McKinley County Water Board
M I N U T E S
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Mike Daly
White Cliffs MDWUA
Joan Sandy
Pueblo of Zuni
Edward Wemytewa Pueblo of
Zuni
Charlie Long
Thoreau Navajo Chapter
Rhonda Berg
Rehoboth-Red Mesa Foundation
Loline Hathaway Yah-Ta-Hey
WSD
Sherry Botkin Thoreau
WSD
Jonathan Flannery Indian Health
Service/Gallup Indian Medical Center
GUESTS: Marc DePauli,
DePauli Engineering & Surveying
FACILITATORS/STAFF:
Larry Winn
Board President, McKinley Soil & Water Conservation
District
EvanWilliams
Associate Planner, Northwest New Mexico Council of
Governments
Jeff Kiely
Deputy Director, Northwest New Mexico Council of
Governments
I.
OPENING. Larry Winn opened the meeting at 10:08
AM. Introductions
proceeded.
II.
MINUTES OF
2/10/04. After discussion and suggested
amendments to language, Mike Daly moved, and Rhonda Berg seconded, to approve
the minutes as amended. The
motion passed by consensus.
III.
CONSULTATION WITH MARC
DePAULI. Jeff Kiely introduced Marc
DePauli, recalling the Board’s interest in involving him in discussions of
needed capital improvements in the various water use entities and districts in
the County.
Marc focused his discussion
on the “5 priorities” for local districts to prepare themselves for various
kinds of funding:
(1)
Water Rights – You have to demonstrate
that you have water rights, either by previous declaration of water
rights or a water right filed at the County, approved by the State
Engineer.
Marc explained that, before
the Gallup Basin (stretching from Tohlakai southward to Breadsprings) was closed
(i.e., requiring that water rights must be bought or requested in that Basin),
Gallup filed a series of declarations. But if you came in with a request now,
you would need a lot of data to prove your right to the water. Especially given the current “Zuni
lawsuit” seeking adjudication of water rights in the Zuni River Basin, you can’t
just go out and start pumping water; State Engineer approval is needed. It is standard for each well to be
approved to use 3 acre-feet per year as a “municipal use,” which can be used for
irrigation and other uses.
Marc urged each district to
maintain a tabulation, in a binder-and-file, of all water rights and permits,
and to ensure they are on file at the County and with the State Engineer. County-wide, we need to answer the
questions: “Do we know how many
water rights all of the districts and associations have? Can we support new
development?”
(2)
Legal Status – Stay out of legal
“trouble.” Make sure that your
organization is solvent. Maintain
actual usage history through metering.
For example, Yah-Ta-Hey is well metered, and 25 years ago it was able to
demonstrate impairment for well-drilling in the area by the City of Gallup; the
result was that they received a backup water line as a remedy for that
impairment.
(3)
Licensing – Get an Operator’s License
for individuals to operate the water systems. Licensing exists in Classes 1 through
4. For example, Lance Allgood
(Gallup Joint Utilities Director) and few others in the area have a Class 4;
Sherry Botkin and Mike Daly have a Class 2. Marc himself, although otherwise fully
qualified to operate, construct and maintain systems, does not have an
Operator’s License. Licensed
operators also have access to good technical assistance resources. The key goal is the protection of life
and property. Mike Daly, also an
engineer by training, commented that prior to the training he would not have
known that mixing grease and chlorine would produce an explosion, and emphasized
that the training is “very handy” to have.
(4)
Mutual Help &
Exchange –
It is important to get technical assistance and good ideas from other districts
and associations in the County and throughout the State. You can exchange information on problems
and solutions, new technology, etc.
Loline Hathaway agreed, saying that Mike Daly had already assisted
her. Mike added that he had
suggested getting all the water groups together for this kind of exchange. He also advocated going to the State
water users conference, where you can benefit from both the new knowledge and
meeting new people. Marc DePauli
added that there is a wealth of knowledge already in the County area, such as
Lance Allgood and Ray Espinoza at the City.
(5)
Education &
Training –
There are lot of programs that provide excellent education and training, such as
the Waste Education Resources Consortium (WERC). Scholarships are often
available.
Jeff mentioned the
possibility of bringing in planning grant money that could include a survey of
capital improvement needs in the “balance of County” systems. Marc agreed this would be a helpful
accomplishment, saying that there is a checklist of construction standards that
can be used to evaluate systems.
This Board can also put together an “Operations & Maintenance” system
assessment and procedures instrument, which can include guidance on what
operators can do to solve problems.
Loline indicate that the Yah-Ta-Hey Board had decided to put together a
list for their operator, to include guidance on “what happens when?” for routine
and emergency problem-solving.
Edward Wemytewa commented
that, in Zuni’s case, it’s unclear what needs to be done with the Indian Health
Service in terms of procedures governing “shut-downs.” Marc indicated that such procedures
would need to take into account how long it would take, for example, to fix a
damaged septic system.
Larry Winn suggested that a
form be developed with specified data fields, which could then be used to
generate “seamless” data that could both help each district and be fed back into
this Board as a whole. Thus, we
would be able to demonstrate to funders our ability to carry out “systematic”
efforts. We can also demonstrate
comparability of data and the ability share information, equipment,
etc.
Jeff commented on the
emerging trend of “regionalization” of rural water systems, saying that today’s
discussion speaks to two kinds of “regionalization”: (a) one kind would involve joint
projects in which project benefits were shared by two or more districts or
systems; and (b) the other kind would involve efforts at County-wide
coordination – such as with data management, training and licensing,
shared funding, etc. Both kinds of
regionalization may well be worth pursuing.
Mike countered that each
system has its own requirements, so it might not make sense to force these
systems together. Larry responded
that the key is to move toward being able to demonstrate efficient use of scarce
resources. Funders are looking for
maximum production and leveraging from funds that are awarded, so they
increasingly need assurances of systemic thinking, rather than the needs of
individual “silos” that don’t interact with each other. Within that framework, the different
needs and characteristics of the systems can still be honored, but in the
big-picture context rather than in isolation.
Loline suggested that the
districts are facing the need to show that we’re taking good care of our
systems. Edward agreed, saying that
systems are getting increasingly complex; for example, we are learning to
appreciate the complexity of the Zuni system. He said that they could have benefited
from getting advice from others concerning some of the Pueblo’s water and
wastewater system developments, thus preventing some of the problems currently
being faced – especially financial. We’re looking at licensure, revamping our
water board, etc. “We have to be in
dialogue.”
Larry added that “everyone
knows” that Zuni has been successful in its relationship with the Federal
government; on the other hand, the Pueblo is now competing nationally with other
tribes and thus its requests are easier to “put off” while other requests are
being considered. Zuni will not
always be able to depend on the Feds being able to meeting the Pueblo’s
needs. Edward concurred, saying
that this is a major reason that the Pueblo is moving outward into dialogue with
its neighbors and others.
Joan Sandy emphasized that
it is very important to support one another (in this area), as we each seek to
meet our own needs; this could mean supporting each other’s funding
requests. For example, Zuni never
completed the phased buildout of its water system, and now there’s already a big
loan to be paid back. It’s a
struggle.
Marc indicated that funders
will also be asking to see entities’ rate structures, asking “Why can’t you fund
your own needs? Why can’t you
afford to maintain it?”
Rhonda Berg commented on the
possibility of standardizing how all of our systems operate, collect payments,
etc. We can also consolidate and
disseminate information on different meetings, conferences and trainings coming
up; coordinate getting people to them; and sharing the knowledge gained. Marc added that eventually, “this group”
(whether as a Board, or a spinoff association of districts) will need an
attorney, accountant, engineer and administrative staffing. You’ll need an attorney’s guidance on
solvency, and eventually you’ll need a “water attorney.” Every system will need a household
income survey completed, which drives eligibility for certain categories of
funding. Thus this Board can work
on getting all systems in the County fully documented and ready for
funding and implementation.
Mike cautioned that not
everything needs to be on a “data list.”
We should first see what the problems are, and then generate the
information needed. For example,
the Environmental Finance Center (at New Mexico Tech) can show us how to manage
rates, payments, collections, etc., and Operators conferences can also show how
people have solved problems. Joan
added that we can all pitch in together and actually bring expertise in to our
area.
Larry then invited the
different members to start “sending us the information.” Rhonda looked at this
as a “growing template” of useful resources, i.e., the database grows as new
information becomes available. She
suggested having a website, where key points from our Water Board meetings can
be included and we can keep adding to the information; it start building into a
dynamic sort of manual. Jeff added
that it is better to have information ready-at-hand than to always go hunting
for it. Mike indicated that his
grant preparations usually require providing a “facility plan,” and it was
agreed that this was the kind of documentation Marc had recommended. It was suggested that information for
the “growing template” be funneled to the COG office, for subsequent compilation
and dissemination.
Larry suggested that such a
dynamic database could be a “product” of work emerging from this Board, possibly
resulting in actual future funding of the Board by the County. He also suggested that we include Marc
in our meetings whenever needed on various issues to learn more about system
development, operation and maintenance.
For work “above and beyond,” we would need to find additional funding for
specialized services.
The Board thanked Marc for
his advice and welcomed him back to future meetings.
IV.
BYLAWS.
Jeff led the members through
the revised Bylaws. Clarifying
language was discussed as follows (with changes
highlighted):
·
under
¶1.3 “Purpose” at item 1.3.2, revised to read: “”It shall be the mission of the
Water Board to … into the future, forging effective inter-jurisdictional
cooperation, and promoting and advocating for progressive water policy and
action.
·
under
¶2.1 “Appointment” at item 2.1.1, revised to read: “Board members shall be appointed for
two-year terms, to be served concurrently, with all terms considered to be
effective for the two-year periods beginning January 1 of even-numbered
years.”
·
From
¶3.2 “Removal,” second half of sentence removed for inclusion at ¶ 2.2
“Vacancies, Removal and Replacement”, with changes as
follows:
3.2 Removal. Any officer elected by the Board may be
removed by the Board whenever, in its judgment, the best interests of the Board
would be served by such removal, subject to any rights that might pertain to an
officer under contract of employment.
2.2.2
A
Board member may be removed from the Board upon action by the McKinley County
Commission based on (a) a recommendation by the Board representing at least
a three-quarters vote of all Board members, or (b) failure by the member to
attend three (3) consecutive duly-called meetings of the Board, except that,
in the case of appointments to the Board by organized entities, the Chairperson
shall first consult with the governing body of the respective entity or its
executive representative before seeking a Board recommendation on
removal.
ACTION: Mike Daly moved, and Loline Hathaway seconded,
to approve the Bylaws as amended, for recommendation to the McKinley County
Commission. The motion passed
unanimously.
V.
Regional
water plan.
Having
received two presentations on the Region 6 Water Plan, along with an
opportunity to review its contents, and based on the recent formal acceptance of
the Plan by the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission, the Board discussed
whether to seek formal “acceptance” of the Plan by the County
government.
ACTION: Mike Daly moved, and Rhonda Beg seconded, to
approve and recommend adoption/acceptance by the McKinley County Commission of
the Region 6 Water Plan, as presented to and accepted by the New
Mexico Interstate Stream Commission in January 2004.
DISCUSSION: Since there were two abstentions (Loline
Hathaway and Joan Sandy), the Board decided to defer action on this motion until
the next meeting. There was some
discussion that members may not agree with every item or recommendation
contained in the region Plan, but that it was a planning document to be
used for cooperative water development, rather than a regulatory tool;
thus “acceptance” of the Plan would not imply a “legal” acceptance of every item
contained within it, just as the Interstate Stream Commission’s acceptance was
couched in terms and caveats indicating the same thing. Members were asked to keep this in mind
as they review the Plan.
A.
Churchrock
Mining Issue. Mike spoke to the planning in
situ uranium leach mining operation proposed to take place on lands in
Churchrock Chapter, for which there is substantial public opposition. How will this Board address these kinds
of issues? Joan posed questions
that might be useful, such as: “Is
the property on fee lands? Does the
County have a say-so? What are the
County’s priorities with regard to such matters – water? Economic development? What’s the inter-play of these
priorities?” Rhonda suggested
contacting the Jesse Smith Noyes Foundation, which deals with issues of economic
justice. Larry indicated that the
grassroots group known as “ENDAUM”
[Eastern Navajo Diné Against Uranium Mining] had been very involved in
working with Southwest Research & Information on issues of environmental
protection, social justice, etc.
Rhonda asserted that the questions do need to be addressed; our question
will be how to become educated and how or whether to weigh in with the
Commission on it.
B.
Zuni
Water Rights. Mike mentioned the letter to the editor
from the Zuni Governor regarding the water rights adjudication issue. He suggested that this Board become
conversant on the issues involved.
C.
White
Cliffs Experience. Mike reported that the Reverse Osmosis
(“RO”) process installed at White Cliffs had been outrageously successful. The Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) reading
was down from 3,300 mg/liter to 150 mg/liter, well below the environmental
regulations’ “secondary standard” of 1,000 mg/liter.
D.
Board
Roster. Mike made another request that the
roster of Board members be distributed to the members, so that they can interact
with one another in between meetings.
Evan Williams indicated he would make this roster
available.
VIII.
NEXT
MEETING: It was confirmed that the next meeting
would be held at Veterans Hall on Wednesday, April 14th,
2004.
IX.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 12:25
PM.
Respectfully
submitted,
Jeffrey G. Kiely, Deputy
Director
Northwest New Mexico Council of Governments
attachment:
McKinley County Water Board Bylaws,
with revisions as per this
meeting.