Coconino Plateau Water Advisory Council
January 27, 2006
USGS Building #3
2255 N Gemini Drive,
Flagstaff, Arizona 86001
Water Advisory Council Members Present
Liz Archuleta, Chairman, Coconino County
Deb Hill, Coconino County
John Kocjan, City of Page
Eunice Tso, Navajo Nation
Tom Whitmer, Arizona Department of Water Resources
Bill Dowdle, State Land Department
Scott Reger, Arizona Game and Fish
Carol Erwin, Bureau of Reclamation
Joe Alston, Grand Canyon National Park
Barry Baker, Tusayan
Bill Linville, Doney Park Water
Liz Archuleta, opened the meeting at 10:00 a.m. with self-introductions by those present.
The first item on the agenda was formalization of the appointments to the subcommittees. Liz passed around the lists for the agencies to sign up their appointments and asked how everyone was doing in coming up with appointments. Bill Dowdle from the State Land Department stated that given limits on staff and time they wouldn’t be able to participate in all subcommittees, but he would sign up for the government affairs committee. Several other council members expressed similar concerns.
The next item was a presentation by Tom Whitmer about the new ADWR strategic planning process. Tom explained that ADWR was undertaking an effort to have all watershed associations adopt strategic plans which will set the course of action for these groups and help guide their work. Tom explained the difference between the appraisal study and the strategic plan, citing the appraisal study as being more technical and the strategic plan as providing more details and direction-oriented. Tom said the strategic plan would include specific results and benchmarks working toward that result. He said that the goal is to have the WAC, or subcommittee thereof, develop a strategic plan that can be supported by all members. He said it would become the basis and building block for future plans for the region. Tom distributed a draft outline of what a strategic plan might include. Tom asked the council to review it and provide comments on it for future discussion. What he was asking the council to do today was to determine whether they were in agreement about the concept of even developing a strategic plan.
If they were, then the next step would be to provide feedback on the outline and then convene a group (perhaps the Technical Advisory Committee) to pursue the development of the plan.
Deb asked Tom to explain items I and II on his outline. Tom said it means the development of a planning goal and developing purpose of the plan, any planning goals, etc. will ultimately be set by the Water Advisory Council.
Liz asked if ADWR had staff to provide support for this endeavor. Tom said that ADWR would provide staff support, that they are hiring someone to specifically support watershed partnerships throughout the state.
Eunice asked if he wanted the comments via email.
Liz asked the group for feedback on the proposal. Deb said that this was the reason for having the group so she is on board with it and thought it should move forward.
Liz agreed, and further stated that the lack of a framework is reason last attempt of WAC failed. She said that the work that they group has done to date has helped get everyone familiar with the region and felt that this is the logical next step. Liz asked if anyone saw any concerns with the proposal, there being none it was agreed to move forward with the strategic plan.
Joe Alston asked about the regional planning goal. Tom said that will be developed by the WAC for this region and gave an example as “to ensure adequate supply of water to meet regional demands.” Joe asked what type or level of growth that would be based on. Tom said those are the questions that will have to be addressed through the process.
There was discussion of the relationship between the BOR research for the appraisal study and the strategic plan.
Kevin suggested they revisit the goals laid out in original organizational structure work.
Kevin asked Tom to elaborate on water rights and settlement negotiation included in section VI.A of the template outline. Tom said that it really just referred to the sub-items listed regarding data. He did say that in the future it could include projects associated with the settlement process.
Kevin said it would be useful for the WAC to get speakers on settlement issues. He expressed concerns with using this venue to address settlements, particularly as part of a goal of the strategic plan. Kevin also noted that there is a lot of information already developed under section V-technical analysis for the regional water plan.
The discussion on the strategic plan concluded with the request for the council members to review it for further discussion at a future meeting.
The next item on the agenda was a presentation by representatives of Grand Canyon National Park on current and future water demand and supply. John Beshears, Chief of the Facilities Management Division, began the discussion by stating that providing water has historically been a challenge in the Park. He said that all potable water is provided from Roaring Springs, which is classified as groundwater source, not main stem Colorado River water. He said that Roaring Springs is the source for both the North and South Rim developments.
He described the process for establishing the trans-canyon pipeline which pipes the water from Roaring Springs to the south rim. He said it was begun in 1965 and finally completed in 1970. The pipeline ranges from 6” to 8” aluminum pipeline which presented some significant engineering challenges. He said it is in good operating condition, although they do experience some problems and anticipate 3-4 breaks per year. They keep 14 million gallons of storage on the south rim for distribution within Grand Canyon Village and to Desert View. John said that they do have concerns about the infrastructure, that it is susceptible to flooding, and noted that in the early 1990’s they had to import water.
John said that they have been looking at other alternatives for a variety of reasons including environmental concerns. He said they use approximately 600 acre feet per year (including losses) and have been looking at their capability to meet current growth.
Liz asked about the other options they’ve been pursuing. John said they have looked at main stem Colorado River, intake of surface water from Bright Angel Creek at Phantom Ranch, and they had considered developing a well field in the Tusayan area, but that raises other issues related to impacts to seeps and springs in the Canyon.
John described the intake and infiltration system alternative they were considering in the area called “the box” area north of Phantom Ranch.
Liz asked about conservation aspects within the Park. John said that they do use reclaimed water for some limited uses, and have incorporated a significant amount of conservation practices.
Joe Alston, Park Superintendent, mentioned that there is special legislation that allows the sale of water to Tusayan, which he noted was very unusual to sell resources outside the park. He said it could be used to facilitate growth in Tusayan, but it does raise questions.
Eunice asked if it was specific to ground water or surface water. Joe said the presumption is it would be Roaring Springs water. John noted that the Park has no main stem rights. It was clarified that Roaring Springs becomes Bright Angel Creek which drains into the Colorado River.
There was discussion about the fluctuation in flow, and good quality of the water from Roaring Springs.
Barry Baker asked if about 90% of the 600 acre feet use per year recharged. John Beshears said that the South Rim wastewater treatment plant discharges into Bright Angel Wash, determined by the State to be an effluent dependant wash, after about 1-1 ½ miles it disappears and goes somewhere, presumably recharging into the ground.
Joe Alston said that some of the flow from Roaring Springs discharges back in to Garden Creek at Indian Gardens, due to overflow from a pipe. He noted that the trans-canyon pipeline is never turned off.
Deb Hill asked if all seeps and springs discharge in the Redwall formation? John said that all seeps and springs come out at an area of impermeability, from just below the rim to at the river, so there are several formations where discharge may occur. Joe Alston noted that Roaring Springs and Thunder River are in different formations.
Deb asked about concerns on the impacts of wells in Tusayan and Valle on the aquifer and with springs in the Canyon. Joe said that they share that concern. There was discussion regarding lack of adequate data on springs. Joe Alston said that the potential impact on seeps and springs is a big issue in their participation on the Water Advisory Council.
Deb Hill asked about growth projections in regard to future water demands in the Park. John said that the 1995 General Management Plan called for accommodating more day users, but the extent of the increase anticipated has not occurred. Joe Alston said that they have been moving park employees to Flagstaff, 40-45 currently and expect to move about 60 more, resulting in reduction in demand from that perspective.
Don Watahomigie, from the Havasupai Tribal Council asked for further clarification on the status of the possible Tusayan well field. Joe Alston said that they are not pursuing that option at this point, but are looking into the alternative of the infiltration system.
In response to a question about the special legislation allowing sale to Tusayan Joe aid that it was put into statutes sometime during the 1960’s or 70’s.
Kevin Black said that the Bureau of Reclamation is working with the Park Service on the infiltration alternative, that there are major concerns with using the R-aquifer. He said that they are looking at the Park providing water to Tusayan to reduce or hold flat groundwater use in Tusayan.
Joe Alston said that they have had discussions with Tusayan, but that the devil is in the details as there are some limitations in the statute. The Havasupai Tribe representative expressed interest in these discussions.
The next item on the agenda was an update on the Coconino Plateau Water Appraisal Study, given by Kevin Black with the Bureau of Reclamation. Kevin said that they have begun the environmental and economic analysis, and he anticipates a presentation of the draft summary of findings in April and May. He also mentioned the C-Aquifer study, final report of findings, which is available on the USGS website. He said that the Black Mesa EIS is progressing towards a draft report.
The next item was discussion of water conservation issues. Liz noted that this item had been put on the agenda based on previous discussions, she asked the Council what they had in mind for this matter. Tom Whitmer, ADWR, said he recalled the discussion being in reference to the Appraisal Study and direction to Kevin to include 20% savings through conservation in the alternatives being considered, which raised the issue of the Rocky Mt. Institute’s Phase II proposal. After some discussion it was determined that the Council needed to get a copy of the proposal and continue discussion, also more information about what amount of conservation is being done with communities on the Plateau. Tom asked the group about what to pursue. Kevin said that with respect to the Appraisal Study the RMI Phase I report and 20% reduction through conservation are being addressed. It was decided that the WAC members would be advised as to how to obtain a copy of the Phase I report (via website link, or PDF e-mailed to them, or a hard copy could be made available if necessary) and everyone should review that before continuing on with the discussion. Tom noted that the Phase II proposal was included in the Phase I Report.
Tom Whitmer gave a brief legislative update. He said that he didn’t expect much this session because the Rural Water Legislative Study committee was still meeting with a report back due in December 2006 to identify legislative tools and funding. However, Tom said that there had been a number of water-related bills introduced nonetheless. Tom distributed a list of nine current proposals and reviewed them with the WAC. Tom said that there has also been discussion regarding establishment of regional water management authorities, but didn’t expect that to go anywhere this session.
The final item for consideration was future agenda items including: Barry Baker on Tusayan current and future demands, review of Rocky Mountain Institute’s proposal for Phase II Report, Larry Stevens’ presentation on environmental criteria, comments on the outline ADWR Strategic Plan process, and water rights settlement presentation from Bureau of Reclamation and ADWR.
The meeting adjourned at 11:55 a.m.