McKinley County Water Board
M I N U T E S
July 15, 2005
McKinley
County Commissioners Chambers
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Paulene McCabe Manuelito
Chapter
Joan Sandy Pueblo
of Zuni
Sherry Botkin Thoreau
Water & Sanitation District
Charley Long, Sr. Thoreau
Chapter, Navajo Nation
Loline Hathaway Yah-ta-hey
Water & Sanitation District
Michael Daly White
Cliffs MDWUA
facilitators/staff:
Evan Williams Northwest
NM Council of Governments
Jeff Kiely Northwest NM Council of Governments
Larry Winn McKinley County Soil & Water Conservation District
I.
OPENING & INTRODUCTIONS. Board
facilitator Larry Winn opened the meeting at 10:11 AM, and announced that
several representatives of the NM Energy, Minerals, and Resources Department
Mining and Minerals Division would be providing the Water Board with a
presentation on the hydrologic impacts of El Segundo Mine adjacent to the Lee
Ranch Coal Mine.
II. MINUTES.
Joan Sandy
moved, and Sherry Botkin seconded to approve the minutes from the “Small
Systems Forum” of June 8, 2005.
The motion was approved by acclamation.
III.
OLD/NEW BUSINESS.
a. EL SEGUNDO
/ MUSTANG PROJECT
i.
Larry Winn described that he was recently appointed to the
Soil & Water Conservation Districts Board and was immediately tasked with
serving on the NM Coal Surface Mining Commission, which holds a seat for
a SWCD representative. He also detailed
to the presenters that the McKinley County Water Board has been charged to
function as an unbiased voice in all possible activities having water impacts
in McKinley County.
ii.
Background given regarding the potential El Segundo Mine:
The mine will produce 5M tons a year and have a 30-year life of operation.
The NM Mines and Minerals Division will oversee the reclamation work.
The mine is located on a 15,000-acre parcel of private and state land. The mine has 650 acre/ft per year in water rights.
iii.
The presenters then focused on the Probable
Hydrologic Consequences and the John Shomaker & Associates model for the
San Juan Basin and Gallup that determines the anticipated best & worst-case
scenarios for aquifer draw down in the nearby major community, in this case,
Crownpoint, NM.
iv.
The presenters discussed the mine’s San Juan well 120 in the
Westwater Canyon and the worst case scenario of time lapse draw down effects:
1. Westwater
Canyon
a. 5 years –
no effect in Crownpoint.
b. 10 years
-.3 inches in Crownpoint.
c. 30 years –
2 ft. in Crownpoint.
d. 50 years –
2.6 ft. in Crownpoint.
Will this effect Crownpoint?
Crownpoint has 3 wells in the
Westwater Canyon and 1 well in the Gallup Sandstone. The amounts above represent less than 1.7% of water available in
draw down. Whereas, by NM EMNRD
standards, 25% would reflect sufficient damage to surrounding resources.
2. Gallup
Sandstone
a. 5 years -
.1 ft. in Crownpoint.
b. 10 years –
9 ft. in Crownpoint.
c. 30 years –
5 ft. in Crownpoint.
This
represents 10.2% of water available in drawdown period.
3. Dalton
Sandstone
a. 5 years -
.1 ft. of draw down in Crownpoint.
b. 10 years -
.6 ft. in Crownpoint.
c. 30 years –
2. 7 ft. in Crownpoint.
v.
Jim O’Hara also discussed the use of the TICE Model, which
is used by the State. The TICE Model is the worst-case scenario and implies
that there is no recharge in the aquifer.
vi.
Jim O’Hara explained the permitting process and the 100
pages of regulations that must be followed.
He detailed the State’s control in the process, which required the
applicant to submit a hydrological report and a cumulative hydrological
plan. The State also does independent
analysis and requires monitoring wells to be drilled and monitored. The State has the right and authority to
stop mining at any time if the wells indicate an expedited draw down
occurring. The State can force the
company to replace domestic wells that are harmed during the mining period. The Dalton well if negatively affected will
be reimbursed.
vii.
Loline Hathaway asked a question referring to in-situ leech
uranium mining. The presenters stated
they really only focused on coalmines and stated that coalmines have the most
comprehensive regulations, unlike uranium mining.
viii.
Charley Long Sr. requested that all relative documents be
sent to the Navajo Chapters for review.
He also asked what did the State and the company do to inform Navajo
people of this potential operation. The
presenters stated that they had public hearings and presentations in three (3)
nearby Chapters, sent letters to Chapter Presidents and Council Delegates, and
that Navajo Minerals Department was informed.
ix.
Mr. Long then explained to the presenters that the area
around the present mine site has vast deposits of coal and wonders why it has
not been developed. The presenters felt
it might be a question of economics and how deep they have drill to hit thick
pockets.
x.
The presenters explained that this coal source would be used
to fill gaps in region and the intention of this coal would to be sold locally
(NM & AZ).
xi.
Loline Hathaway pressed on the accuracy of the hydrologic
modeling over time and the amount of variables taken into account. She questioned if future growth, increased
demand, or a new mega-NHA housing facility was factored in the long-term
equation? The presenters responded by
saying that a comprehensive mix of present factors were taken into account and
minimal growth. Jim O’Hara asked that
information like the NHA housing project be forwarded to him, so he could keep this
in his scope.
xii.
Jim O’Hara stated that NM EMNRD could send the equivalent of
his shop out to present information on uranium mining.
xiii.
Mark Hiles of Lee Ranch stated that the majority of the
water used was for dust suppression and washing equipment.
Map
of the El Segundo Mine site.
ACTION: Water Board would recommend to the County Commission, based on the approval of New Mexico Environment Department Mines & Minerals Division and the informational capacity and knowledge gathered by the Water Board, that the Water Board sees an acceptable, minimal impact of the hydrologic resources to McKinley County and recommend that this project be supported by the Commission.
b. SMALL
SYSTEMS ASSOCIATION
i.
Jeff Kiely and Evan Williams facilitated a discussion involving
the pros ad cons of the regionalization of small systems in McKinley
County. The Board defined the players
in a possible association as the water associations including Water &
Sanitation Districts and Mutual Domestics.
The Board also thought it would be feasible to involve all
community-based systems and NTUA systems at their behest.
ii.
Charley Long, Sr. stated that he would like to see the
Thoreau area get a share of the water from Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project,
and discussed an issue regarding a request from a family that moved onto the
reservation that wanted to be hooked up to the Thoreau WSD system. Sherry Botkin discussed several issues that
needed to be resolved including a resolution, easements across, ROWs, and that
this family was also close enough to hook into NTUA lines, which may be a
faster solution.
iii.
Mike Daly stated that the group already had an association
in the Water Board, and that this Board provided the sharing of information
already and could be expanded with more players and resource sharing powers.
iv.
Jeff Kiely offered that the water associations have specific
operating needs and that all are not represented at the table.
v.
Loline Hathaway discussed the need for posting information
and emergency information at Ya-tah-hey WSD.
vi.
Evan Williams
introduced and presented for discussion a matrix of “Issues and
Needs of Small Systems in Rural New Mexico”. (see below)
Matrix of Issues and Needs of Small Systems in Rural New Mexico
Main Category |
Issues and Needs |
Solutions discussed at the
Small Systems Forum: |
|
Burden of regulations
|
Ø
“Audits” Ø
“Consumer Confidence Reports” Ø
“Water testing” Ø
“EPA regulations” |
|
|
Capacity to service |
Ø
“Economies of scale” Ø
Office space Ø
Full-time operator Ø
Secretarial staffing Ø
Equipment |
|
|
Financial Burdens and Cost
of Infrastructure |
Ø
“Fiscal responsibility with reducing grant funding” Ø
“Replacing aging infrastructure” |
|
Water Rates and
Bill Collection
|
Ø
“Facing water rate increases” Ø
“Developing new rates and metering system” Ø
“Changing locals attitudes towards value of water” Ø
“Collection issues –one system reported to the group that
approximately 50% of her customers default on their water bill payments” Ø
“Major obstacle for small systems in McKinley County is in the
collection of water rates” |
1.
Enforce Rules & Regulations without variation, otherwise if one
customer thinks someone is getting subsidized; then no one will pay. 2.
Run your operation like a business, and
cut them off. 3.
If your going to cut people off – you
may have to go to court, which costs in attorney fees, but if you can educate
the judge – he can throw out cases. 4.
Your clients choose a rural lifestyle
and it is more expensive to pump water so they have to pay more. |
|
Water rights |
Ø
“Defining and securing water rights” |
|
|
System’s
Personnel Capacity
|
Ø
Matt Holmes made the comment that a water association needs to have
the fiscal capacity to hire a professional operator. Ø
“Running a system with volunteer(s)” Ø
Employability of workers Ø
Training |
|
|
Water conservation and
standard of quality |
Ø
“Water testing” |
|
|
Collaboration and Sharing
Resources |
Ø
“Coordinating efforts between NTUA, IHS, and Chapters” Ø
“Coordination between water associations” |
1. Sharing meter reader across water
association – example of White Cliffs and Yah-ta-hey. |
Incorporating New Technologies
|
Ø
“The potential of reuse and technological advances in the case in
Cloudcroft” Ø
“The potential of water conservation in the case of Albuquerque” |
|
|
Burden of Litigation |
Ø Gamerco WSD example |
|
|
Emergency/ Safety/
Homeland Security |
Ø
Emergency Tie-ins |
|
vii.
The Board discussed several options for regionalization
including:
1. Have a
County meter reader(s) that could rotate and was familiar with various or all
the systems, and could be on-call.
2. Have a
central billing system and collections firm.
3. Having a
central office that could have informational storage, shared office equipment,
and shared staff to answer phone calls, etc.
4. Sharing
equipment, such as, a backhoe and trailer, which could be housed at a County
yard and scheduled for use. An issue
that arose was insurance.
5. Pooling
together on sampling and testing equipment.
viii.
Larry Winn wanted a dynamic structure of the association
that could be self-defined and its constituents would grow for certain issues
and needs and shrink for others. He
also talked about systematizing and common rate structure.
ix.
Jeff Kiely agreed that the association could be light on
structure and heavy on resources with simple rules that allowed for individual
autonomy.
x.
Joan Sandy added that once this association showed success
that everyone would want to jump on board, but that it will important to invite
everyone to the initial meeting.
xi.
Sherry Botkin and Loline Hathaway shared information on
keeping track of meter readings. Sherry
offered that Butler’s Office Supply carries meter-reading cards that are
essential to handling this issue. felt
his discussion with HRI made him re-think his stance on the Crownpoint
proposal. Edward Wemytewa commented that
the URI presentation was very informative on the process of in-situ leech mining.
Evan Williams noted that HRI staff discredited the ENDUAM modeling, but that it
was a high-level scientific and theoretical argument and not based on concrete
evidence of how the aquifer would behave in Crownpoint. The Board felt comfortable still about the
Churchrock operation and the effects of that project on the groundwater.
GENERAL CONSENSUS: The Board decided to pursue “firming up” a draft concept for regionalization and take a look at examples of water associations.
IV.
OTHER ISSUES & ANNOUNCEMENTS
V.
ADJOURNMENT: Paulene
McCabe moved, and Joan Sandy seconded to adjourn; the Board meeting adjourned
at 12:07 PM. Next meeting will be at the McKinley County conference room at 10
AM on Friday, July 15th, 2005.
Respectfully
submitted,
Evan
Williams, Associate Planner
Northwest
NM Council of Governments