1. Subcommittee Members Present

William Chase and Tom Griffin were present at the meeting.


2. Introduction and Discussion

Tim Henley, manager of the AWBA, introduced the meeting by briefly reviewing previous meetings of the Recovery Subcommittee and the discussion questions that had been given to M&I subcontract entities. Mr. Henley stated that Peoria and Avondale had submitted their responses to the questions in writing, as they were unable to attend the meeting. He also informed the participants that this meeting was focused on intrastate recovery during times of shortage but discussions regarding mechanisms for interstate recovery would need to be initiated soon. Open discussion followed Mr. Henley’s introduction.

Topics of discussion included the following:

1. The process by which river communities would obtain water during a shortage declaration and the AWBA’s role in that process. Mr. Henley stated that the process would most likely entail exchange agreements and the AWBA’s role would be to supply credits to insure wet water for the exchange. It was recognized that exchange agreements should be developed simultaneously with development of a recovery protocol.
2. The idea that recovery should not even be an issue because entities that cannot get sufficient CAP water will pump groundwater to deliver to customers under the belief that restrictions on pumping will be lessened when a drought is declared.
3. Preferences regarding recovery scenarios for the holders of municipal and industrial subcontracts. Glendale, Scottsdale, Mesa and Phoenix would prefer delivery to treatment facilities due to infrastructure, well capacity, water quality and other limitations. Peoria and Avondale expressed the preference to recover their own water.
4. Possible restrictions on quality of water being pumped into the CAP could influence recovery.
5. Entities that could assist with recovery were identified as follows: the CAGRD (would be a suitable recovery mechanism because they are already utilizing a groundwater system); Tucson Water (still may have some issues with water quality); Town of Marana and other Pinal County water users; Gila River Indian Community (through a potential exchange agreement); Salt River Project; and the City of Phoenix (could play a small role, currently only use 4% from wells).
6. Recovery for a shortage declaration not anticipated until approximately 2028, however, interstate recovery has a shorter timeline (perhaps 2015). An interstate recovery protocol could be used as a trial for intrastate recovery.
   

Mr. Henley stated that, based on the discussion, it is his perception that there exists a core group of entities that have the operational flexibility to participate in development of recovery strategies. He also stated that those individuals and their ability to provide water for transfers, agreements, etc. will be the focus of future meetings.

The next meeting will be a meeting of the smaller group discussed above and will focus on specifics. The core group was identified as: Salt River Project, Tucson Water, CAGRD, AWBA, CAP, Pinal County water users, and the City of Phoenix. Other entities wishing to be included should contact AWBA staff.

The meeting adjourned at 11:20 a.m.