Members also held a roundtable discussion on issues they wished to address.

{Editor's Note: This is part 4 and the final of a multi-article series on the NM CAP Entity meeting of April 3, 2018)

By Mary Alice Murphy

At the New Mexico Central Arizona Project Entity April 3, 2018 meeting, members discussed Bureau of Reclamation's clarification of items expressed during the past two meetings of the NM CAP Entity.

Chairwoman Darr Shannon said the item was for discussion only and included information about an environmental assessment as compared to an environmental impact statement, the Blue River fish barrier and other topics.

Howard Hutchinson, representing the San Francisco Soil and Water Conservation District, started the discussion by saying: "Apparently Mr. (Sean) Heath (Phoenix Office of the Bureau of Reclamation environmental division manager) and Allyson (Siwik, Gila Conservation Coalition executive director) misinterpreted and Allyson completely mischaracterized my statement."

"I was not suggesting the Bureau of Reclamation use an environmental assessment for our proposed action," Hutchinson said. They used a 149-page EA for the Blue River fish barrier, which he said would be a useful document for the bureau to use. A lot of the information from the Blue River EA correlates to what the CAP Entity is proposing, he said.

The 149-page EA is right at the limit of what Reclamation is proposing for the EIS for the CAP Entity's proposed action.

"I would suggest strongly that much of what the Bureau of Reclamation did for the Blue River project could be extrapolated and utilized in the EIS," Hutchinson said. "I think there are a lot of things that need to be examined in the environmental impact statement that have to do primarily with the diversion of flow. And that will be the primary element we will be looking at for environmental impact, as well as social, cultural and economic impacts. As well as the costs and economics of delivery of this water to the diversion structures. I just wanted to make sure I clarified Mr. Health's clarifications."

"Just to make sure I'm clear on this," Shannon said. "Did you talk about the Blue River at the last meeting?"

Hutchinson said he said them at the special meeting.

"And I missed that one," Shannon said. "I will be completing the minutes of the special meeting soon and we will have those to verify what you did state. I will be happy to send a copy of the minutes and even a copy of the tape to Mr. Heath."

Hutchinson said he has saved the email he sent to Mr. Heath and other parties. "I think it was pretty clear that the Blue River EA could be used by Reclamation for our project. The EA had a quite extensive list of endangered species."

In the executive director's report, Gutierrez said, in February, he, Dave Maxwell of OCCAM Engineers Inc. and Chuck Caruso went on a tour of diversion structures on the Pecos River. "We have shared the information also with the Gila Basin Irrigation Commission and The Nature Conservancy."

He showed some images taken on the tour of Gabion structures, including a concrete capped one. "It doesn't go all the way across the floodplain and not all the way to bedrock, but it has remained intact at least 20 years or more, even with larger flows than we have. It has sluice gates to clear out sediment. A large base prevents water from undercutting the structure. The concept is to divert, but not impede the function of the floodplain. It is a 9-foot structure, which raises the water level by six to nine feet for irrigation."

Gutierrez noted the type of diversion takes away a lot of the cost of the structure. "It acts as a buffer when rocks and trees come down in the river. It is resilient. The gates on both sides of the structure allow irrigation on either side. It seems to be a simpler solution for diversion."

Allen Campbell, representing the Gila Hotsprings Irrigation Association, said; "It does show a solution on a stream that is larger than the Gila. It is not a flood time removal system. It does not pull water off in high flows. One thing I've been fearful of on the Gila would be to raise the water too high to divert. It will upset upstream if you raise it higher. It will necessitate higher wing walls because of the changing gradient of upstream. I think it will have to be a totally different design to take 1,000 cfs flows."

Gutierrez said the style has not been studied for the Gila. "For the Gila, it would be more like five feet high. It could be longer and flatter. It would need a differently engineered sluice. I anticipate trying to take clean water for irrigation, as long as the CUFA is met. It is similar to what the GBIC contemplates."

Vance Lee, representing Hidalgo County, said it was similar "to what we have in Virden. Ours have withstood 35,700 cfs (cubic feet per second) flows, like we had in 2005. We can take water at 10,000 cfs, but we don't have a way to flush it out. I like the look of these."

Gutierrez said one side could be modified for fish passage. "It's a good concept. It's reasonable to build. We wouldn't need the amount of hydrogeology studies and costs to put all the way across the floodplain and down to bedrock."

"Our design was developed by farmers, not engineers," Lee said.

Hutchinson said he likes consideration of a fish barrier rather than fish passage. "The barrier would protect the fish upstream to keep the non-native species out of the lower San Francisco. Spurgeon has a narrow gap and could act as a fish barrier. I think it should be part of the environmental evaluation to preserve native species above. Debris piles up under the iron bridge, which is 15-20 feet of water going over the structure. It would have to be a substantial structure. The high flows and hydraulic pressure that could occur at Spurgeon are a concern."

Campbell said he had not witnessed it but had been told about a situation on the Gila. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had put in a diversion, which was primarily a fish barrier without a fish ladder. "They had to consider more than one endangered species, which were above and below the barrier. Because of a concern of a lack of genetic diversity, annually they did a seining to transfer fish from one side of the barrier to the other."

Allred said a couple of years ago, "I was approached by the New Mexico Game and Fish. I was concerned because several years ago, they decided to poison, that may not be the right word, they treated the streams, so they could re-introduce the Gila trout. Fish and Wildlife does not manage for recreation, they just toss in the fish and go away. Game and Fish wants to maintain the species for fishing and recreation. I've learned more, and I think they do a good job."

Hutchinson said he agreed with Campbell. "One of the considerations on the Blue River was moving the genetic pool from below to above the barrier to get genetic diversity. That can be accomplished on anything we're considering."

Shannon asked if anyone had gotten to the bottom of the question that B.J. Agnew representing the Upper Gila Irrigation Association, had asked about private property.

Gutierrez said he had sent out letters, but "I haven't had any response. I guess it's still a valid issue."

The members entered into a roundtable discussion.

Aaron Sera, representing the city of Deming, said: "I have a question. Who is going to use the water? Is a farmer willing to pay for an on-farm storage pond? Can we get contracts, so we can avoid deciding that we don't want to pay?"

Attorney Pete Domenici Jr. said he thinks it will be contemplated in the strategic plan and the business plan, which is part of the strategic plan.

"We haven't issued a notice to proceed with the strategic plan," Gutierrez said. "We have concentrated on the proposed action for NEPA. It's kind of a chicken and egg thing. Construction funding will pay for the infrastructure to benefit the use of Arizona Water Settlements Act water, as well as adjudicated water. I have talked to several farmers, who want to expand their business, but we have no contracts yet."

"Do we have a plan going forward?" Sera asked.

Gutierrez said part of the plan is to evaluate the benefits and costs.

Hutchinson said he has been thinking about that as well. "Are easements involved? They need to be addressed fairly quickly. Are we developing contracts for easements for construction and conveyance?"

Gutierrez said surveying is part of the scope, which will develop the rights-of-way and give maps.

"We approved letters to Sen. (Howie) Morales and Rep. (Rodolpho 'Rudy') Martinez," Shannon said. "When you talked to them, did you ask if they had received them?"

Gutierrez said he did not ask them.

"I have not heard back from either of them," Shannon said. "We asked them to attend any meeting, so we could interact with them."

Hutchinson said at the meeting before last, Ms. (Allyson) Siwik had commented on disagreeable comments that she had heard at the legislative session. "I would like the names of those that negatively affect this board, so I can talk to them and explain what we are doing."

Siwik, at that point, made a "quick" request. "This meeting was difficult to follow because we had no handouts. The website is not being updated with handouts or reports."

Gutierrez said it was up to the board. "Most of the items we had today were drafts, and I don't like to put them out until after they are approved. We get them up as soon as possible. We usually try to provide documents by the sign-in sheet, but we didn't get it done today. It's up to the board whether they want to post drafts."

Joe Runyan, representing the Gila Farm Irrigation Association, replied on the private property issue. "Seventy percent of the arable property and water rights are owned by Freeport-McMoRan. They have been great neighbors. I don't think we need to shroud it with the words private owner."

"To the question about who will use the water," he continued. "If you buy water rights, you pay $450 an acre-foot per year amortized. If you can get an acre-foot for $150 or so a year in exchange costs, that water will be utilized. If you can grow grapes or onions, it is economically feasible."

Campbell said farmers continue to look at efficient water use. Farmers have the greatest success with efficiency. "The benefit of storing water is to let the sediment settle. If the water is free enough from sediment, it can go straight into drip or sprinkler systems. The expense for the drip system is in the underground filtering required. If you have pond water, people will be encouraged to change from flood to drip and sprinkler irrigation. We're actually talking about economics here, with the potential technical improvements to water."

Sera gave his opinion on the draft documents. "The entity should have a few copies ready for the public on the day of the meeting. Or if they want to request by email a copy of the document in draft form on the day of the meeting."

The members went into a closed executive session for the final evaluation of the executive director, Gutierrez. No action was taken in the meeting or after.

The next meeting is scheduled for May 1, 2018 at 10 a.m. at the Grant County Administration Center, Commissioners' meeting room.