McKinley County Water Board

M I N U T E S

November 10, 2004

McKinley County Complex

 

MEMBERS PRESENT:

                  Edward Wemytewa     Pueblo of Zuni

Charley Long, Sr. Thoreau Chapter

               Jonathan Flannery     GIMC

Loline Hathaway Yah-ta-Hey WSD

Sherry Botkin     Thoreau WSD

Rhonda Berg Rehoboth Red Mesa Foundation

 

facilitators/staff:

Larry Winn McKinley Soil & Water Conservation District

Evan Williams Northwest New Mexico Council of Governments

 

I.                    OPENING & INTRODUCTIONS.  Board facilitator Larry Winn opened the meeting at 10:07 AM.  Larry Winn announced that the Water Board had a special guest coming to present on the uranium mining issues – Dr. Ruth Weiner.  He went on to add that the agenda was full for the amount of time we had, and suggested that we try to get through as much as possible.

II.                  MINUTES

A.             Charley Long, Sr. moved, and Sherry Botkin seconded to approve the minutes of October 13, 2004.  The motion was approved by acclamation.

 

III.                OLD / NEW BUSINESS

A.      County Water Board Report.  Evan Williams gave the Water Board an update on the presentation he gave to the County Commission, regarding the progress and direction of the Water Board.  Overall, he said that it was well received by the Commission and they were overwhelmed by the list of action items and amount the Board was taking on.

1.              Letter to Water Associations.  A informational letter describing the formation of a County Water Board, its role, and how one becomes involved or gets on the agenda will be sent to all water associations and interested entities.

2.              Water Board’s Action Item List.  A list of all the action item moved by the Board and the progress on each one of these items.

3.              Water Infrastructure Priority List.  A packet of charts representing the Board’s recommendation on funding of water and wastewater projects in the County, including utilization of proceeds from the County’s Environmental Gross Receipts Tax (EGRT) fund.

4.              Brief on “ Effectively Leveraging and Distributing EGRT Funds”.  A brief on how the EGRT is being administered now and suggested actions on how to make it more effective.  One suggested action is to have the Water Board be the screen to the EGRT funds.  Interested parties requesting EGRT funds from the County must first go before the Water Board.  The Water Board would then make a recommendation to the Commission.  The Commission would still retain the right and authority to make any decision they deem appropriate.

Discussion:

Item #4 stimulated discussion around taking formal action and presenting to the County Commission that they accept a recommendation to approve a resolution or policy that would guide the distribution of the EGRT fund.

 

Jonathan Flannery stated that it made sense that the County Commission would “use the Water Board as a screen” to make recommendations to the McKinley County Commission.  Larry Winn added to imagine “if the Gallup Water Board was around to rule on giving 1 million galloons of effluent for a powerplant project”.   He also added that this would grant the County Water Board a more active role and that they should make a formal presentation on adopting a policy.  Larry Winn also added that the knowledge of the County Water Board is limited but greater than that of the Commission, and our involvement would not usurp the authority of the Commission to vote up or down, it would just give them a thoughtful recommendation.  Jonathan Flannery stated that it could set a precedent of decision-making structures for the County.

 

ACTION: To put a presentation together; then get the Water Board together to make a formal presentation to the Commission.

 

B.            Discussion: Sustaining Small Systems.  Larry Winn introduced this topic that stemmed out of last months discussions, and how he felt it is an important topic to revisit from time to time.  Loline Hathaway opened discussion by stating that April from NMED would be available to attend a meeting, as well as, Tracy Svanda.  Loline shared with the group in talking with these folks that in Las Cruces, there are companies who specialize and contract with water associations to operate their small systems and then just report to the Board.  It makes sense and could be a business opportunity in this area.  It was revisited that a previous action was passed to plan a forum for these type of speakers and maybe these companies should be invited as well. 

 

Edward Wemytewa talked about metering and operating difficulties in Zuni and the need for the classes/courses at local institutions to get trained employees.  He also highlighted difficulties with the cost structure – where in Zuni they charge a flat-fee of $10 across the board to citizens and it is leading to financial hardships.  Larry Winn asked Edward about the situation with the new area under the Zuni Basin Adjudication, and Edward mentioned that there would be farming/irrigation and that water will be free but infrastructure will have a cost.  Rhonda Berg added that maybe Zuni could use this experience to start up a tribal enterprise like NTUA and provide services to other small communities for a price.  Edward responded by saying that Zuni still needs to get to the next level that “Zuni is just maintaining”,  and they need to be “a step-ahead, raising the what-if questions”. 

 

Larry Winn and Edward reengaged the need for training classes at the local college branches.  Larry Winn stated that Zuni built a state-of-the-art system and they need the human and local capacity to operate the system.  Larry also added that if a Zuni person got trained they could spin off assist or a company.  Loline Hathaway mentioned that proper planning is essential to thinking through and maintaining a water system.  Larry Winn felt that outreach to help rural areas understand what the engineering infrastructure needs are in their communities.  Marc DePauli is kind of doing this but, NM Rural Water Users and NM Rural Water Association is also available to offer these resources.

 

C.            Mustang Energy Project.  Evan Williams gave a very brief introduction to the Mustang Project north of Grants, NM in McKinley County, adjacent to Lee Ranch Coal mine. 

D.            Presentation on Uranium Mining.    Dr. Ruth Weiner gave a presentation on Uranium mining.  Major highlights from that presentation include:

1.              Dr. Weiner has wrote several letters against activists claims on the health effects of uranium mining.

2.              Larry Winn – Is in-situ mining safe?  To which Dr. Weiner answered – “yes”.

3.              There is a world market for uranium, if not mined here, it will be somewhere else.

4.              Uranium exists as a carbonite in nature, meaning you can dissolve it.  The solution mining process uses oxidized water to strip the uranium from the rock particles.  Then the mineral becomes more soluble and is pumped out from the ground, which is very different from underground mining.  Underground mining accounts for over 200 deaths a year.  It is terrible to for the health of its workers and to the environment.   But in-situ mining is a much safer method of mining.

5.              What does it do to water?

(a) The process is to extract uranium from water.

(b) Effluent water is cleaned through RO process and then pumped back into the aquifer.  Radon levels will exist but at similar levels then when water is first extracted.

(c) The opposition will argue that it contaminates an aquifer that is used as drinking water.  (* McKinley County does need to know what their aquifers are used for now – get a hydrologist to study this.)

(d) After water is pumped back into the ground it will not meet drinking water standards.  The aquifer should not be connected to any aquifer that is used for drinking water.

6.               Assumptions:

(a) HRI will put water back into the ground the same way it came out.

(1)       We can ask for:

(a)                 Split samples – independent lab to test.

(b)                 Spot  samples.

(c)                Ongoing data procedure – industry should go along with this.

(b) Has this mining been done in other places?  Dr. Weiner answered by saying she thought in Texas and that it would be worth investigating.

7.              Old Mill Tailings Clean-up (Remediation)

(a) All minerals in the water have been acceptable.

(b) Colorado example had acceptable mineral ratio in water to State standards.  They stopped the leeching process and used a chemical cleanup process.

8.              If you got paid millions of dollars to present for the opposition – what would be the counter-arguments – against In-situ Mining?

(a) Dr. Weiner – “We will have to use that water as drinking water someday.“  “How can we be sure we will have the water replaced at the same mineral levels.”  Also the intersecting aquifer argument that aquifers crossover and this crossover will effect the aquifers we use for drinking water.

 

IV.                OTHER ISSUES & ANNOUNCEMENTS

V.                  ADJOURNMENT:  Charley Long, Sr. moved, and Sherry Botkin seconded to adjourn; the Board meeting adjourned at 12:18 PM. Next meeting will be at the McKinley County conference room at 10 AM on Wednesday, December 8th

Respectfully submitted,

 

                                                                        Evan Williams, Associate Planner

                                                                        Northwest New Mexico Council of Governments

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws

1