McKinley
County Water Board
M I N U T E S
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Michael Daly White
Cliffs MDWUA
Charley Long Thoreau
Navajo Chapter
Loline Hathaway Yah-ta-hey WSD
Rhonda Berg Rehoboth-Red
Mesa Foundation
Sherry Botkin Thoreau
WSD
FACILITATORS/STAFF:
Larry Winn Board
President, McKinley Soil & Water Conservation District
Marc DePauli DePauli
Engineering, McKinley County
Evan Williams Associate
Planner, Northwest New Mexico Council of Governments
GUESTS:
Benjamin A. House HRI
Mark S. Pelizza HRI
Nancy Stanley Jamestown,
Whispering Cedars MDWUA
Matthew Metzler Jamestown, Whispering Cedars MDWUA
Carol Saunders Greer Subdivision
Major Issues:
Under one planning scenario, City of Gallup’s plan would create a pipeline and use water from the Mt. Taylor, which would cause basin water to run out of water in 40 years. “Citizens for Water Rights” are concerned about the amount of water they are entitled to and for how long that water would be secured to their citizens. Also, they are concerned about real estate issues and the worth of land that may now be in jeopardy of water rights past 40 years. Matt also talked about the disclosure of this knowledge and the effect on resale of their land.
“Citizens for Water Rights” were also concerned
with the vague information the City of Gallup was able to disclose and about
the exact effect of water replacement to the aquifer, as well as about the
effect of this proposed project and the indirect/direct effect to other County
citizens’ water rights in other areas.
“Citizens for Water Rights” were also
perturbed by the lack of knowledge of the process and the lack of cooperation
the City of Gallup was provided to them. They described that they have not been
able to obtain copies of reports including but not limited to hydrologist
reports.
Pending Action: “Citizens for Water Rights” would like
to give a full presentation to the Water Board in September.
Water
Board Comments:
o
Sherry Botkin was concerned for the well-being
of Thoreau citizens and any adverse effects to the Bluewater Basin.
o
Evan Williams suggested that maybe they could
we get someone from City to give a report. Matt Metzler told the Board that the City staff said that they
cannot give an update because it is a legal matter and was referred by Lance
Allgood to Jay Stein, lawyer for the City because of the legal issues.
o
Evan Williams suggested maybe someone from
State or from Zuni could give a non-biased overview of the processes involving
adjudication and water rights issues.
o
Matt and Nancy stated it would be helpful to
understand the process and how they go about reporting their objections without
knowing all the facts, how relevant these objections needed to be and how they
needed to be spelled out.
B.
ICIP – Water Project Prioritizing
Process. Evan Williams presented and passed out a
list of County water projects that were either on the County’s current
Infrastructure Capital Improvement Plan (ICIP) or were known and necessary
projects in the County. Marc DePauli
facilitated a process of prioritizing this list in accordance of urgent need
and readiness to construct. Mr. DePauli
also stated again to the Board that proving a declaration of water rights is
the first and most essential step for any project. The immediate goal of this process was to recommend to the
Commission the top water/wastewater project that should be chosen for Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding for the 2005 cycle.
Issues:
(1)
How do we deal with funding of Chapter
projects?
(2)
Need to have funding sources (USDA, RUS, NMFA,
etc.) come in and have proposals of projects?
We don’t want to write an application if its not going be funded?
(3)
The County Commission needs to appropriate the
EGRT funding in a strategic manner, by which, the County is able to leverage
this funding source in the most effective way for the projects deeded to be an
urgent need and ready for construction.
ACTION: Consensus
Recommendation to County Commission:
Water is the largest crisis facing rural
communities in McKinley County. The McKinley County Water Board recommends that
a CDBG application should be written to provide funding to the water/wastewater
project that showcases the greatest need and readiness. Further, it was decided by consensus on this
date, August 11, 2004, that the “Williams Acres Wastewater Project” is the
number one priority of McKinley County due to its urgent need, matching funds,
and immediate need to clear itself from violations with EPA.
ACTION: Evan Williams will create and pass out a prioritized list of projects
at the next Water Board meeting with a funding strategy for the top priorities.
DISCLAIMER:
The following are rough notes from the
presentation by representatives from Hydro Resources, Inc. (HRI). Water Board Members who attended have
additional handouts and more complete information concerning this very
interesting presentation.
Uranium
Resources Projects: NM, TX
- none using
conventional methods (important)
- most are in
Northwestern New Mexico.
- new projects
– Benevides, Longoria, Rosetta, Vasquez, TX (online in a week)
- McKinley –
(NM – HRI) – huge uranium source, mineralized properties (175 million lbs in
the ground that can be mapped) – trying to distance from United Nuclear
Corporation (UNC), but purchased their resources, properties, also Santa Fe
Railroad.
3
sites (part of FEIS) – Unit 1, Crownpoint, Churchrock
-
Mustard building southern most point– UNC
Section 8
-
Crownpoint – west of CP (98% of controversy),
water issue
-
Unit 1 – 8 9 allotment lands
-
Market driven – to start production (price has
gone up from $7 to $19), expected to go to $30.
-
Technical expertise needs to be development
(2007-Churchrock)
-
All development is timelined so that they are
ramped up
Churchrock – testing and demonstration
project (important for that reason); 700 feet to ore field.
Better
Areas:
Rocahonda
–3 substations
New Mexico is the “Kuwait of
Uranium”. 350 lbs of uranium produced
to date, in Grants Uranium Region – all conventional mining methods in San Juan
Basin – 70s and 80s – this was the infrastructure in place and the technique.
*Per
McMlemore and Chenoweth report – known resources in NM are 588,314,700 lbs.
- using low cost in situ
leaching method, about 289 million could be extracted
Company has been busy buying up rich
uranium sites.
*Each
pound produced would result in $15 spent in local economy.
*Production
facility with a capacity of one million lbs per year – would result in
$15 million locally on jobs, taxes, goods, and services
*A production facility with capacity of
one million lbs per year would result in 60 vocational jobs. HRI plans include three of these facilities
in McKinley.
The
mining operation proposed for Churchrock would have a 14-year life until fully
exhausted.
HRI
would work with CIT – on training programs, providing employment for students.
Uranium mining hasn’t happened at large
in the past because it was not cost-effective.
*20% - Nuclear, half of that we will
consume through Russian nuclear warheads.
*Government Enrichment Corps –
enriching uranium for weapons grade
*There was a reduction in production
Inventory dependence, dismantled
weapons on both sides – reduced price of uranium in 2000-2001.
But now with energy demands rising on a
world stage (China and India), and supply curve chart. Gap only filled with new production. Economic Opportunity.
1. Trend
Ore
2. Redistributed
*
* San Juan Basin – Westwater Canyon SS
– recharge of groundwater.
HRI business – injection/extraction -
adds oxygen (50-300 ft)– make soluble and pump out. In situ Uranium Leaching Process in book.
Circulate groundwater into system – ore
zone – re-circulated into ore zone, some oxygen, and little to some bicarbonate
(only if necessary). Closed loop system
– takes groundwater out, oxidizes it, and re-circulates it. There would be some water loss – about 650
acre-feet per year; but it will be a temporary use (not forever, until 2042),
and in reality they will use only 10% of that, or 65 acre-feet, because of
recycling.
Neutral at 7.8-pH level (between 7-8) –
must restore water
Conventional mining – tailing, ore
paths, miners underground, trucks, open pit mining. (leave behind -unclaimed
solution mine)
Non-conventional
mining – must reclaim the water, all plastic tubing, site is released for
non-restricted use after reclamation, drying design – zero emissions.
COMMON
Objections:
Water
contamination
Regional
water contamination
Inability
to control leach solution
Mitigation
is addressed in detail in the FEIS and is implemented in HRI’s NRC licenses.
Respectfully submitted,
Evan Williams, Associate Planner
Northwest New Mexico Council of Governments
REVISED
PER INPUT RECEIVED: ________________________________ DATE: October 12, 2004
Jeff
Kiely, Deputy Director
Northwest
New Mexico Council of Governments