[Editor's Note: This is the final part of a two-part series of articles on the NM CAP Entity meeting on Monday, Oct. 30, 2017]

By Mary Alice Murphy

New Mexico Central Arizona Project Entity members at their Oct. 30, 2017 meeting came to the agenda item that had brought the majority of members and audience members to the meeting—Discussion, Action or No Action—on the components and alternatives of the amended proposed action of the New Mexico Unit.

Entity Executive Director Anthony Gutierrez said: "First, there is a need for clarification. I heard in public comment that we had abandoned the 150 cubic feet per second minimum flow in the Gila River. The number was never approved by the Interstate Stream Commission. It was a recommendation of Craig Roepke. I have also stated that the board never approved the requirement."

He said a potential diversion serves a dual purpose. It will permit the agricultural users to use additional water, but it also serves to let them reach their adjudicated rights. "In the design, AECOM was to look at the AWSA (Arizona Water Settlements Act) and the adjudicated rights. We are not trying to hide anything. We didn't want two diversions side by side. We have always intended to use the existing diversions to reduce the footprint."

Joe Runyan, representing the Gila Farm Ditch, said: "Also none of us wants to put push-up dams across the river. The problem is that the meters do not measure the return flow. When I have called the ISC about this, I get from them that there is not enough money to put in accurate gauges. The 150 cfs number was solely from an ISC representative."

Vance Lee, representing Hidalgo County, asked: "In combining the diversion of adjudicated and AWSA water, will money be added to our construction money?"

Gutierrez said the GBIC project, which is what Lee is speaking about, is completely separate from the NM CAP Entity project. "We've been working with their engineers, but we don't want two projects in the same place. But the diversion designs are not the same. A hard structure across the floodplain with gates. They will go into the NEPA analysis. I think my recommendations may help."

"I appreciate the public comment on the complexity of AECOM and the costs," Gutierrez said. "For my recommendation, I want to start with the diversion. We are investigating in the area of the Upper Gila diversion site. Our present assumptions are 3,000 acre-feet yield on the Gila and 1,000 acre-feet on the San Francisco.

"I recommend the diversions in the same places as we talked about before," he continued. "Upper Gila and Spurgeon on the San Francisco. I think we can reduce the amount of water diverted and meet our goals. The Nature Conservancy is concerned about a hardened structure across the river and would prefer a cross-vane weir. Engineers are not sure the weir can retain its integrity. It is prudent at this point not to recommend a design analysis before we negotiate with the Gila Basin Irrigation Commission, our engineers and the stakeholders. The engineers said a cross-vane weir might be OK with grouted boulders."

As for costs, he used the estimated cost of $6.5 million for a Gila River diversion and $2.5 million at Spurgeon.

"It's my understanding and what I'm recommending to do is improvements to existing irrigation systems on the San Francisco," Gutierrez said. "For conveyance and storage, we have the potential for underground storage. It's important, although I didn't recommend it for Phase I, but I did for Phase II."

He said Occam Engineers Inc., the engineers hired by the entity, did an analysis on conventional wells. They determined five wells would be sufficient at 500 gallons a minute and would cost $4.2 million. "They feel there needs to be some additional analyses for the effectiveness of the well sites. Electrical options to run the wells are for conventional electricity and a potential for solar."

He noted there are some inefficiencies of the irrigation system. "The amount diverted and the amount irrigated don't balance. But the losses benefit the ecology. I think there could be improvements to the ditches and the alignments."

"I reduced the flows to 50 cfs," Gutierrez said. "It's still enough to fill storage and ponds. I have also recommended lined ditches for about a third of the ditches in the Gila Valley of about 18,000 linear feet. I have an estimate of about $180 per linear foot, for a cost of about $3.25 million to line some of the ditches. In some places, ditch losses can benefit the ecology, but in other places, there are no trees, the water just runs down the valley."

Delivery could be improved and losses significantly decreased, he said. In discussions with AECOM, he reduced the cost down to $800,000 for ditch improvements in the Gila Valley. He also set aside $900,000 for ditch improvements and the diversion in the San Francisco Valley.

Total conveyance cost is $4.8 million. "I have taken bits and pieces of various reports. That's where I have gotten the costs."

For storage, "I had a discussion with Occam Engineers on the potential for on farm and off farm storage. Mr. Agnew's greatest concern was taking irrigated land for water storage. We have a lot of fallow land in the Upper Gila. I took information from AECOM and from my personal observations. I have two different recommendations. Four ponds on the west side of the river and three on the east side. They would provide 1,300 acre feet for water storage. We looked for places where we could decrease the surface area and increase the depth with less loss from evaporation."

"I recommend off-farm storage in Winn Canyon," Gutierrez said. "I didn't want to delete Winn from consideration, because if we need to increase storage, Winn would be the easiest to excavate and to get water into and reach the upper reaches of the valley. My recommendation doesn't have a dam. It relies solely on storage in Winn Canyon. I did some rough calculations and there are roughly 45 acres in Winn that are currently silted in. In the Bohannon Huston report, there was an option to excavate Winn to expand capacity, up to 40 feet from the existing surface, and still be able to gravity flow into existing irrigation ditches. This option does have a pumping requirement, depending on where you divert the water from, with a need for a 20-40 foot lift into Winn Canyon.

"So in my recommendations, the on-farm and infiltration ponds are estimated at about $8 million and for excavation I used a constant $5 per cubic yard and $2.3 million for delivery of water to the existing facilities," Gutierrez said. "I put an estimate of $15.5 million for the excavation of Winn Canyon, which includes a pumping station system. For the excavation alone, it's about $9.5 million. I also included two on farm storages in the Virden Valley for $2 million for 250 acre-feet in Virden. Overall storage is $26.5 million at a total project cost in Phase I of $43.55 million. Part of the goal was to be able to utilize construction dollars. It leaves a little leeway with a combination of two recommended sites. We can store about 2,300 acre-feet of water and deliver it by direct delivery. With the unlined ponds, we will still have the potential to utilize aquifer storage and recovery. And Phase II would allow full build out for Winn. The maximum storage for Winn Canyon would be around 12,000 acre feet. Also, Ranney wells can deliver to Winn Canyon or for delivery back into the system. At a cost of $26 million, because I used four wells instead of six. Now, I also feel the storage in the Upper Gila and the ability to cover some of that water by gravity feed, except into Winn, can be used in the Upper Gila Valley, and also for store and release to the Virden Valley when available. That's my recommendation, and I stand for any questions."

Allen Campbell, representing the Gila Hot Springs Irrigation Association, said: "I have migrated close to what Anthony has recommended. The elephant in the room is the pumping. The Gila Valley now is not pumping now."

He agreed that the existing system could use improvement. "The linchpin of the whole system will be one or more good diversions, permanent ones that will work at all levels. The second thing is gravity flow. I believe this is attainable whether from conventional wells or Ranney wells, the costs are about the same. Ranney wells, if they are more efficient are more expensive. Do irrigators want to upgrade to pumping systems? I have a problem with a mechanical machine, when we can use gravity."

"About Mogollon Creek," Campbell said, "The Bureau of Reclamation has shown us a route that would work. It is a potential to get AWSA water. This is a pretty good starting point."

"I agree that the priority is to have a good diversion," Gutierrez said. "We want a structure without significant impact on the ecology. One that will work with existing diversions with some improvements. The priority is one good diversion for utilization by generations to come. Former State Engineer Verhines said to be careful with pumping, because it's expensive. I said a lot of agricultural use has pumping, so there must be a reason why. This only adds the option of pumping. In dry farming areas, the option would allow them to have stable water supply. If we use aquifer storage, we will need pumping to get it out."

Campbell said he has a problem with aquifer storage. "You gotta have a bucket to store it in. We have only temporary storage. We don't have the container for the storage. The Gila is a violent river. That's the reason we need a good diversion—one that can serve more than one ditch and big enough to withstand floods."

Runyan said he liked the way Gutierrez was thinking. "Lining ditches makes sense. The Natural Resource Conservation Service is indifferent to ag, but the agency likes lining in a ditch to make it more efficient. If we had a durable structure that would last at least 50 years, it would be good. Jeff Riley (Bureau of Reclamation engineer out of the Phoenix office) said he recommended Pope Canyon for gravity flow storage."

Gutierrez said the problem was getting the water back up where it could be used in the Upper Gila. "It would have to be full and only 20 percent of it could be used. For downstream users, it would be really good."

Phase II, he said, increased the costs by $100 million.

Aaron Sera, representing the city of Deming, said Riley had mentioned a 100-foot footprint for the ditches.

Gutierrez said the Gila Farm Ditch has the capacity for 59 cubic feet per second; the Upper Gila Ditch, 49 cfs, and the Fort West around 40. "I recommend an overall increase to 50 cfs. We can line the bottom, but there still will be some losses for vegetation. The 100-foot was for 350 cfs."

"You recommend on farm and off farm ponds," Sera said. "Have we talked to owners?"

Gutierrez said most of the land was owned by Freeport-McMoran, but is not being used for agriculture. "Two landowners have already said yes. Some already have storage ponds. The Nature Conservancy has wetlands."

"None of this benefits Luna County," Sera said. "Is there a plan to use construction money with the Freeport infrastructure?"

Gutierrez said he would be working with Freeport.

B.J. Agnew, representing the Upper Gila Ditch alleged lining the ditches would dry up the wells and the ecology. "Will you use the flood control dam at Winn Canyon?"

Gutierrez said the dam could be part of the design. If it were purely excavation, there would be no use of the flood control dam.

Darr Shannon, entity chairwoman, asked if the entity needed specific permission from landowners before the NEPA process.

Gutierrez said NEPA may change the recommendations and potentially change the project. "We understand we will have to notify all the landowners. I received Occam information on Friday and spent the weekend on the recommendations. We anticipate landowners would benefit from the utilization of on-farm storage. No, we haven't contacted all the landowners."

Shannon asked if Winn would be filled by gravity or pumping.

Gutierrez said engineers said there would be low-level pumping.

Shannon asked? "Wouldn't we benefit by finding a place like Pope, which would require pumping to get water back upstream, but would benefit Virden. What is the difference if we have to pump into Winn?" She asked Lee to talk about the Virden Valley situation.

"We have a large amount of farming in Virden," Lee said. "I would have preferred more storage in the Virden Valley. I would also like to see ditch improvement money. We have a nine-mile unlined ditch that provides water to 2,400 acres. I think you have put together ideas that we have heard around the table."

Gutierrez said Winn would require excavation, but Pope would need a dam, "which exceeded our budget. All the reservoirs exceeded our budget. These are only my recommendations. The reason I didn't put in ditch improvements for Virden was that I didn't have the reports I needed. My estimates tried to piecemeal bits and pieces of reports. Even on construction money, we still have a small amount available. I think my estimates are on the high end. I tried to get down to basics. If you have a crop that pays for pumping, you will have availability to get water."

Howard Hutchinson, representing the San Francisco Soil and Water Conservation District asked what the conventional wells would be used for.

Gutierrez said they could be used in the dry farming area and potentially for ASR. "I didn't want to eliminate the ASR possibility. We have looked at several areas where we could extract water."

Hutchinson asked where the wells would be placed. Gutierrez said in the Upper Gila Valley.

Hutchinson noted that the cost for Phase I on the Gila River is $43.55, including conventional wells. Of that $40.15 million would be on the Gila for 2,500 acre-feet of storage. "You have $3.4 million on the San Francisco for 1,000 direct farm use. "It seems to me we have an imbalance on expenditures on the Gila and the San Francisco. The diversion on the San Francisco provides water to two diversions, one on the east side of the river, and one on the west. The west side could eventually turn into storage. The San Francisco is left with the inability to put water into a reservoir. The diversion for the east side wouldn't require improvement for low flow. I'm not sure what you're contemplating with the $900,000 for improvements."

"I took it from the report," Gutierrez said.

"I suggest you not eliminate the box culvert," Hutchinson said. "It is absolutely necessary to getting our 4,000 acre feet, allowed in the CUFA (Consumptive Use and Forbearance Agreement). Money for conventional wells might drop out after NEPA. These constraints in the budgeting are based on available money. You don't take into consideration that on the San Francisco, we will be looking at acquiring other funding. I am concerned for all the region. The water and money, as they are good for Luna, Grant, and Hidalgo counties, will also benefit Catron County. I'm concerned about the efficiency of $40.5 million for 2,300 acre feet. It seems like a lot of money. I understand the full build out would be $111.55 million. That is not exorbitant. When you're talking about 12,000 acre-feet of water, it seems pretty cheap. How long a life can we expect? We should be looking long-term. Our 14,000 acre-feet has been flowing to Arizona and Arizona has been benefitting at a significant loss to us."

He said he still has a lot of questions on the Ranney Wells. "I still think we need to look at good storage to benefit the region. I wholeheartedly agree we should increase the crop values, and have water for future municipal and industrial development. We should be looking at water for industrial development. Freeport is looking at how they will ultimately use their water rights."

"I'm biased for the San Francisco," Hutchinson said. "I would like to see an emphasis on a more equitable distribution to the San Francisco. I think, in the foreseeable future, we will have the opportunity to use the entire 14,000 acre-feet as allocated. We have to make sure we put that in the NEPA analysis or it will be worthless on the economic, social and cultural aspects. I do think the NEPA analysis should consider the full utilization of the 14,000 acre-feet."

Gutierrez said that was the recommendation from the engineers, too. "The utilization of the 14,000 acre-feet will be in the proposed action for NEPA."

He said cost had been a concern, and "I can go only off what was given to the engineers for analysis—one diversion and two reservoirs. I agree with you, Howard, that not enough has been done on the San Francisco, but I used the reports I had. If we include two reservoirs there would be an imbalance on the other side. The proposed action comes from the board, not from me, but I agree full utilization should be the goal."

Ty Bays, representing the Grant Soil and Water Conservation District thanked the board members for welcoming the district as a member. "We wanted to become involved because water is important to the board, our constituents and the area. I knew George Jackson, who was contracted by the State Engineer Steve Reynolds during the Arizona v. California case at the Supreme Court. "He said, and I quote: 'New Mexico got screwed.' The area was coming out of the drought of the 1950s, so a lot of land was not being irrigated, the area had not fully recovered from the Depression, and we lost a lot of water rights. George and I also had a conversation about wells in the Gila Valley. They were shallow and just didn't work out. I think we should come together on one diversion, and it should probably be a large storage component to be more cost-effective."

Gutierrez noted that he took the recommendations from the board on the on-farm ponds for direct delivery. "We hadn't even analyzed the option." He said he continues to be worried about costs. Because of issues with New Mexico and the New Mexico Unit Fund, "we don't know if that money will be available to us for construction. What I have recommended today is a foundation for moving forward. Pope can be utilized in the future. It would have a lot of storage."

Campbell addressed the idea of six wells pumping 6 cubic feet per second. "It's not enough for any viable withdrawal from a flood. We have to take more than 6 cfs." He referenced a previous report from Riley talking about the need for a canal to put water into Winn Canyon. It would require a drop of .0003 fall, which is about 1.7 feet per mile. "So it is possible to do gravity flow to Winn, but there would have to be a separate canal. The water needs to have enough head to push it into the ditches. I like your scheme, but it has problems. Water will have to be dumped into the river or pumped out, if we get the first idea done. We would have to look at a realignment of ditches to get the highest level of storage in the ponds. The rest is a business plan and how to get water to Virden."

Shannon noted that Winn doesn't store much. "Riley said Pope could store 3,000 acre-feet. Why does it have to be kept full?"

"The storage would require height so water can be returned to the Upper Gila," Gutierrez said.

"I agree with Mr. Bays that we can do best to make the storage large enough to be the right thing for the future," Shannon said.

Runyan said on-farm storage would be much easier to access, if it were along the river. "I think it's better to have smaller farm ponds. I think the users would keep them viable."

Gutierrez said he considered the overall cost. "I understand we can store 65,000 acre-feet, but that bumped us up against the $700 million price. I think this is the first step. I had the same questions as most of you have. We can look at AECOM's report. When Occam reviewed it, they had only good things to say about it. I'm trying to get a proposed action, hopefully today."

Shannon said she was for on-farm storage. "I just want to find a larger area to store water."

John Sweetser, representing Luna County, asked about how much the operations and maintenance costs would be.

"We would have to develop an accounting system and a business plan," Gutierrez said.

Entity Attorney Pete Domenici Jr., said he wanted to get a vision of what Winn would look like in the first phase and in the second.

Gutierrez said Winn has a silted elevation. "We would excavate below it. It also has a flood control dam, which is silted above it. We would need a release structure. The difference in elevation from the release point to the top would be 45 feet. If we excavate to the bottom, it's a pond. If we want to increase storage, we would have to build a dam. We could gravity flow out of the bottom of it."

He said more could be excavated, but "from what I've seen, we could continue to excavate, but we would lose water. The Bohannon-Huston report includes a dam, which would be unlined."

Domenici said if on-farm ponds are unlined, how would the ditches use the water from them.

"By direct delivery to the conveyances," Gutierrez replied. "And with their being unlined, we want to continue to look at ASR." He conceded that getting the water to the ditches might require pumping. "We still have to analyze and put in the cost for conveyance."

Domenici asked if the entity shouldn't be looking at lining, so as not to lose water out of the bottom of the ponds.

Campbell said if the ponds use flood water, "it will seal the ponds pretty rapidly. They will leak some, but not much."

Gutierrez said he didn't get into the design of the ponds.

"We're trying to leave here with a proposed action letter to the Bureau of Reclamation," Domenici said. "I think they will want more specificity. I think now is the time to talk about more ditch improvements in Virden."

Lee said he has identified a 20-acre area for a pond on the south side of the river. "It can be deep. On the other side, a smaller acreage is possible, but it also can be deep. Storage could be significant—larger than 250 acre-feet."

Hutchinson said it would be optimal to get the box culvert included from the diversion point and the bypass diversion. "It would deliver water to the existing ditch system."

"If things play out; if we get the proposed action letter; and we get into NEPA; and through it and get the construction money, which is now $55 million, but capped at $62 million," Domenici said, "there will be the need for permitting approvals. Can those costs come out of the construction money? We will also have to pay for the pond planning and design. Can we use the construction money for purchasing the land? If we bought the land, it would build assets for the New Mexico CAP Entity. My vision is a proposed action letter for Phase I, with Phase II planning. We would have enough funding in the construction fund."

He continued and said Reynolds had been upset that New Mexico did not get more water. "As we try to recover that water, the target keeps moving. We would have later priority until the AWSA gave us protection from downstream demands. The CUFA has limitations, but has a window of opportunity to divert. We need to spread the benefits from the Upper Gila to the San Francisco to the Lower Gila to Luna and Hidalgo counties. And we have to protect the New Mexico Unit Fund for benefits for all four counties. We need to confirm that Winn Canyon gives us future water storage. I don't see that ASR will enhance much. It's been down in the weeds for a long time. I want to keep the New Mexico Unit Fund whole. We have to generate a proposed action letter."

Runyan asked what Domenici sees in acquisition of Freeport water that can benefit the region. "Is there any revenue option to sell water to Arizona?"

Domenici said probably not to sell, but "maybe we can benefit until we get the proposed action. By then, we wouldn't be around to negotiate with Arizona. Arizona is not willing to negotiate unless we have a New Mexico Unit. We need a business plan. The Freeport infrastructure could be used to send water out of Grant County to the other counties. Other projects will be presented to the ISC. We are entitled to look at the New Mexico Unit and Freeport."

"We need to vote on accepting the recommendation, but adding or subtracting from it," Shannon said.

Runyan asked if members could "grill Riley and get his overall reaction and how (the recommendation) could be modified."

"I have thoughts," Riley said. "The cost estimates haven't been vetted. They need peer review. There are needs that must be included in the contingency, such as small fences around a pump. And then we need construction contingencies. I think the 30 percent estimates are low for the non-construction costs, such as contracts, closeouts for contracts and such."

He said when he heard $6 million for a diversion across the river, he had been thinking more along the lines of $12 million. "We will have to route the river around construction and dewatering most of the construction area underground, so they can excavate. If you don't dewater to three feet below, you can't build."

Riley presented clarification on conveyance ditches. "The 100-foot-wide footprint was when we were looking at 350 cfs or 175 cfs. If we go down to 50 cfs, the conveyance would be down to 10-15 feet, but you have to factor in embankments, factor in cuts and fills, which would be more than 4-feet wide for 20-40 cfs, and then the drainage channels, the embankments and a maintenance road."

He questioned the ability to get water from on-farm storage, if the ponds are not lined. On Winn and Pope, he said there is generally adequate water in the Upper Gila River to have enough water for Fort West ditch. "We also need to get enough to Gila Farm. I'm glad to hear you are moving toward a stable permanent structure. It will pay off. Side dams will also get run-off, not just the river water. On-farm and off-Farm side canyon dams can fill more than once a year."

Campbell said dewatering is often solved with sheet piling. "Is that an option for deep alluvial conditions?"

"Potentially," Riley replied. "There could be corrosion issues with sheet piling. For most Reclamation projects, we talk about at least a 100-year life cycle."

Runyan said that aesthetically, some want to use big boulders.

"I would be concerned," Riley said. "I think a lot of your flood events would move that type of structures. Rip rap sinks into the ground. Grouted rip rap can get undercut and collapse. I would be hesitant."

Domenici asked what the solution would be to get water to Gila Farm ditch. "Does what we propose get there?"

Riley said: "Yes, with Winn, but with Pope I'm not sure, because it has a lower water level." He said he advocates lined ponds "so the water is there when you want it. It costs about $2 per square foot, and $83,000 per acre. There is a potential to leave some unlined for ASR to keep it in the mix. You have a lot of good information and good movement toward a decision."

A motion was made to have Gutierrez and Domenici work on the proposed action letter.

Hutchinson asked that conventional wells be included in the cost. "It has relevance to the type of crop that is growing, because you need a sustainable source of water." He asked that the full build out of Winn in Phase II be included.

Gutierrez noted that for NEPA, if the build out is not completed within 10 years, it would require a NEPA update.

Hutchinson asked that the box culvert be included in the proposed action. "If I were on the Gila, I would want the full build out of Winn and keep the conventional wells, so land can be put to irrigation."

Lee said: "I think for NEPA purposes, the capacity in Virden should be doubled to 500 acre-feet. I would also like to see consideration of ditch improvements to be included. I would increase to $1 million the ditch improvements. "

Gutierrez asked if that included the current allocation for ditch improvements in the Virden Valley. Lee said the funding had been moved to the New Model Ditch and has nothing to do with the Sunset Ditch.

Shannon asked to add planning to capture the full 14,000 acre-feet.

Hutchinson asked that the AECOM estimate for Spurgeon eliminate item 9, taking $145,000 out of the estimate.

Runyan said for Gila River users, "in general the proposal jumps us off to a good start."

Gutierrez asked if the full board would like the full build out of Winn. Shannon said she wanted to make sure the proposed action includes pursuing the full 14,000 acre-feet.

Campbell questioned the full buildout without a way of filling it. "The only way to fill it is from Mogollon Creek. I think we need NEPA on the lower Mogollon."

Lee had a question for Hutchinson. "If we put in for the full buildout, how long will be have to do it?"

Hutchinson said if it is not done in five or 10 years, it would need a supplemental NEPA.

Domenici asked if there were any way to address the full Winn buildout without re-engineering. "I suggest we pull it out of NEPA and have the engineers analyze it."

Hutchinson countered with putting it in to get the full 10,000 acre-feet of storage in Winn. Domenici said they would discuss with Reclamation, whether it can be put in without a full design.

"We need to analyze the full utilization of the 14,000 acre-fee," Hutchinson added. "We don't want to limit how much we say we're going to build in the NEPA document. It doesn't include a reasonably full storage in future needs."

Domenici said the diversion and Winn Canyon are the foundation for future development and can be expanded.

An estimated $945,000 in improvements to San Francisco ditches is already existing.

Gutierrez said: "I would like to mention to the board that a line item in the scope of work for AECOM allows them to assist us in building the letter."

Members passed the motion to let Domenici and Gutierrez work on the proposed action letter.

A second motion passed to approve the proposed action as presented and discussed.

Runyan said he wanted to make sure Domenici and Gutierrez have to talk to Reclamation.

During his brief executive director report, Gutierrez said he has been working with Occam Engineers Inc., as authorized by the board.

The first task was for $12,160. "I met with AECOM, Occam and the ISC." Occam's second task on the wells, identifying the on-farm storage will cost $29,900."

"We have an issue with the proposed action," Gutierrez said. "We may have a need for a meeting to determine the additional scope of work to move forward.

Content on the Beat

WARNING: All articles and photos with a byline or photo credit are copyrighted to the author or photographer. You may not use any information found within the articles without asking permission AND giving attribution to the source. Photos can be requested and may incur a nominal fee for use personally or commercially.

Disclaimer: If you find errors in articles not written by the Beat team but sent to us from other content providers, please contact the writer, not the Beat. For example, obituaries are always provided by the funeral home or a family member. We can fix errors, but please give details on where the error is so we can find it. News releases from government and non-profit entities are posted generally without change, except for legal notices, which incur a small charge.

NOTE: If an article does not have a byline, it was written by someone not affiliated with the Beat and then sent to the Beat for posting.

Images: We have received complaints about large images blocking parts of other articles. If you encounter this problem, click on the title of the article you want to read and it will take you to that article's page, which shows only that article without any intruders. 

New Columnists: The Beat continues to bring you new columnists. And check out the old faithfuls who continue to provide content.

Newsletter: If you opt in to the Join GCB Three Times Weekly Updates option above this to the right, you will be subscribed to email notifications with links to recently posted articles.

Submitting to the Beat

Those new to providing news releases to the Beat are asked to please check out submission guidelines at https://www.grantcountybeat.com/about/submissions. They are for your information to make life easier on the readers, as well as for the editor.

Advertising: Don't forget to tell advertisers that you saw their ads on the Beat.

Classifieds: We have changed Classifieds to a simpler option. Check periodically to see if any new ones have popped up. Send your information to editor@grantcountybeat.com and we will post it as soon as we can. Instructions and prices are on the page.

Editor's Notes

It has come to this editor's attention that people are sending information to the Grant County Beat Facebook page. Please be aware that the editor does not regularly monitor the page. If you have items you want to send to the editor, please send them to editor@grantcountybeat.com. Thanks!

Here for YOU: Consider the Beat your DAILY newspaper for up-to-date information about Grant County. It's at your fingertips! One Click to Local News. Thanks for your support for and your readership of Grant County's online news source—www.grantcountybeat.com

Feel free to notify editor@grantcountybeat.com if you notice any technical problems on the site. Your convenience is my desire for the Beat.  The Beat totally appreciates its readers and subscribers!  

Compliance: Because you are an esteemed member of The Grant County Beat readership, be assured that we at the Beat continue to do everything we can to be in full compliance with GDPR and pertinent US law, so that the information you have chosen to give to us cannot be compromised.