MINUTES

Coconino Plateau Water Advisory Council

July 28, 2006

Havasupai Room

University Union

Northern Arizona University

Flagstaff, Arizona

Water Advisory Council Members Present

Liz Archuleta, Chairman, Coconino County

Deb Hill, Coconino County

Joe Haughey, City of Flagstaff

Phil Edes, City of Williams

Ray Benally, Navajo Nation

Nat Nutongla, Hopi Tribe

Tom Whitmer, Arizona Department of Water Resources

Sybil Smith, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality

Ron Sieg, Arizona Game and Fish

Carol Erwin, Bureau of Reclamation

Nick Melcher, USGS

Nora Rasure, Coconino National Forest

Brenda Smith, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Joe Alston, Grand Canyon National Park

Barry Baker, Tusayan

Nikolai Ramsey, Grand Canyon Trust

Lisa McNeilly, The Nature Conservancy

Mike Macauley, Natural Resource Conservation District

Guests

Representative Tom O’Halleran

Representative Ann Kirkpatrick

Chairman Liz Archuleta opened the meeting shortly after 10 a.m., welcoming all and asking everyone to introduce themselves.

Kevin Black, Bureau of Reclamation, gave a power point presentation on the North Central Arizona Water Supply Study Report of Findings. The presentation included an overview of the report, including background of the 10 years worth of work represented in the report. A full copy of the report and of the presentation is available by contacting Kevin Black and will be available on the Bureau website.

Kevin said that the Bureau representatives had met this week with the Regional Director and Department of Interior representatives to review the report of findings. He said that the report was anticipated to be completed by the end of August. Kevin made clear that this report is not a part of any water rights negotiations, and is not a commitment of the United States to fund any subsequent level of investigation or construction. The assumptions found in the record and adopted in this study are not necessarily assumed in water rights negotiations, and the stakeholders must seek Congressional support

Kevin reviewed the principles and guidelines under which the Bureau operates and serves as a guide for the appraisal level study. He reviewed the background information included in the report including current conditions, groundwater geology overview, existing agreements, and water supply and demand relationships. Kevin also mentioned other studies that were done either in conjunction with this report, or used in this report. He said that those will all be included in the DVD version of the final report.

Kevin mentioned that there was a request by the Water Advisory Council to incorporate demand reduction through conservation practice, which was reflected in Table III.2.6. Kevin noted that the result was still an unmet demand.

Kevin said that alternatives to meet future demands included some key assumptions of whether there was a need for complete replacement of the current supply, or an incremental replacement, he noted that different demand areas had different needs.

(At this time the meeting briefly adjourned for lunch and reconvened at 12 p.m.)

When the meeting reconvened after lunch Liz Archuleta first recognized State Representatives Ann Kirkpatrick and Tom O’Halleran, and Virginia Turner from the Governor’s office who had arrived earlier.

Kevin Black continued with his presentation noting that the North Central Arizona Water Supply Study looked at alternatives that included surface water, groundwater, and conservation reuse. He explained that the study looked at component parts of a project, and how different options were evaluated and some rejected.

Kevin briefly reviewed the alternatives and the final conclusions which were: There are unmet demands in the study area, there are potential solutions to meet the demands, there are both regional and non-regional solutions, some outstanding issues include Colorado River Water Availability and other Water Rights, there is potential for a federal objectives to be addressed with at least some of solutions and the approximate costs range from $400M - $600M.

In relation to the approximate costs, Kevin stated that the Regional Director has made it clear that the Bureau of Reclamation budget does not support the next step for feasibility, and if it is to go any further it will be necessary for the stakeholders to pursue feasibility and funding.

Kevin concluded his presentation, thanking the WAC and the TAC for all of their work and assistance.

Chairman Archuleta thanked Kevin for his work and the presentation and opened it up for questions and comments from the Water Advisory Council.

Deb Hill asked if the “no action” alternative has been eliminated. Kevin said that since that is a specific NEPA term they were concerned that using it would imply something other than intended. He said that the analysis does look at impacts if they do nothing.

Deb asked how decisions were made to decide which alternatives to move forward? Kevin said there was a test of completeness, effectiveness, and efficiency, but noting that no alternative goes away completely.

Carol Erwin, Bureau of Reclamation, said that there were both technical and policy considerations given to the alternatives.

Lisa McNeilly asked what assumption was used for additional conservation measures. Kevin said that the 20% reduction didn’t eliminate unmet future demands.

Ken Edes asked how the tourism growth rate was factored into the 2050 demands. Kevin said that the per capita per day use and population growth were used.

The Hopi Tribal representative asked about the City of Flagstaff timeline for developing the water on the Red Gap Ranch. Joe Haughey, Flagstaff Councilman, said that there is no current timeline, that they purchased the ranch for future water development. The Hopi representative asked about the City’s negotiations to purchase water from the Bar-T-Bar. Ron Doba said that they are currently in negotiations with the Bar-T-Bar.

The Hopi representative stated his concern that this study not be used for any political purposes or advancing certain agendas, including Little Colorado River adjudications.

Carol Erwin from the BOR stated that the Department of the Interior doesn’t want any of this used for political purposes or in conjunction with other negotiations as well.

Liz suggested that clarification of such be included in an introduction to the final report.

Deb asked how drawdown of aquifers was modeled and how private wells were factored in. Kevin said that for the R aquifer it was limited to the area in and around the South Grand Canyon and Tusayan and that some information was not made available for the BOR team’s review. He said that the C and N aquifers were done differently.

Deb asked how hauling water from other aquifers is factored in to the per capita water use and population growth. Kevin said that was difficult.

Tom clarified that Kevin would accept comments for 2 more weeks and then asked Carol Erwin to give an overview of the process from this point.

Carol Erwin said there is no further process, that the Bureau of Reclamation does not put feasibility studies forward, and furthermore there is no funding to do the study or to build any project that may be the outcome of a study. Tom said that if Congress were to fund it then the Bureau would do the study. Carol said that the Feds want it connected to solving other problems, such as Indian Water Rights Settlement. She said that the WAC needs to determine if they want the federal government involved, that they could provide more background information if that is requested.

Discussion ensued regarding the possible role of the Bureau for future research and the WAC pursuing Congressional appropriation.

Mike Macauley asked if there were other monies available, such as from Cocopai RC&D, cities, towns or the county. Carol said that a feasibility study requires a 50% match.

Deb Hill asked about the costs for feasibility studies. Kevin said it can go into the millions or 10’s of millions. They have used the $6 million figure as merely an estimate.

Deb mentioned that she had heard something recently regarding improved methods for the treatment for brackish water and asked if the Bureau would be able to provide technical assistance to further evaluate that as an alternative. Kevin said yes, they could do a pilot project, that they have other programs that the Bureau could provide technical assistance on as well.

Brenda Smith, clarified that the WAC needs to decide if they want to move forward and asked if they needed to make a decision on which alternative(s) now and if so if they had enough technical information.

Kevin said that the environmental impact discussion was included in the report of findings. Liz restated that Kevin had asked for final comments to be provided over the next two weeks and then at the next WAC meeting they would have further discussion and decide on the question of moving forward.

Carol said that the stakeholders in the room will need to decide whether they want to move forward individually or as a group. Chairman Archuleta said that the general assumption and impetus behind the WAC was to approach a regional solution jointly. Carol said they can take a regional approach even if it isn’t a regional solution, that is they would need to pay attention to the regional impacts.

Liz asked if there has to be an assumption that if they go to feasibility that a project will eventually be built. Tom Whitmer and Kevin Black both said no. Kevin said that the feasibility study includes a NEPA level assessment that considers a no action alternative.

Nora Rasure said that it sounds like there are alternatives that they need more information on.

There was further discussion about what the next course of action should be, what pursuing feasibility study means, and if the alternatives needed to be narrowed down prior to pursuing authorization for feasibility.

Sybil Smith, ADEQ, suggested they continue narrowing the alternatives while initiating conversations with Congress for feasibility authorization.

Deb said she doubted that she would be prepared by mid-August to make a decision and suggested that more discussions would be desirable to have an in-depth understanding of the alternatives.

Joe Alston said that he has not had a chance to study and identify all the implications of the alternatives and that he would need more than two weeks to do so.

Tom Whitmer mentioned the congressional timetable. He said that the request for authorization can be added to another bill, it doesn’t need special legislation. He said that The Upper San Pedro Partnership had drafted legislation but hasn’t been introduced yet.

Lisa McNeilly asked if getting feasibility level authorization imply access to additional federal funding for implementation. Brenda asked if they can approach Congress for authorization without knowing which alternative. Carol said they would need to narrow it down when allocation is requested. After further discussion Carol restated that the Bureau of Reclamation will not support a request for appropriation.

After further discussion Chairman Archuleta outlined what she felt were the next steps. She said that the WAC wanted to have time to apply the criteria they had discussed previously for further review of the alternatives, and second to outline the process to ask for authority to go to feasibility but not appropriation. In the meantime, they needed to get more technical data from Bureau of Reclamation. Tom asked if the TAC should run the evaluation of the criteria. Kevin said that the TAC will not necessarily make conclusions but will be able to identify gaps.

After further discussion Kevin agreed to extend the time for formal comments to the end of August and that the TAC would meet prior to the next WAC meeting to review the alternatives subject to the criteria previously discussed. There was discussion about what those criteria were. Sue Pratt would review the minutes from previous meetings to get that information prior to the TAC review. Kevin said that they were in the process of updating the last draft report of findings and they would send a new one out shortly.

Liz noted that they did not have any time for public comments, the meeting adjourned at 1:15 p.m.