Coconino Plateau Water Advisory Council
December 6, 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
Joe Haughey, City of Flagstaff
John Kocjan, City of Page
Eunice Tso, Navajo Nation
Jerry Sekayumptewa, Hopi Tribe
Tom Whitmer, Arizona Department of Water Resources
Matt Capalby, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
Brenda Smith, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Ron Sieg, Arizona Game and Fish Department
Bob Michaels, Bureau of Reclamation
Carol Boyd, Coconino National Forest
John Rihs, Grand Canyon National Park
Barry Baker, Tusayan
Lisa McNeilly, The Nature Conservancy
Liz Archuleta, Chairman, opened the meeting at 10:05 and introductions of those present were made. On a motion by Ron Sieg, seconded by Deb Hill, the minutes from the August 25, 2006 meeting were approved.
The first item on the agenda was a report on the North Central Arizona Water Supply Report of Findings Final Draft. Leslie Meyers, Bureau of Reclamation, apprised the Council that the final draft was complete and that Reclamation was putting together a feasibility project team and project design team to move into the next stage, presuming congressional authorization for feasibility is granted. Leslie gave a brief overview of what they anticipated the process to include and mentioned that the WAC Technical Advisory Committee would participate in the process.
Liz asked if the Report of Findings had been sent to the Congressional delegation. Tom said yes, and that there was a briefing tentatively scheduled for December 21 at ADWR in Phoenix. He said that McCain’s and Kyl’s offices already have a copy, and that it will be distributed to others prior to the briefing. He said it is available on both the ADWR and Bureau of Reclamation web sites.
Liz mentioned that Leslie and Tom had made a presentation to the Flagstaff City Council and suggested that if any other Boards or Councils wanted a presentation to contact Leslie and Tom to do so.
Liz introduced the next item on the Agenda which was a report and follow-up from the Strategic Planning Retreat. Holly Yeager, Coconino County’s Organizational Development Director, reviewed the background and process. She said that the strategic planning team had reviewed all of the work from the Partnership’s September retreat. The team used that to develop the plan that was being presented today. She reviewed the Mission and Vision as incorporated into the plan. She said that the Plan incorporates 5 strategic directions which were the outcome of the September retreat, and that the strategic planning team had developed an action plan including goals/strategies also based on the retreat and then benchmarks including targeted accomplishments for the next two years, success indicators, and who would be the primarily responsible for each. Holly said that two notable recommendations that developed from the planning team’s review of the retreat work was the establishment of an ad hoc funding group to address funding for the Partnership operations and programs, and an additional subcommittee to focus on public education to be under the Public Outreach Committee.
Liz said that this is a fluid document and that they need to look at the committees’ capacities to do the work. She asked for everyone to be sure and interject changes or corrections based on the retreat and then asked the planning team to start the detailed review.
Lisa McNeilly presented the strategic direction for Conservation which is “Developing Short Term Conservation Goals and Long Term Strategies.” She reviewed the five goals/strategies. She said that the first one that addresses a water budget is also found in other groups as well. The focus of #2 is the development of a water “report card.” The third item is to assess conservation plans that ADWR is requiring to identify best practices that would be appropriate for the WAC region, #4 focuses on funding, and #5 is for water conservation awards. Lisa noted that all of the strategies/goals within this part of the plan relies heavily on the work of the TAC.
Eunice suggested that whoever develops the list of conservation practices to be included in the awards under #5 needs to narrow it down to what is most appropriate for the individual communities and present to the WAC for approval. Eunice also suggested expanding the list of WAC members be moved to 2007. Lisa said that #4 is really more about identifying funding from members, not expanding membership.
The next section for discussion was Legal and Regulatory which was presented by Tom Whitmer. The Strategic Direction is “Building Legislative Support and Public Education.” Tom reviewed the four goals/strategies that were developed based on the September retreat. The first one is to develop a common message, the second is to identify legislative tools the third addresses the competition within the state for the re-allocation of water and the need to develop relationships with those other interests, the fourth addresses lobbying expertise.
Deb Hill suggested moving expanding membership of the WAC to the 2007 accomplishments from the 2008 list. Tom emphasized that monitoring legislation was also key. Matt Capalby offered assistance from ADEQ, noting that they have a legislative liaison.
Jerry Sekayumptewa asked if there was a lobbying group. Tom said that there is not a specific group, but the WAC needs to make sure that they have the right people participating. Deb said that the focus is all on state legislation and it should be sure to include federal legislators and tribal councils.
Brenda Smith reviewed the third strategic direction which was “Prioritizing Environmental Needs for Sustainable Water Use.” The first goal/strategy addressed water budget and in particular the need to acknowledge and address environmental needs. The second dealt with land management practices that improve water availability, which Brenda noted was two-fold including development and building practices, and also open spaces, rangelands, and forest lands. The third item was to prioritize critical areas for management, fourth was addressing legislative needs to protect critical environmental resources. Brenda said that the baseline environmental needs may be difficult to determine, but need to be able to identify impacts. She noted that there is a disconnect in the state water laws between surface and groundwater.
Deb suggested broadening #4 under the 2008 accomplishments to include other elected officials. She also thought that the passage of relevant legislation that promotes environmental goals should be noted as a success indicator.
Eunice asked how we ensure we aren’t duplicating efforts. Brenda noted that “critical areas for management” is not the same as “critical habitat.” After further discussion it was suggested that “identify existing protected resources” be included under #3.
Matt said that water budgets are being impacted by quality as well, and used the example of Prescott’s difficulty in meeting the new arsenic limits. Lisa suggested defining at-risk for both quantity and quality.
There was a question regarding watershed management, which Brenda said was addressed in #2.
Lisa asked what is meant by managing or protecting the critical areas. After further discussion some modifications to include an action for protection.
Carol Boyd raised the issue of in-stream flow water rights. There was discussion about where that would fit in. After further discussion it was suggested that the government affairs would be the appropriate for monitoring the adjudication process and reports. Eunice suggested that we have a future agenda item to get informed on the in-stream flow adjudication issue.
Carl Taylor said that he sees inconsistencies in thinking, that one of the strategies is mining aquifers but on the other hand they want to be sustainable. He said that he believes that if they want to be sustainable they need to prohibit deep wells.
Deb Hill suggested a work group could be formed to address the question and develop a policy on groundwater mining. Tom said that would enter in to the “sustainable water budget.” Eunice said that they need to consider a comprehensive set of policies.
The next strategic direction was presented by Liz Archuleta and was “Supply and Growth: Research, Define, and Advocate Towards a Regional Water Resource and Management Ethic.” The goal/strategies under this section are Define an “adequate” water usage amount, and convey and educate a “regional ethic” towards ethical water resource management.
Rick Swanson asked if the discussion on the water usage went beyond per capita to address number of people. Liz said that the “adequacy” was intended to include sustainability including environmental needs, but focus on people. Rick suggested that somehow limits to growth should be incorporated into the discussion.
Joe Haughey said that there are a lot of variables, including cultural differences, and although he doesn’t oppose setting some parameters he sees some difficulties in doing so. He would like to look at different technologies that are available and that may become available, and not set a number that doesn’t consider how technology can facilitate more efficient use. He suggested a range that takes into consideration environmental, cultural, and regional differences. He felt it was important to do it through incentives rather than regulations.
Lisa McNeilly said that anytime you identify a number or put a stake in the ground it becomes more about how the number is portrayed when it comes out of the group. They would need to present it by what the number includes, not what it excludes.
Matt Capalby mentioned legislation that is being proposed by Mohave County seeking County authority for Special Management Areas.
Brenda Smith said she didn’t see what was wrong with identifying a single number, but not tying penalties to meeting it.
Deb thought it seemed like an urban strategy and wondered if the intent to educate higher water users to use less. Liz said yes, but also to address the uniqueness of the Coconino Plateau.
Bob Michaels said that it is to get a baseline and to define adequate.
Discussion ensued regarding the difference between adequate use and adequate supply.
Tom Whitmer gave the examples of Active Management Areas which identified gallons per capita per day (gpcpd) for each community/town. He suggested getting information on current gpcpd for the WAC communities and then suggest how to modify it. Joe said that the WAC will need to devote more discussion to this strategy.
Carl said that the target should be “processed” water, and not consumption of recaptured water, for example.
Eunice said that household use is minimal compared to commercial, agricultural, and industrial. Tom said that per capita use would include all components.
The last strategic direction regarding public outreach and communication was presented by Deb Hill. Deb went through the three components including developing a WAC outreach plan, which she said would be the WAC first and then the Public Outreach Committee. Other goals/strategies were to support current education programs and to convey and educate a regional ethic towards ethical water resource management. She noted that the major recommendation of the planning team was the establishment of an education subcommittee to the Public Outreach Committee.
After further discussion Liz said that the planning team would meet again and bring the plan back to the WAC at their next regular meeting.
The next item on the agenda was a report from the TAC. Leslie said that the TAC met yesterday and reviewed the letter the Hopi Tribe had sent to the WAC, with Tom and Leslie identifying the issues associated with their concerns. As a result of the discussion at the Tom drafted a letter which Tom reviewed for the WAC. Tom’s letter gave the background in developing the planning area for the appraisal study, and addressed the fact that the Hopi lands are under the jurisdiction of the Boulder City, Nevada office of the Bureau of Reclamation rather than the Phoenix office. Deb Hill asked if the letter differentiates between the WAC and Reclamation’s appraisal study, she wanted to make sure the letter clarifies that and encourages the Hopi Tribe to be part of the WAC. After further discussion there was agreement with the content of the letter.
Leslie said that the TAC had also addressed the proposed move to feasibility. Bob Michaels said that they can start with the scoping and budgeting, but can’t start the feasibility study without Congressional authorization.
Liz acknowledged the limitations of the TAC in light of the work they will be doing with the feasibility study, in addition to all the work represented with the Strategic Plan. She said that the WAC may need to prioritize what they ask the TAC to take on.
There was no report from the Public Outreach Committee.
Eunice Tso gave the report from the Government Affairs Committee. She asked for other WAC members to attend the congressional briefing, currently scheduled for December 21. Representatives from the Cities, County, Hopi, and Navajo were suggested. Eunice said that the Committee also reviewed the draft letter to be sent to the Hopi Tribe. She also said that they discussed a letter from the Arizona Water Group, she suggested that their proposal was premature at this point but that the committee wants to hear from them before bringing it to the full WAC. Eunice ended by saying that they are looking for more members to serve on the Government Affairs Committee.
Deb requested that expanding committee membership be put on the January agenda.
The last item on the agenda was a report from Tom Whitmer on the Statewide Water Advisory Council (SWAG). Tom gave a brief overview of what the SWAG was doing and that they were working on a proposal that would give counties, cities, and towns the authority to require adequacy for new subdivisions. He said that the idea in giving this authority to counties that they could adopt adequacy requirements for lot splits as well. Second, they are proposing a water development fund. He mentioned the possibility of doing a pilot water district through the Upper San Pedro Partnership, using the replenishment district path.
Before final adjournment Joe Haughey made a comment regarding the tasks anticipated through the strategic plan and everything else that is coming up, that they are overwhelming the TAC and other committees. He said that they need to talk about a budget. Liz said that one of the recommendations of the strategic planning team was the establishment of an ad hoc budget group and asked Joe if he would want to chair it.
The meeting was adjourned at 12:15 p.m.