By Mary Alice Murphy

At the New Mexico Central Arizona Project Entity held on May 3, 2018, three people attended by telephone, including the CAP Entity Executive Director Anthony Gutierrez, who was attending a workshop.

Ron Troy, who described himself as a Grant County resident, gave public input. "I've been hearing the term new water. I don't believe it's new water in an over-adjudicated basin. If you impound it or extend the time you hold it, you are hurting someone downstream. You will be doing the same thing. I believe you will be in litigation over this water. This area is rich in threatened and endangered species. You will give this water to young farmers at such high dollars that the young farmers will never be able to compete with municipalities."

NM CAP Entity Chairwoman Darr Shannon asked if Troy had scientific evidence to prove his allegations.

"I think you can find the area is over-adjudicated," Troy replied. "There are lots of other ways to irrigate. Use sprinklers systems to conserve water because of climate change."

In old business, the first topic was discussion on changes to the JPA.

Howard Hutchinson, representing the San Francisco Soil and Water Conservation District, said the language mentions a Technical Committee. "Is there some provision on how the entities that serve on the committee get selected?"

Entity Attorney Pete Domenici Jr. said: "This amendment to the JPA would have to have a resolution to implement this part of the JPA."

"We would form a Technical Committee as needed, but it's not a requirement that all these entities mentioned must be included?" Hutchinson asked.

Domenici said the selections would have to be decided by the NM CAP Entity Board.

Hutchinson suggested that the language state that any applications from other organizations for New Mexico Unit Fund money not be accepted prior to a Record of Decision by the Secretary of the Interior.

"Does this language presume that no future New Mexico Units would be created?" Hutchinson asked.

Domenici said units could be added until they were complete, but "it would hold up other projects for years and perhaps decades."

Gutierrez said it was a board decision on the applications, but "we felt the Record of Decision could give us an idea of how long it might be and how much money would be spent. It could put an end to construction dollars."

Hutchinson wanted to make sure the JPA language would not require the CAP Entity to expend New Mexico Unit Fund money for other projects but could allow it.

Domenici confirmed that the language says "may" be allocated. "Nothing is mandatory." He noted the JPA includes a dollar cap or a percentage cap on expenditures.

Hutchinson asked if it was advisable to put a dollar figure.

"What we didn't want to do is eliminate language to allow the board to make a decision on the amount," Gutierrez said. "The language is an attempt to satisfy projects outside the New Mexico Unit."

Hutchinson also questioned the use of the New Mexico Finance Authority in the JPA.

Gutierrez agreed and said he has learned it might take legislation to allow the NMFA to provide financial assistance. "I think it is covered in Section III, paragraph (c) where it says 'specific management policies will be formulated …'" It was suggested the NMFA language be struck.

Allen Campbell, representing the Gila Hot Springs Irrigation Association, said he thought it was putting the horse behind the cart. "This addition simply enables us to entertain the idea and method of using these funds outside of (a), which is extremely important." He referred to Section III (a) which stated: "That the construction of the New Mexico Unit (Development of the AWSA water) is and remains a priority."

"There is other ground we haven't plowed yet," Campbell said. "There needs to be money to operate the Unit. There should be language in (a), not just construction, but also operation. I feel strongly we have to look at how much of the revenue-based monies we have. We should set aside a percentage of the monies and use income from the money for the operation. I think this will come back to bite us if the language is not right. We have to make sure the fund is more of a perpetual fund and not exhausted in a few years. We don't know how much operations will cost."

David McSherry, representing the city of Deming said: "I agree with Allen. I think we can't finalize this today. Hopefully, by the time we finalize this, we will have a business plan, which will include construction and operations costs."

Several other clarifications of language in the two-page revision were made.

On a question about NMFA to Marcos Mendiola, the non-voting representative of the Interstate Stream Commission on the NM CAP Entity, Mendiola said ISC is responsible for doling out the money for the Unit. "If this JPA was passed by the ISC, we would make sure our responsibility was clear." He also said the ISC approves expenditures, but the Department of Finance and Administration cuts the check.

Domenici asked if he knew whether the ISC had spoken to DFA about projects currently being considered. Mendiola said the ISC has not talked with the DFA about additional projects.

Gutierrez said: "We're just wanting to provide an option. We will work out the bugs before we present it to the ISC."

Domenici said it concerns him about the NMFA language, especially if it would require legislation. "That is an obstacle. Most of the burden of this language would go to the ISC, because the ISC is already doing it under the statute. It seems the board wanted to keep using the same process."

ISC Attorney Dominque Work, attending by telephone, said the projects already approved by the ISC for funding are already a large burden on the ISC. "We would need conversations between the CAP and the ISC to discuss this."

Hutchinson listed his requested changes as they had been discussed, and said he thought some could be deleted as the Arizona Water Settlements Act is quite specific.

Linda Cook, representing Catron County, said she disagreed with the "whole language. I think it should say and/or in kind or matching funds up to a certain percentage.

Domenici suggested eliminating the percentages. "Then it could be project specific."

Gutierrez said the more he looked at the changes, he thought many of the decisions on amounts and percentages would be decided during the application process.

"I agree with Mr. Domenici," Campbell said. "We need to prevent establishing financial limits. I personally feel if it is a project that has a large, important ramification, we can give more. Let's keep our autonomy to make the decisions."

Gutierrez said he, with help of counsel, would take the JPA, insert changed language in red and send it out to the membership to read the whole document before the next meeting. He also noted that the ISC might have language changes, too.

Domenici said to a concern from Campbell that he was planning on putting operations into the language.

The next item of old business was a discussion of Amendment No. 3 to the proposed action to include two on-farm storage facilities on the San Francisco River.

"We had a site visit and took a look at the proposed areas for on-farm storage," Gutierrez said. "The consensus of those of us looking at it, including David Maxwell (engineer with Occam Engineers, working for the CAP Entity), was that the areas proposed didn't present much opportunity for storage. We did look at a well in the area, but also found it didn't necessarily provide water to users. Maxwell didn't feel a recommendation to approve was feasible."

Hutchinson said: "After we reviewed the site, we looked at an alternative to pump ground water at Pleasanton for direct application. Would we require storage at another location to offset use of the water at Pleasanton? And couldn't we insert it in the scoping?"

Work said from the joint leads' (ISC and Bureau of Reclamation) perspective (for the NEPA process) that change may not be included if it is introduced only in the scoping document.

Gutierrez said one of the things that came out of the workshop (he was attending), since "we have added or talked about adding extras, we need to be more specific."

"I will bring to the June meeting, a more specific proposed action, with a better description for the NEPA process," Gutierrez continued. "The recommendation from the engineer was not to move forward with the proposed on-farm storage on the San Francisco."

He said he anticipates receiving a letter from the joint leads with a request for specific information. "After that letter, changes to the proposed action would be detrimental to the process."

Hutchinson said the group is proposing projects to capture and store San Francisco and Gila rivers' water. "We haven't contracted with a user. We have not discussed where the water will go, but it can go to subdivisions, agricultural users, mining efforts or even geo-thermal energy. We agreed that what we looked at for on-farm storage was not feasible for storage with the ability to divert to downstream users. We are at the point for deciding the use of the water. We agree that adding the on-farm storage was not feasible to add to the proposed action."

Joe Runyan, representing the Gila Farm Irrigation Association, asked about the well. "Would the only time you could use it be during high flows?"

Hutchinson said the high flow water could be used to offset ground water use, "but we may not be delivering surface water to the project."

Gutierrez said the well structure itself would have a limited area to benefit. "It may not be cost-effective for about 30 acres."

Hutchinson moved no action be taken on the amendment No. 3 to the proposed action.

The third item of old business was a discussion to address answers from the Bureau of Reclamation regarding a letter sent by the NM CAP Entity on March 5, 2018, with five questions to be answered.

Shannon explained she had just received the letter that morning, so had not had time to send it to the board members.

How much more will the National Environmental Policy Act process cost to address the added items and analyses for the San Francisco River and the Virden areas of the Gila River made up the first two questions. The answer said the analyses could include contract and non-contract costs, such as biological surveys, and analyses of wetlands and cultural resources. The associated costs would be negotiated. The estimates could not be released because there might be additional non-contract costs, which could influence a contractor's proposal.

The third question asked if exchange costs would continue to increase at the same rate as over the past 10 years. The answer said the exchange costs only relate to delivery to the downstream user as required in the AWSA and do not represent the total costs of delivering water to New Mexico water users, which could include losses, unit construction, unit maintenance and other costs required by the unit. Reclamation cannot predict nor guarantee rates.

The fourth question asked the estimate of exchange costs over the next 25 years. The estimates include operations, maintenance, and replacement rates, with the 2018 rates set at $95 for OM&R and $65 for energy for $160 an acre foot. Estimates for 2019 are $165; 2020, $158; 2021, $161; and 2022, $167.

The final question asked about the balance and expected expenditures of the Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund for the next two years. The January 2018 balance was approximately $282 million. Estimated expenditures for 2018 are $79 million, with estimated revenues at $59 million. Estimated expenditures for 2019 are about $95.5 million, with estimated revenues of $57 million.

"We look forward to presenting a detailed report on the Development Fund at the entity's earliest convenience." The letter concluded with a request for any questions.

The sole item of new business was a budget for fiscal year 2019.

"I wanted to point out a couple of things in the budget that were set during the last legislative session," Gutierrez said. "The maximum amount we could ask for was $700,000. We removed the about $800,000 we had requested to pre-purchase water exchange credits and added to professional services, because we have a lot of costs."

Ty Bays, representing the Grant Soil and Water Conservation District, asked about the $10 for worker's compensation. Shannon said it was just a fee for worker's compensation, which is set at $1.40 per employee per quarter.

Hutchinson asked what happened to the $800,000 for purchasing water credits.

"We never drew on it, so it's still in the New Mexico Unit Fund," Domenici said.

The members moved to approve the total budget for $700,000, after McSherry asked if it have been reviewed by the city of Deming, which serves as the second fiscal agent for the entity. He was assured it had been reviewed and approved by the city.

The last item of business on the agenda was the Roundtable Discussion among NM CAP Entity members.

Shannon recognized Rep. Rodolpho "Rudy" Martinez as being in attendance and asked him if he wanted to speak.

Martinez thanked the board for the invitation to attend the meetings. "Listening to the discussion and the forward process, I was interested in how things will shake out to benefit the four counties. My concern is about legal matters, success of the project and the benefits of water and other projects."

Bays reiterated the thank you to Martinez for attending. "I just want to make clear that we do not intend to dam the Gila River. There is a difference between a dam and a diversion dam. A dam stops the whole river. A diversion dam diverts water when the user needs it. If you consider a diversion dam a dam, then the Gila River is not a free-flowing river. I also want to address Mr. Troy's comments. Yes, the Gila Valley has a rich and diverse wildlife, with two bird species in particular—the southwest willow flycatcher and the yellow-bellied cuckoo. The diversion ditches provide their habitat. If we go to sprinklers, those ditches would dry up and kill the habitat. I have seen hypotheses on the spike dace and loach minnow that they benefit from floods. With a diversion dam, when we release water back to the river, it benefits the fish."

Hutchinson also addressed Troy's comments. "He mentioned it was not new water. It is not new water in that it has flowed down the river for time immemorial, but it is additional water that can be allocated beyond the Supreme Court decree. It is additional rights to use the water. It is the only new water in the state. And New Mexico is probably about to lose some of its old water to Texas. It's unbelievable that New Mexico isn't seeking new water."

Hutchinson also addressed the allegations of sexual harassment at the legislative session that were made at the previous meeting by Allyson Siwik of the Gila Conservation Coalition. "I will address the actions that led to that accusation. The actions did not come from anyone on this board. I found it disturbing that it occurred and will make sure it never happens again. It appeared the allegation was against someone on the board, but I confirmed that it wasn't."

Campbell said he was curious how other states had addressed economic water and environmental water. "I can't find anything in New Mexico that addresses the different types. California has nobody downstream from them and the state uses an enormous amount of water for agriculture. When calculated what goes to man's uses and what goes to wildlife, 50 percent is used as environmental water."

"I live far upstream," Campbell continued. "I know that the water on the West Fork and main fork is environmental water that comes through my land. It is an enormous environmental use of water. Every tree, bush, the birds and beasts are drinking it. We have an enormous amount of environmental water. We are trying to capture some from the floods to use on our farms and downstream. I have deer grazing on my fields. The blackhawks like our fields. All the irrigation runs the gophers out and the hawks collect them. The irrigated acres are part of that environmental use. The cottonwood is wasting it. I believe by taking the flood water, storing it and releasing it, we're helping the environment. What we're trying to do is necessary for us to live, but we are and will continue to share with wildlife. Our project cannot be considered bad from an environmental point of view."

McSherry said a news article in the Deming Headlight talked about a presentation that afternoon at the Deming Conference Center to be put on by the Audubon Society to present alternatives to use of the Gila River water. Jorge Figueroa would present, as the author of a report by the Western Resource Advocates and the Audubon Society of New Mexico. The news release said it would address the diversion project, as well as groundwater management in Luna County and which was more cost-effective, rendering it unnecessary to divert the Gila River.

"I am concerned that it presents a view that the AWSA has funding available for such projects," McSherry said. He noted the recycled water-use pipes are purple like his shirt. "In Deming, we are very interested in conservation."

Shannon agreed that Deming has set an exemplary example for water conservation.

Domenici said he, Anthony and Scott Verhines had met with the Bureau of Reclamation commissioner in Washington D.C. a couple of week prior. "We described the proposed action and talked about all the help we had received from the Phoenix Office of the Bureau of Reclamation." He noted a fairly recent memorandum of understanding had been signed to have the NEPA process done in a two-year timeframe. The Interior Department protocol is to have it done in one year.

"We addressed which document we fell under," Domenici said. "She confirmed that the secretarial order with a one-year timeline applies to our project. So, a lot of work will be compressed into a short time. The Notice of Intent to proceed with NEPA has been sent to D.C. and will potentially be published in the Federal Register in June. The commissioner has experience with the AWSA, not particularly ours, but others."

Hutchinson said, in looking at the recently executed MOU with the two-year time frame, "what I was most interested in was the reasoning that consolidates all the signatories remotely attached to a proposed action to make sure it is timely processed."

"If an agency is not performing, the MOU sets up quick timelines," Domenici said. The two, the secretarial order and the MOU, working together will benefit everyone."

Runyan asked about obstacles that Anthony has experienced.

Phoenix Reclamation office engineer Jeff Riley said the workshop that Gutierrez and Maxwell were attending was an "elaborate initiative by the ISC to speed up the NEPA process. The workshop will identify data required to analyze the proposed action. It will quantify and show data gaps. Yesterday, the workshop was primarily engineering. Today, day 2, has more of an environmental flavor. Take simple on-farm storage. If the pond is unlined and being used for ASR (aquifer storage recharge), how much can it store? If it's a lined pond, you don't want the liner to float."

He said the NOI is out of the Phoenix office, waiting on registration. "We think it will be published around June 8. We will have public scoping meetings in late June into July. The San Francisco project is the most in flux, with a lot of discussion on adjudicated water."

Hutchinson said Catron County had a meeting with private owners on the San Francisco. "A lot of allotments on Forest Service land have all gone through NEPA for permitting. We have two binders full of NEPA data. A lot has already been analyzed on the San Francisco and Gila rivers. Can the NEPA be tiered off of our NEPA analyses?"

"Absolutely," Riley replied. "A lot of the process is data gathering."

Runyan asked the contractor's reaction to ASR and on-farm pond storage.

"A lot of the information from the Papadopulos report the Bureau of Reclamation can address right now," Riley said. "We have a lot of information on ground water. Return flows are about impossible to quantify. A lot of districts on the Colorado River use a formula, with about 40 percent of the water considered return flow. It depends on the consumptive use of the crops."

Work said the accepted method of quantifying return flows by the Office of the State Engineer is a modified Blaney-Criddle, which calculates evapotranspiration.

Hutchinson asked how the method relates to 40 percent return flow. Work said that was a good question that she was not tech-savvy enough to answer. "Once the workshop is over that all the smart tech people are in and can answer, I'll let you know."

Campbell addressed the issue of return flow. "If my fields of grass are really dry, my perennial grass has 2-foot deep roots. If I'm going to buy water, I want that field as dry as I can get it. If I put four inches of water on it, there is no return flow. If it's a sandy field, it will take only one inch of water. So, we can only go with averages. It changes day-by-day. It's gonna be a problem how to measure it. We will need an umpire to sample the field to determine how much we will pay and how much return flow there is."

Work said the ISC is trying to come up with a ballpark estimate of return flows to determine how much yield one gets from AWSA water. Part of the parameters has to do with the type of crop, whether it is a high-consuming crop, a mid-consuming crop or a low consuming crop. "The Technical Committee that will be formed will be charged with calculating return flows."

Campbell said it would have to be an average. "We farmers have to figure out how to use it to our advantage."

The next regular meeting of the NM CAP Entity is tentatively set for June 5, which would be the regular meeting date.

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.