyone to look at the site and provide any feedback to Deb Hill. She said they are working on a PowerPoint for the January meeting, as well as a brochure and guidelines for a speaker’s bureau. Joe asked if they had done a press release on the advocacy trip. Everyone agreed that would be good to do.
Next was Joanne Keene’s report from the GAC. She said that they will meet at 9 a.m. before the December 14 meeting. They are working on updating support letters and packages to be sent to DC in support of feasibility authorization. They will be reviewing the strategic plan to report on in December.
Tom gave a report on the SWAG, noting that they are meeting today and that Deb Hill is there proposing some legislation from her lot split subcommittee. He said the agenda committee is looking at future issues for SWAG. He noted that he is not aware of any new legislation being discussed at this point.
Matt Capalby mentioned that ADEQ is proposing legislation for water re-use planning.
Mike Macauley asked if the SWAG had ever looked at ability of one well to draw water away from others. Tom said no, although there was an exempt well subcommittee. He said that it’s always been the deepest well and the biggest straw gets the water. Mike noted concerns with the possible impact of the Red Gap and Williams wells on others. Tom said that the Navajo has reserved groundwater rights. Mike asked about “pooling agreements.”
The next meeting is December 14-review strategic plan and accomplishments and next steps. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at noon.