MINUTES
Coconino Plateau Water Advisory Council
April 28, 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
Lena Fowler, Navajo Nation
Tom Whitmer, Arizona Department of Water Resources
Ron Sieg, Arizona Game and Fish
Brenda Smith, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Nick Melcher, USGS
Ven McMullen representing Joe Alston, Grand Canyon National Park
Barry Baker, Tusayan
Nikolai Ramsey, Grand Canyon Trust
Bob Michaels, representing Carol Erwin, Bureau of Reclamation
Liz Archuleta, Chairman, opened the meeting and introductions were made by those present. On a motion by Ron Seig, seconded by Deb Hill, the minutes from the March 31 WAC meeting were approved as submitted.
The first discussion item was the ADWR Strategic Planning Process. Tom Whitmer distributed a draft outline and reviewed it. Tom said that this is more of an action plan, anticipating the completion of the appraisal level study and looking towards the next steps to take. Tom noted that the next phase is the feasibility level study. Tom reviewed the Action Plan outlined in the handout, which is focused on the feasibility study, the first step being Congressional authorization. Tom noted that the City of Flagstaff and ADWR had already initiated conversations with Senator Kyl’s office informing him that this effort was underway. There was discussion regarding whether it includes allocation for the study. Bob Michaels, Bureau of Reclamation, said that if Congress doesn’t allocate the funding, then it comes out of the BOR budget.
There was further discussion regarding what specifically would be forwarded to Congress for their action.
Tom said one of the other big action items is public outreach. Deb Hill, Chairman of the Public Outreach Committee said that they had discussed the fact that the WAC will be reaching decision points before the public knows who or what the WAC is.
There was further discussion regarding future interaction with other groups who may be targeting the same source water of some of the alternatives, e.g. Colorado River.
Tom said that they will need to address how the ultimate decision will be made upon completion of the feasibility study, and then implementation, funding, and lobbying Congress.
Tom mentioned that the St. George, Utah pipeline has been in discussions for 10 years but now they anticipate construction by 2015 and are looking to acquire 100,000 acre feet per year.
Deb said that she likes the idea of a strategic plan but that it seemed like a lot of work and wondered when it needed to be completed? There was discussion about the capacity to undertake it, whether there were in-house resources or if it would require contracting with a consultant. Tom said that Upper San Pedro Partnership was developing one currently.
Liz asked Tom what ADWR’s budget was for this. Tom said none until July. He thought ADWR could start on it in-house. Eunice suggested splitting up the work amongst the members based on their expertise-e.g. tribes for Indian Water Rights, BOR for engineering and OM&R, etc.
Liz suggested creating a small group to start identifying the elements of each step. Tom, Liz, Eunice, Brenda Smith, and Bob Michaels agreed to work on that. There was agreement by those present that the next logical step was to work on the strategic plan and agreed to have the small group do some initial work on it to present to the full WAC later.
It was suggested that the NEPA portion should be bumped up to earlier in the process as it is long and could take 3-6 years. Bob Michaels said that if there is a fatal flaw in any alternative it will usually come up through NEPA process.
The next item on the agenda was an update on the North Central Appraisal Study Report. Bob Michaels gave the report on behalf of Kevin Black who was not able to attend the meeting. Bob said that the appraisal level report of findings is out for review to the Technical Advisory Committee who would be discussing it at their May 10 meeting. Bob said that Kevin would present the first half of the report to the WAC at their May 26 meeting, and the second half at the June 30 meeting. Liz said it is very important for all TAC members to be at the May 10 meeting. She noted that the WAC had previously discussed having a joint meeting of the WAC and TAC for the presentations and discussion on the report. She also stated that getting as much information as possible prior to the meeting will be helpful.
The next item on the agenda was an update from the Public Outreach Committee. Deb Hill, Chair of the POC said that they had met just prior to this meeting and have worked through a document for process. She said that the POC has decided they want the WAC to approve public information prior to releasing it. She said that they want to move forward with getting information out to the public, informing them of what the WAC is, etc. This proposal will be presented at the next meeting and each agency will be asked to use their public information process for distribution.
Nick Melcher suggested having a media day events for certain benchmarks, such as moving to feasibility level. Tom Whitmer said it would be a good idea to have canned powerpoint presentations to give to groups requesting such as well.
It was mentioned that some organizations have a policy for review to determine who should be allowed to make presentations to WAC. Liz said that action plan can help with that. Nikolai asked if they would entertain private entities that may propose a different approach, e.g. Arizona Water Group.
On a related note, Don Bills said that USGS will re-establish their brown-bag lecture series on science issues on the Coconino Plateau and asked if the WAC wanted to be on the emailing list for that. He said it would be every Friday.
The next item on the agenda was an update from the Government Affairs Committee. Eunice Tso, Chairman of the GAC, made the report and stated that the committee was fine-tuning their stated purpose. She said they are addressing a legislative agenda including strategies for support and funding. The Committee also wants to get more information on the legislative process, both federal and state, and proposed a briefing on each.
Eunice said that Tom had drafted a letter to the Bureau of Reclamation to seek feasibility authority which the committee reviewed and approved, and was now requesting consideration and approval by the WAC. Tom said it was an important step to alert BOR so that they could keep a line item for funding the study.
There was discussion on the wording. Eunice noted that one of the alternatives is “no action” so that needs to be part of the feasibility study. It was suggested that the wording in the final paragraph be changed to reflect “seek feasibility authority for any or all of the” alternatives, instead of being too specific. It was also recommended that we copy the letter to members of Congress. Deb noted that the Public Outreach Committee has started discussing developing letterhead. Liz suggested that it include a list of member agencies, ex-officio and voting.
Mike McCauley asked about sending it to state legislators, which was agreed to.
On a motion by Mike, seconded by Brenda Smith, the letter was unanimously approved as modified.
The next item on the agenda was a legislative update given by Tom Whitmer. Tom said that there is a new Statewide Advisory Group (SWAG) consisting of 47 members representing interests across the state, and that the group has one single objective. He said that the group was established to address the need for a mechanism or means for regional water management districts, which if formed could be as little or as much as the local interests wanted them to be. They could allow for manage resource at local level instead of state. Tom said the first meeting was going to be May5 and noted that Liz, Ron Doba and Ray Bennally were representatives from the northern region, and that it would include homebuilders and realtor representatives as well as government agencies.
The next item on the agenda was a request from the Little Colorado River Watershed Coordinating Council to designate an official representative. No one indicated an interest to participate. Liz suggested that the WAC be on their mailing list for minutes and agendas and if it seemed warranted someone could attend specific meetings.
Deb asked that the WAC invite them to present the model they are proposing, which was presented to the County Board of Supervisors along with a request for funding. Tom mentioned that the USGS was already involved in a modeling effort for this area. Don Bills said that there was a preliminary proposal made to that group and they are looking for amore focused list of priorities, issues and concerns. Tom said that there is a decision support model in place that is very user friendly which was developed by the UofA for the upper San Pedro Partnership and could have a presentation on that as well.
The next agenda was scheduled for May 26 with a tentative list of the first half of the appraisal study and committee reports.
The meeting adjourned at noon.