MINUTES
Coconino Plateau Water Advisory Council
August 25, 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
Lena Fowler, Navajo Nation
King Honani, Sr., Hopi Tribe
Tom Whitmer, Arizona Department of Water Resources
Bill Dowdle, Arizona State Land Department
David Anning, representing Nick Melcher, USGS
Joe Alston, Grand Canyon National Park
Brenda Smith, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Carol Boyd, Coconino National Forest
Ron Sieg, Arizona Game and Fish
Barry Baker, Tusayan
Lisa McNeilly, The Nature Conservancy
Bob Michaels, representing Carol Erwin, Bureau of Reclamation
Virginia Riedel, representing Mike Macauley, Natural Resource Conservation District
Bill Linville, Doney Park Water Users Association, Private Water Company Rep.
Liz Archuleta, Chairman, opened the meeting and introductions were made by those present. Liz asked everyone, particularly the WAC members, to take a few moments to complete the pre-survey in preparation for the September 29 retreat.
On a motion by Deb Hill, seconded by Ron Sieg the minutes from the June 30 and July 28 WAC meetings were approved as submitted.
Due to scheduling purposes Liz moved to item 7 on the agenda and asked Deb Hill to report on the Public Outreach Committee. Deb said that they had met prior to this meeting and drafted a news release in response to news stories and inquiries on the Report of Findings. Pat Cox read the draft. Tom Whitmer raised the issue about how the Report of Findings would be available and there was discussion about availability of hard copies, DVDs, and on a web site.
Eunice asked about the process for providing comments. Tom said that once the final draft is complete there would be no official comments received by the Bureau of Reclamation, however, comments could be provided to WAC members.
Deb said that the intent of the news release is to let people know when the final draft will be available, once the final draft is out there will be future notices detailing how/where it is available.
Liz moved back to Item #4 on the agenda, continued discussion from the July 28 meeting on the North Central Arizona Water Supply Study Report of Findings. Kevin Black presented this item, and started by stating that he was leaving the Bureau of Reclamation and introduced Leslie Meyers, who will be taking over the North Central Water Supply study. Kevin gave a recap from the Technical Advisory Committee meeting from the previous day. Kevin said that the WAC had asked the TAC to evaluate the alternatives with the criteria that had been discussed in earlier meetings. Kevin reported that in discussion at the meeting yesterday, the TAC felt that the feasibility study is the mechanism for doing that level of evaluation.
Leslie continued with the presentation. She said that the appraisal study asks if there is a problem, is there a solution, and if they move to feasibility will scope the four alternatives and feasibility will conclude with identifying alternatives for a project, or no project. It then goes to the WAC to decide what they want to support.
Tom Whitmer said that the TAC discussed the matrix, ranking now versus doing it through the scoping at feasibility. He said that there has always been three questions-is there a problem (unmet demand, human and environment), is there a federal nexus (tribal, forest service, national park service, endangered species), and is there at least one solution-they have narrowed it down to four alternatives. Tom emphasized continued control by WAC in overseeing the project at every step of the way.
Tom then asked WAC for input on moving on moving on to feasibility.
Virgin Riedel asked what the four options are. Kevin said that the options really are tied to four supply sources—groundwater, Colorado River, Little Colorado River, and Roaring Springs, and different variations on how they could serve the demand areas of the region.
Virginia asked how the importation benefits the environment. Tom explained the impact of environmental resources if groundwater was the only source. There was discussion about healthy watersheds.
Deb Hill asked for clarification on how the scoping process works, time line, how detailed it is, and what is reported back to the WAC.
Leslie said the scope of work will define the steps. Some are already required by the BOR process, but it can also include specific criteria at the WAC’s request.
Liz asked what financial concerns there could be in considering all four alternatives as opposed to narrowing it down further before going to feasibility.
Joe Alston expressed reservations with moving forward with all four alternatives, stating that he has strong concerns with at least one of them.
Kevin encouraged the WAC to think in terms of supply sources and not lines on the map when considering the alternatives.
Brenda Smith asked if the WAC could make a decision to move forward to feasibility based on the supply sources, not lines on the map, and narrow them down through the scoping process.
Liz asked if they decide to move forward to feasibility now, if they can take time in future meetings to thoroughly assess the four alternatives.
Bob said yes, that is part of scoping.
Lena Fowler asked about unquantified water rights. Kevin said that it may be part of feasibility, but the ongoing adjudication is where water supplies would be determined.
Virginia asked who does the scoping, is it Reclamation or the WAC? Leslie said that the WAC will decide on the scoping but won’t actually do it. Deb said the WAC can add to the list of items that have to be included in the scoping.
Deb asked about the price tag for the study Kevin mentioned at the July meeting. Kevin said that they don’t need to address alignments until the supply sources are narrowed down, which can result in reconsideration of the alignments and thus affecting the costs
Discussion ensued about the process, narrowing down the alternatives through the scoping before making major financial investments.
Joe Alston said that he has concerns with supporting feasibility when it appears to the public that certain options are serious when they may not be and may already be known to be objectionable.
Tom said that it is all an open process, some alternatives may even come up that haven’t been considered previously.
There was further discussion regarding the pros and cons of going forward with supporting feasibility study.
Liz stated that she was comfortable moving forward with it today, that she likes looking at the supply sources and not the pipeline routes. Deb asked what exactly was being requested of the WAC to vote on today. Liz said the main goal today is to seek consensus.
Carol said that she agrees to the general concept. Joe Alston said he had expressed his concerns. Lisa McNeilly said she would also like to incorporate SWAG recommendations and the role of conservation in the final alternative.
Liz asked Joe which alternative it was that he was concerned with. Joe said that it is the proposed pipeline from Roaring Springs to Williams. He said the Grand Canyon National Park does not have the authority to do that. The only authority they have is to sell water to Tusayan. There was discussion about that, and the fact that it was not one of the final four although it does appear in the maps in the report of findings. There was further discussion about terminology. Joe said that he has raised his concerns, but would like to sit at the table rather than be an obstacle.
After further discussion Brenda Smith made a motion to seek Congressional authority to move to feasibility on the North Central Arizona Water Supply Study. Virginia Riedel seconded the motion, which was passed by consensus of the voting members with the appropriate federal agencies abstaining.
Deb requested a diagram showing the process and a timeline.
The next item on the agenda was a report from Eunice Tso of the Government Affairs Committee. Eunice said the committee met this morning and she reviewed with them the tribal legislative process. The Bureau of Reclamation funding process was also discussed. She noted that the Congressional delegation meeting had tentatively been scheduled for September 22 in Phoenix and that the WAC should designate a lobbying group. She said that the government affairs committee will draft a letter for the WAC to approve to send to the congressional delegation asking for feasibility authorization. It was suggested that the Navajo Nation and other member agencies send letters in support as well.
Before ending the meeting Tom thanked Kevin for all of his assistance and support throughout the years. Abe Springer mentioned that the Arizona Water Institute got appropriation and RFP’s are due September 22. If anyone has any project level work ideas they should contact Abe.
The meeting adjourned at 12:05