Print
Category: Front Page News Front Page News
Published: 22 March 2018 22 March 2018

[Editor's Note: The second and third paragraphs of this article summarize what is referred to often in these articles on the New Mexico CAP Entity as the "amended proposed action."]

By Mary Alice Murphy

On Wednesday morning, March 21, 2018, the members of the New Mexico Central Arizona Project Entity discussed a scope of work for AECOM for Phase IIIA of the proposed action.

The New Mexico CAP Entity (“Entity”), on October 30, 2017, chose in an open public meeting the diversion, conveyance and storage alternatives as its amended proposed action. The amended proposed action includes project components in three areas—the Upper Gila Valley, along the San Francisco River and in the Virden Valley. Diversion structures in the Upper Gila and San Francisco, conveyance (ditch) improvements in all three identified areas including a portion of lined ditches, construction of six on/off farm storage ponds in Upper Gila and 2 in Virden totaling approximately 3,500 acre-feet, and construction of a reservoir in a side canyon of the San Francisco with an estimated 1,800 acre-feet of storage (proposed funding outside of construction fund). In addition, five conventional well systems (total capacity of 4,000 acre-feet of delivery) are also being proposed in the Upper Gila Valley to provide alternative methods of irrigation such as sprinkler or drip irrigation for maximum efficiency, while also providing for aquifer storage and recovery.

These components provide opportunity for an increase in agriculture production. as well as an increase in efficiency of the existing system. Current proposed project components were approved with an attempt to keep costs within the constraints of the appropriation from the Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund (Construction Fund) identified solely for the purpose of funding the construction of the New Mexico Unit. The total estimated cost for the NM Unit is $42 million, while recent estimated amounts available for construction in the construction fund is between $50-$55 million. If these monies are not used for the purpose of constructing a NM Unit project, they will be forfeited with no ability for future use.

 

The scope of work, under consideration at the March 21 meeting, was to continue assisting the NM CAP Entity by:
1) Developing a diversion/yield model for Virden
2) Updating the San Francisco diversion/yield model based on the amended proposed action
3) Coordinating with the NEPA contractor and Occam Engineers Inc. to identify engineering information that currently exists and that needs to be developed to support NEPA process and NEPA contractor during the NEPA process
4) Additional engineering scopes are expected as a result of this scope of work.

NM CAP Entity Executive Director Anthony Gutierrez said the item had been discussed at the previous meeting in order for the process to move ahead.

He said Virden does not have a yield model, so it is required for NEPA. The San Francisco has a yield model, but it needs updates.

"The scope has a component to estimate return flows," Gutierrez said. "It is important to identify the benefits of the return of water to the system to figure out the mitigation and the ditch processes."

Vance Lee, representing Hidalgo County, and serving as chairman in Darr Shannon's absence, asked about the costs. "We won't know the costs of this scope until there are negotiations?"

"If there are no changes to this scope, the negotiations will be with the contractor," Gutierrez replied.

Joe Runyan, representing the Gila Farm Ditch, said he was advocating for his ditch in his comment. "We have all kinds of return flows that are not gauged. Do we report to you or how do we get that formalized to make sure we get some good results?"

Gutierrez said there are standards for determining the return flow, based on crop species, diversion type and soil type. "Any input you have would be appreciated, but the estimates are standardized. Any information we can get to AECOM would be extremely beneficial. I assume these return flow calculations will have to be approved by the technical committee, most of which I assume would be comprised of people from Arizona."

Runyan noted the ditch has high flows right now, "but most of it is being returned to the river."

Allen Campbell, representing the Gila Hotsprings Irrigation Association, said: "Our ditch has a meter reading that comes off at about 620 acre-feet per year. We have 26 acres irrigated by this. We have two forms of return. One is what I call bywater that goes through the fields and what is not consumed goes back into the river. And we have the loss and evaporation, which is considered about 1 acre-foot in our area. And then we have a live ditch. Of the 26 acres, we have about three that are fallow due to flood and can't be farmed anymore. I think there are a lot on the Gila River down below affected the same way. Why can't the calculation just be done with evapotranspiration plus the bywater that goes through the field and is not consumed? The USGS continually measures the water at the gauge. It has contractors that pick up the chips, and it's where they get their flows. Our ditch water right now is going back into the river, too. We divert into the fields once or twice a week right now."

Gutierrez reiterated that he thinks there are standardized engineering methods to calculate this. "We have in our proposal to potentially increase the amount of land to be irrigated and the probability of changing crops, as well as some things that may improve the overall system. We need the data moving forward. If we can prove return flow into the river, then we can be credited for that and don't have to pay for what goes back into the system. It's important to measure, so it will be part of contractual conversations. Here's the dollars, here's what it costs and here's how much we can be credited for. I think it's a bit more complicated. To my knowledge there is no documentation on return flows on the Gila."

Lee asked if the flows from flood irrigation that soak through the ground and back to the river are considered return flows. "Does it count?"

Gutierrez replied: "Yes."

Lee continued: "Two canals in the Virden area have their kickouts above the gage, so they divert more than is gauged. Periodically down the river are culverts that after it goes through the fields, it goes through the culverts that could be gauged."

"I think that has to be done," Gutierrez said. "When you're taking AWSA water rather than your adjudicated water, it will have to be measured, so people know how much is used and how much they have to pay for."

Campbell said data is available, because of subsurface drip systems, which give good calculations. "It has to be done by samples, for species of crops times the number of acres. It's a matter of putting the information together and coming up with the consumptive use of the water."

Gutierrez said AECOM and the Bureau of Reclamation and the S.S. Papadopulos firm have done extensive studies on the Gila, but "I'm not sure they've done them in Virden or on the San Francisco. That's what this scope of work is (putting together the data)."

Ty Bays, representing the Grant Soil and Water Conservation District said he agreed with what Gutierrez was saying about consumptive use. "But in this case, we will be pulling water out of a reservoir. You're going to have to pay for it. We have to figure out the return flow or you will have to pay for every drop of water you take out."

Campbell said he understands that the water coming out of the reservoir can be measured and then using data on crops and soil determine how much water is lost in irrigation. "It's a biological process with the plants using the water from the reservoir and from precipitation. I understand we have the data in consumption by crops. My concern is about how we are going to do it. I'm getting tired of spending money."

"I will make sure the board will get the methodology behind the data," Gutierrez said.

Dave McSherry, representing the city of Deming, said he wanted to verify that the scope is asking AECOM to do not just look at the surface flow but also the hydrological flow. "I assume in the Gila Valley, which is fairly narrow, that percolated water will go back into the river, whether from surface water or subsurface water. Will AECOM evaluate both of those sources?"

Gutierrez said it is not an aquifer type model. "They will take the information and determine the return flow. The scope is to gather the information to create a calculation to determine the return flow. It will go to the Technical Committee to determine how much we need to pay for the water."

Howard Hutchinson, representing the San Francisco Soil and Water Conservation District, said: "This is in regards to preparation for the NEPA document. In the recent past, the Bureau of Reclamation built a fish barrier diversion on the Blue River. It is in Arizona, but it's a tributary of the San Francisco. I noted with interest that the Bureau did an environmental assessment, but not a full blown environmental impact statement. There was relatively little public comment put into this and no objections from environmental groups. This document parallels many of the diversion types we are considering on the Gila and the San Francisco. They provide fish barriers to protect the threatened and endangered aquatic species. I would strongly suggest that our contractors look at this document, because it is fairly complete, and it notes no significant impact."

"It's disturbing to me that we are spending pretty close to 10 percent of what we are proposing for construction costs on NEPA," Hutchinson said. "When I was in Washington D.C. last week, I spoke to people from Interior and Reclamation. They were shocked at the costs being proposed for this evaluation. I also mentioned the 150-page document of limitations that the NEPA contractor proposed, as well as appendices." Hutchinson said the contractor has said he would comply with the limitations and just "tack on a whole bunch of appendices. The Bureau of Reclamation people were quite shocked at this and that tacking on appendices is not the intention of the Secretary of the Interior's order. I'm mentioning this because it seems we are being saddled with an extremely high bill and that we are exceeding all logical and reasonable intentions for our relatively simple project. These are not major engineering projects. We are not building Aswan Dam or the Pyramids of Egypt. We are proposing a couple of small diversions with 50 cfs (cubic feet per second) flows to deliver to storage facilities."

He said it has gone on too long. "We have had exaggerations of what our project is going to be. It's high time that the engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation do what we expect from them the same as we are doing—being conservative in our expenditures. It's nice to have competent engineers; it's nice to have competent NEPA contractors, but we are far exceeding the level of examination required. Like the Blue River, an environmental assessment can be used, and it can be a cut-and-paste. Four million dollars for cut-and-paste is a bit ridiculous. I hope these comments will be reflected in the scope of work. An assessment of the lands in Catron County brings a misconception that there is no need for this water. We looked at land downstream from the proposed Spurgeon diversion to Pleasanton. There are 8,545.03 acres of private land. Adjudicated land is 1,003 acres. That is 7,542 private lands with no water rights. A lot are grazing lands."

"I don't know of anyone who has a crystal ball for the future," Hutchinson said. "But what if the land is subdivided? They will need water for their lawns, trees and gardens. If the land is converted to arable lands, it could represent a considerable water need. In Grant County, you will find are far more acres of private property without water rights along the Gila that will potentially need water rights. If you convert these lands to subdivisions, where's the water going to come from? It will have to be taken (in Catron County) from the existing 1,003 acres of water rights.

"We can't afford to be losing any more agricultural land in Catron County," he continued. "Our mission for the San Francisco Soil and Water Conservation District is no net loss of private, adjudicated water rights. We are already suffering from those converting to personal domestic use. So, when we start calculating these figures, we need to take into consideration the huge demand, potentially, for this water."

Runyan said: "Well put. Is there any way we can put a note into the scope of work, so the contractor recognizes the Blue River assessment?"

Gutierrez said he would make sure it was in the scope.

Ali Effati, Interstate Stream Commission Gila Basin manager, attending by phone, said the scope under consideration is for diversion yield modeling and a workshop.

"The Blue River environmental assessment will be taken into consideration at the workshop," Effati said.

McSherry asked about the budget. "Is this scope of work going to be funded with the left-over money or will it go beyond that amount?"

Gutierrez said the scope of work was for new item expenditures by the ISC. "The left-over funding went to last month's engineering scope of work (to collect data by Occam to give to AECOM.). This scope goes through the ISC, not the CAP budget."

Campbell moved, and Runyan seconded the motion to approve the scope of work.

The meeting was then adjourned. The next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, April 3, at 10 a.m. at the Grant County Administration Center Commissioners' Room.