Print
Category: Front Page News Front Page News
Published: 09 July 2019 09 July 2019

By Mary Alice Murphy

The New Mexico Central Arizona Project Entity met on Tuesday, July 2, 2019, to address several urgent issues.

The item of business concerning the preliminary NM Unit Operation and Business strategic plan was moved to after an item of new business that might directly impact the plan.

In public input, Chris Overlock, representing himself, said people have been living along the Gila River in what is now New Mexico and Arizona for 2,000 years. The San Carlos Indian Tribe considers the water sacred.

"The Colorado River was overallocated from the beginning," Overlock said. "The farther down you go on the road to diversion, the less there is to spend on other water projects. Quit now. It is better to spend the funding in the four counties. Ask the children and grandchildren what they want. What if the Gila and San Francisco rivers go dry in their lifetimes? The letter from Leslie Meyers of the Bureau of Reclamation told you the project won't work. Climate change will cause it not to work. You're being given a graceful exit to this project."

Robin Parker spoke on behalf of her partner Dave Hawkins. "His land would be directly impacted. The preliminary draft environmental impact statement says that a 4-foot in diameter pipeline will be placed on his property. As a hydrologist, he will work against this project. There are significant engineering flaws and the economic benefits are mistaken. The water will not be affordable. The CUFA (Consumptive Use and Forbearance Agreement) will keep water from being available. Opposition to this project is shared by the governor and both U.S. senators."

NM CAP Entity counsel, Pete Domenici Jr. addressed the first item of new business, which was discussion regarding a response from the entity to the March 31, 2019 letter from Meyers.

"Several significant things have happened since this letter was sent," Domenici said. "They include the receipt of the PDEIS (preliminary draft environmental impact statement) and the Interstate Stream Commission meeting. We are seeing letters from both U.S. senators to the ISC telling them not to approve funds for the diversion. Anthony (NM CAP Entity executive director Gutierrez) and I went to the Bureau of Reclamation to discuss the EIS. People have their own impressions of the preliminary EIS. I view the draft and tomorrow as the deadline for comments, so we can take to the U.S. Secretary of the Interior to request the extension. This is a chance to limit the project. The heart of the proposed action is what Reclamation wants to hear from us. They are saying the draft EIS will be available for public review in September or October. We want to get the extension as soon as possible. The form of this is forward-looking. What we heard from Reclamation is that the key issue for the Secretary of the Interior is business viability for our proposed action. If it doesn't make sense financially there will probably be no extension or positive record of decision. Reclamation will have to take time in the NEPA process to address our comments. If we don't get the extension, the financing will be upside down, with a lot of costs above the construction fund. That is why we are asking for the extension, to look at and refine the project. The gist of the response letter has to be positive, not finger-pointing."

Joe Runyan, representing the Gila Farm Ditch Association, said to him it looks like at issue is the bottom line. "With the current estimates by the PDEIS, construction costs are exorbitant. My point in this whole process is to get the 14,000 acre-feet by triggering a diversion. Can we assure we can keep the 14,000 acre-feet option?"

Domenici said if the entity doesn't have access to the construction funding, every component will have to be supported by the water. "We want to get the capital costs paid for by the construction funding."

"So, we need to minimize the project," Runyan said. "How far does it have to be minimized?"

Domenici said two tables in the preliminary EIS show the costs. "It needs to be under $50 million. Using Winn or Weedy canyons for storage will go over the $50 million, so we can take them out. Reclamation said we could not expect approval of the record of decision if we were seeking third party money to do the project as currently set forward. It's too expensive. We have to cap the cost and lower the operations and maintenance."

Runyan said kicking out the expensive power sources and going with gravity would help lower the costs.

Entity Chairwoman Darr Shannon asked the members to get back on the task of the response letter to Leslie Meyers of Reclamation.

Vance Lee, representing Hidalgo County, moved to approve the letter.

Ty Bays, representing the Grant Soil and Water Conservation District suggested comments. "In my opinion, it is a thank you letter. If you want to make peace, go ahead, but I think Reclamation is as fault, too."

The motion was approved, with Bays voting nay.

The next item of business was a review of the PDEIS.

Domenici said he and Gutierrez put together an analysis of the summary action of alternatives.

Bays asked if the meeting with Reclamation brought up a timeline of what would happen next.

Domenici said the draft EIS should be made public in late September or October. "Reclamation may or may not be able to respond to what we said in comments. We will take these comments and this letter to the Department of the Interior, preferably in August. We may or may not have a very good business plan by then. We will use the PDEIS to address issues when we ask for an extension."

He noted that the cost of water in Virden was the same in all the alternatives. "The difference is the O and M (operations and maintenance) plus the exchange costs, which is estimated at $311 per acre foot of water in Virden. The IDC (interest during construction) annually is enormous, unless, if we get under the construction fund amount, it will eliminate the IDC. If we can get costs under $56 million, it will eliminate the IDC."

Estimates were that annual costs for water on the San Francisco would be $1.6 million and around $2 million on the Gila River. "The only way to eliminate some of these costs is beginning by controlling the capital costs so there are no interest costs above the construction costs," Domenici said.

With Alternative C, there would be no Winn Canyon construction costs.

Aaron Sera, representing Deming as the city manager, with Deming as the second fiscal agent for the entity, asked about the exchange costs. "Is that what we budgeted the $800,000 for, the banking of the exchange water?"

Domenici confirmed that it was and was the estimated cost of 5,000 acre-feet of exchange water. "Reclamation told us that the exchange costs next year will be slightly down to $155 per acre foot but would recover upward after that. If we don't start taking water until five years from now, the acre-foot exchange costs will be higher. The only way to adjust them is by the amount of water we take, because it is a fixed cost we can't control. But we can control the construction and finance costs."

Lee asked if the exchange costs took into consideration return flows.

Gutierrez said: "If we assume 40 percent return flows, exchange costs would be for next year $94."

Domenici noted the Alternative B diversion was kept, but storage was eliminated. "We are looking at Alternative B modified. We would keep the diversion section and on farm storage. We would keep the valley ponds, which would fill by gravity flow. The water costs would have to support the exchange, the O and M and the replacements costs. We can't afford significant replacement costs, so that's why we would get rid of Winn Canyon storage. Production costs are the least expensive part of the calculation."

The economic costs of alternative B for construction of the diversion, production wells, ASR (aquifer storage recharge) wells, storage, pump facilities and conveyance would be $66,965,717 in the Cliff-Gila Valley, $55,093,880 in the San Francisco River Valley and $5,748,154 in the Virden Valley for a total of $127 million. Removing the large storage in the Cliff-Gila Valley and in the San Francisco River Valley would lower the construction costs to about $36 million. Removing the storage units would also lower the annual O and M costs. The estimated gross crop revenues would be expected to yield $1,499,300 annually with irrigation of 949 acres in the Cliff-Gila and San Francisco valleys and 153 in the Virden Valley.

Runyan said most farmers would want diversion wells on their own sites.

Esker Mayberry, representing the Fort West Ditch Association agreed, because it would be difficult to determine which water in the ditch was whose.

Gutierrez said they had tried to locate the production wells closest to the properties that had no water rights adjudicated to them. "The NRCS (National Resource Conservation Service) can get you funding for irrigation systems. We tried to put production wells in proximity to properties, but at this point we can't identify exactly where they will be. The difficulty is where impact might be. I assume we will have to do a separate NEPA process for each well."

Lee asked if Virden would have to do NEPA for each well.

Gutierrez said because of the Globe Equity that the Virden area is part of, the issue will be whether it is Globe Equity water or AWSA (Arizona Water Settlements Act) water.

"I think it would be easy to turn on the pump either for Globe Equity water or for AWSA water," Lee said.

Allen Campbell, representing the Upper Gila Ditch Association, said this document cuts to the chase. "Our main thrust at this point is working out our comments to answer the document. You have proposed backing off the large storage units."

Domenici said he could take the summary comparison and just X through boxes or "I can show it in a spreadsheet what we are proposing, so they have something clear. I want to use this as a response tool to the PDEIS."

He noted that funding is available to complete the NEPA EIS. "Some aspects can be done post-NEPA and pre-construction. The ISC approved what was essential to get us through NEPA, but not pre-construction. If we get the positive record of decision, we will get $800,000 to get to construction."

Howard Hutchinson, representing the San Francisco Soil and Water Conservation District said he had noted a lot of technical flaws in the baseline analysis.

"They did some funny things in the revised version, from the document I received in February as a cooperating agent," Hutchinson said. "They used the Gila Conservation Coalition study in the first preliminary document verbatim. This time they removed the reference to the GCC but kept the verbatim statements from GCC. The report, by the way, was extremely biased throughout the analysis. Such as the statement under economic analysis that the Gila is the 'last river with major infrastructure development.' I'm sure they meant to say 'without' to convey the bias that the river has no infrastructure. There are major diversions above and below the Gila Wilderness. They can keep repeating the lie that the river is free-flowing, but it is not free-flowing."

He questioned the $2.3 million estimate for Alternative B for the Gila. The one on the San Francisco is listed at $1.2 million. "It's the identical diversion structure. How is that possible?"

Given the flaws in this document, "I looked at the recreational analyses on New Mexico Game and Fish. They listed fishing on the San Francisco where we have put the diversion at Spurgeon. I know of two people who borrowed fishing poles from me to fish that exact spot. They caught no fish. They are the only two people I know who have ever fished there. Angling is not a recreation on the San Francisco."

Domenici said he didn't think the engineers had seen the flaws. "Scott Verhines with Stantec has come up with 340 acre-feet per year at that location. One of my goals is to meet with him before we go to D.C."

The cover letter to Reclamation will say that the entity will get the economic information to the Bureau before the end of July. "I can include lots of comments," Domenici said. "Anthony pointed out to me that the report never mentions anything positive."

Hutchinson said NEPA requires disclosures to include positive and negative. "In the Catron county socio-economic analysis, they use all of Catron County. NEPA is required to narrowly be directed at the specific areas that will be impacted."

Domenici said the cover letter from Reclamation basically said: "We're going to say it's a $133 million project. We are giving you the opportunity to comment by July 3 (tomorrow) to dispel that cost."

Hutchinson said the whole idea behind NEPA is to have no action as an alternative, which is the status quo. If that no action alternative is flawed, the entire document is flawed. This discussion should have been held in February, not now when it's late in the game. They will take what they have now, full of errors, and it is what the public will see and give negative comments on the many lies. I have seen nothing but negative lies from federal agencies for New Mexico to get this water. The whole idea of the 1968 Act was to get storage. If we don't have storage, the rest is somewhat moot. If we can directly divert, we can put the water on fallow land. I don't know how they will correct this document. Until they get the baselines correct, the rest of the exercise is a waste of time."

Sera said Runyan asked how much the project would need to downsize. "With Alternative B, it will divert less than 2,000 acres for almost $50 million. I would absolutely say no way if the data is flawed. I'm with Howard, if we don't have the correct data, we're just throwing money at it."

Gutierrez said the potential for gaining 14,000 acre-feet is not affordable. "We brought it down to the affordable. The conveyance and diversion are the baseline for the future. We don't want to lose sight of the possibility of storing the full 14,000 acre-feet. The document refers to being able to develop 14,000 in the future. We will leave them in as accumulative effects. If we show financial viability, we can add them back in. If you look at the numbers, one is an unlined storage which will benefit ASR for use. We took the idea of lining Weedy, which would have been difficult. If you line it and store, but remove Winn, you get 300 acre-feet, but reduce the cost by $27 million. If we have the diversion and the conveyance, we won't lose them, but they won't be part of this proposed action."

Sera said he would look at the financials for 2,000 acre-feet as a bad deal. "I'm not seeing the 14,000 down the road."

Gutierrez said people are saying the money should go to the regional water project. "However, if you look at that project, it costs $19 million for 940 acre-feet, which is $20,000 per acre foot. Hurley gets water, but the others have their own water systems. The entire project could give them a lifesaver in the future. Yes, it's expensive. I talked to Sen. Heinrich's chief of staff. My questions were never answered. What if we needed the AWSA water in the future, but hadn't developed it, what then?"

Lee noted that even with the 2,000 acre-feet of storage, it could be refilled during the year.

"My point is if we're telling the Bureau of Reclamation, it will cost $50 million for 2,000 acre-feet or $133 million for 8,000 acre-feet or whatever the number is," Sera said. "What are we saying?"

Domenici said for $133 million it would give the area 2,500 acre-feet. "No one is going to believe we can afford that. It's the best we can do right now. Getting funding out of the New Mexico Unit Fund for capital construction for the next three years will be very difficult."

Lee said: "I want to comment. What Runyan said is very important. He said whatever we can do, we have to do to kick off the CUFA (Consumptive Use and Forbearance Agreement) to secure water for the future."

Campbell said he would like to submit some ideas to Domenici to forward for the entity on "this confusing NEPA. I picked out a few issues to give corrective, positive criticism. There is no mention of significant spinoff, which is perpetual title to the 14,000 acre-feet. This water is an enormous positive economic issue. If any alternative is chosen, the harvested water can be used as a source of operating capital. And that is equally a negative, if no action is chosen. They opened the door to climate change. It is very negative. I've done a lot of work to get a good summation of river production since the Whitewater-Baldy Fire. I have shown the potential we have for harvesting water because of the heavy and early run-offs. It will make the water less expensive and more sure every year."

Domenici said he wanted the board to approve the comments he would send. "We need to say our proposed action will have these components and not these. I would like drone footage of the current conditions, if we can get it. And for quick PR, the river is not free-flowing. We need to link to Udall's and Heinrich's statements and to the press. Let's work through the financials. I want your numbers and your comments. I didn't hear any comments on the O and M on Cliff-Gila Valley. On the San Francisco, I put in two components, diversion and conveyance."

"In the matrix we formed, we have the assumptions in this preliminary that the cost would be in it," Hutchinson said. "We were clear in our matrix that we in Catron County would fund construction of the dam."

Gutierrez said yes, Weedy is in the proposed action. "But it is included as a responsibility of the New Mexico CAP Entity."

"We cut the pumping facilities in half," Hutchinson said, "but the figures are double the original numbers. It's baffling to me that the errors repeat throughout the document."

Gutierrez said in the cost estimates for Alternative B, "our engineers provided the cost estimates. All other cost estimates were from Reclamation."

Hutchinson said the depictions don't give a picture of what is proposed. "We don't want a 48-inch pipe. We were proposing 20-inch to 24-inch, so as not to disturb or impact the ecological system. We were told we couldn't modify our project."

"That's what we thought, but we got the letter to come back to Reclamation with a modified proposed action," Domenici said

Gutierrez said the proposed action has the water yield model when the areas can take water. "We're just removing components."

Hutchinson said: "We don't want a 48-inch pipeline. We want a smaller one."

Gutierrez said the component could be removed, and Domenici said it could be substituted with what the San Francisco wants.

"Do you need the conveyance, if there is no storage?" Gutierrez asked.

Van "Bucky' Allred, representing Catron County, said it was all so frustrating. "If you remove the conveyance, do we lose the storage forever?"

"No," Domenici said.

Allred said the biggest part of the conveyance would be under the river, with only a minimal part under individual owners' property.

Domenici noted that the entity does not have the right of eminent domain, so they would need to get permission.

Allred continued. "Having this water is critical for positive use in my county. I'm tired of blockades to our water. It seems to me the diversion dam to allow the passage of aquatic creatures is much more environmentally responsible rather than putting a bulldozer in the river at least once a year. Can you not take off the conveyance but make it the diameter we want? My proposal is to quit kicking the tires and move on. What is the point of us being here, if the government is going to give away all this water? Let's fix this and make the conveyance the right size."

Shannon asked: "Why have we made these decisions over the past years and were never thrown under the bus until now? Why are we being punished? Are they forgetting that what we want in the water?"

Campbell said; "We all labored under the impression that the original $66 million was appropriated and the $40 million to $50 million was for construction. But now, I understand we can't touch the $66 million. When did that happen?"

Shannon said what doesn't make sense to her is that "we have worked our tails off and now we're being told we can't afford it."

Campbell said the target was under $100 million. "The AWSA did not preclude using the $66 million. We also had the construction millions. Now we're stuck with just the construction fund."

Lee noted that it changed last November with the elections.

Gutierrez said: "We discussed in these meetings that the New Mexico Unit Fund is under the Legislature and under the executive branch. We attempted to get the project to be funded by the construction fund. Nothing in the law says that we cannot use the New Mexico Unit Fund. It's a question of whether we can access it. It's under the control of the ISC, the Department of Finance and Administration, and the legislative finance and appropriations committees."

"The AWSA says it's ours," Campbell said. "The only thing it said was the ISC has to be in agreement with us."

Gutierrez said the New Mexico Unit Fund Act was created to receive the money. "It gives the authority to the legislative body to allow usage of it."

"Maybe we can apply for it," Campbell said. "Maybe through the courts. I support Catron County, who always gets the dirty end of the stick, and I support the farmers in Virden. I live in Shangri-La. I can water every week. I've considered about whether my participation is worth the aggravation."

Runyan said: "If we reduce the capital access and rationalize for the future, I move we accept the economic benefits of Alternative B and give a few comments." Sera seconded it.

Gutierrez said two agenda items allow comments.

Domenici said he would like to make the changes requested by Hutchinson and Allred. "In the document draft on the San Francisco, we will leave the diversion as it is and change the size of the conveyance."

The motion was approved.

Gutierrez said some things he saw in the preliminary summary included the number of acres impacted seemed extremely large. The permanent impact to recreation with angling, fishing and hunting seemed overboard, because "our infrastructure will be on private property, so access to recreational opportunities will be limited. There are no fishing holes, and there will no access to hunting unless the property owner allows it. I have questions on where they got the information on groundwater demand. And the Gila irrigators getting payments, I'm not sure where they got that information."

Runyan said he was not aware of anyone getting payments.

Gutierrez said the comments directly on the cost per acre-foot are not in the PDEIS. "They are on a table that I received. And can the deliverable water amount be utilized by direct diversion. There are big discrepancies between divertible water and the storage amount. Why not apply the water as direct delivery? We wouldn't have to store it and it would be the most cost effective. The option to fill and refill ponds is not in the document."

Campbell pointed out a mistake that he had tried to rectify with AECOM. "AECOM took as the yield model the amount the USGS recorded through their gauges. In our ditch, which irrigates 27 acres, they had the gauge reading at 500 acre-feet. That gauge is often underwater. These aren't real figures. The big error on water yield has been carried forward. Was it approved to carry forward?"

Hutchinson said the issue of subsidies to farmers might be referring to NRCS funding. "I don't know what it refers to."

"We just want clarification of where the information came from," Gutierrez said.

Bays said: "In light of the things we've heard. Errors that Hutchinson and others have pointed out, I think this document has issues. I and those who this contractor worked for would fire the contractor. We're catching flack from environmentalists and this report is using verbatim from the GCC and UGWA (Upper Gila Watershed Alliance). We are not getting help from the federal government, from the agency that is supposed to help us. I do think we can share some of the blame."

Shannon asked that light be put on the errors and "emphasize that the federal agency is supposed to help us."

Domenici said the members also have the opportunity to comment and forward comments on the financial issues. "I think we can send more comments. It will help with our visit to the Secretary of the Interior."

Bays said he wanted to convey the problems that are going on and "they're not all ours."

ISC Attorney Dominique Work, attending by telephone, said she echoes that Domenici should convey the board comments on everything. "If they can point us to other references where we could get the correct information, it would help now and before the draft EIS is released. Please point out the statements that you believe are inaccurate and why they are inaccurate."

Gutierrez said that is also part of his comments. "If you read the document closely, if you read the biological assessment and the impact to the system, the no action alternative has the most ecological impact of any alternative. Diverting the water and its positive impacts are not brought forward. Volume 1 should have the positive impacts at the forefront, alongside the negative. With the no action alternative, there are only negative impacts, no positive ones."

Sera added: "Every comment that Gutierrez is making, he's making on behalf of the board."

The next item of business was discussion on the changes voted on in the last agenda item, which included removing Winn Canyon, some ASR components and the pumping station, all from Alternative B."

Stantec Engineer Scott Verhines said: "I've been involved in a lot of projects with a federal nexus. I echo what Dominque said. Take every opportunity to comment on this preliminary draft EIS. This opportunity doesn't always happen. It's a good sign from Reclamation. I think Reclamation is looking for a clean document. The part about valuing water—when economists talk about valuing water, they talk about quantity, quality, priority and availability. It all depends on the timing and storage for any purpose, ecological, municipal or agricultural. We had a good snowpack. It coming up too early, that's a good example of having water where and when you need it. The business plan needs some adaptations. We are looking at potential users as customers and agricultural income in three areas. In the modified Alternative B, we are looking at the total cost per acre foot. The historic net income per acre in Virden is $870 per acre; in the Cliff-Gila Valley it's about $212 net income per acre. That is relatively low to the potential income per acre. That is what we need to be looking at."

Bays asked the source of the numbers. Verhines said they came from Dr. Crawford at New Mexico State University.

"We considered crops that were not pasture or grass," Verhines continued. They include pecans, onions, potatoes, lavender, garlic, grapes and hemp. Even higher are the seeds from hemp for CBD oil. Key input we got from the producers was: will the water supply be stable? Will we have water during critical irrigation time? The average annual supply is not as valuable as having water where and when we need it. Will these crops grow here?"

He said all the research says yes these crops will grow in the area. "The revenue from garlic is about $730 per acre and for grapes up to $8,300 per acre. The income will be what allows for you to pay the exchange cots and O, M and R. We do believe the AWSA water is best used as supplemental water. Some of these crops take high investments at the beginning. Another question is whether the market from them is available here. Transportation costs are an issue, as well as crop storage needs and labor resources. This plan assumes combining adjudicated water with AWSA water."

Verhines said using the two sources of water together would provide higher long-term values. However, using AWSA water on fallow land without a complementary supply might not be the best option. "We are proposing a set of demonstration plots to allow true up of supply and demand. If you take climate change into account and precipitation, storage is more important. We have work to do on what we have heard here today. I think there is a strong economic case to be made in favor of this proposed action and using higher value crops."

Bays noted that winter pasture works, and that a lot of pasture is winter use only. "Maybe water in the summer could be used for other crops. Some fallow fields presently provide forage. I don't see the valley filling up with grapes. Transportation alone would be an issue. We're a long way from anywhere. AWSA water as supplemental use would add higher values to what we're already using."

Campbell said where he lives the grass is mostly fescue, used for grazing horses. "We have to figure the value of grazing versus buying hay. Grazed value is about $600 per acre. We have the advantage where I live of having lots of water. We do field rotation every 25-30 days. We use no labor. We're still wasting about 20 percent of the grass because we have to mow. With different grazing managements, there is good potential."

Verhines said he was not arguing that "you're doing what you can. What we're looking at are the best ways to use the supplemental AWSA water."

Gutierrez said a lot of parcels are 80-acre or 40-, 50- or 100-acre parcels. "Those with 100 acres may have only enough adjudicated water for 45 acres. They could use the AWSA supplemental water for 50 acres or raise higher value crops. They could see higher profits. I know AWSA water is not going to water the entire valley."

Sera said he was disappointed that Luna County was not in the business plan, along with the other counties. "A business plan should include industry and the municipalities. I will vote against the agreement because Luna County is not part of it."

Gutierrez noted the business plan is based on the proposed action and water available through the proposed action. "We're talking about future use."

John Sweetser, representing Luna County, said: "It's hard enough to justify the water use here. Luna County is down the road. I think we need to get this proposed action done. We are still working with Freeport McMoRan to get water to us."

"Future uses are vital," Verhines said. "We are focused on the business plan to support the proposed action."

Hutchinson said he has looked at multiple ways the water can be used. "If we have water available on a piece of land, it makes it much more valuable. We have 7,000 acres in Catron County with no water rights. Who knows what future generations will use the water for. I've looked at greenhouses. We have mining districts in the county that are not active because they have no water rights. I would like to see municipalities and industry included in the plan. Maybe a chip maker, which takes lots of water. I don't have a crystal ball for economic development in the future."

Runyan pointed out that Silver City is extracting 1,200 acre-feet of Gila Basin water at the Franks Well Field. "That is a huge diversion. The municipality is having a huge impact."

An agenda item a couple of items down addresses expansion of the task order to complete the business plan. "It increases the scope of work," Gutierrez said.

Before that item, discussion ensued on a work order to continue support of NEPA. "I think they will want data on the modified proposed action. That is additional work for the engineers. We have also been asked by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to apply for a 404 permit. I recommend approval."

Sera asked what required the 404 permit and whether it was required before the record of decision.

"I also asked the Corps that," Gutierrez said. "They want the 404 permit, so they have our project on their record, because they will be weighing in on the EIS."

Sera said he understood a 404 permit could cost thousands.

"With removal of storage," Gutierrez said, "it may fall under the ag exemption."

Hutchinson echoed that 404 permits are expensive. "$7000 is typical."

Gutierrez said all cooperating agencies have to weigh in on the NEPA now under one umbrella of agencies. "They have to provide data."

Work presented context. "A couple of years ago, an executive order for one federal decision was put forth. As a joint lead, we want all decisions from all federal agencies ready at the same time. The Department of Interior is over many of the agencies. So, all are available before the Department makes its record of decision."

Hutchinson said: "We don't know what Interior will choose. We're going to apply for a permit for a decision that we have no idea what it will look like."

"It will refer to the EIS," Gutierrez said. "I presume the application will be incomplete."

Hutchinson said: "When we get to the ROD, if I were an attorney, I'm guessing it's going to be full of holes and easy to litigate against."

Gutierrez said he wasn't sure the agency would issue a permit. "I think they just want the application on file." The application was approved.

The next item addresses the work plan for the operations and business plan for the New Mexico Unit. "It includes a lot of things we need to continue from the work order 1902-P. It should be a living document until the unit is in operation."

Sera asked the cost of the plan, and Shannon said it was estimated at $87,000.

Gutierrez said: "We'll still bring the business plan to the board to be approved."

The work order was approved.

In the last item of new business, board members discussed whether to send letters to Sens. Tom Udall and Martin Heinrich regarding their public comments opposing the diversion.

Sera said a letter does not accomplish anything. "We need representation at their officers, either here at the meetings or in their offices. We need to be pro-active. We have to reiterate what we're doing. I talked to one of their staff members, who said they didn't have any idea of what we were doing."

Gutierrez said he has already requested meetings with the senators and Department of Interior Secretary staff. "Instead, I got a call from Heinrich's chief of staff, prior to their public comments to the ISC. I tried to explain to him the difference between his comments and our project. With all respect to him, the chief of staff wouldn't have anything to do with what I said. I still have a request to meet with the senators' staff."

Allred said Catron County passed a resolution opposing the wild and scenic river designation. "I did have a meeting with a couple of staffers and have had no response. I'll go with any others to Washington, D.C. to get their attention."

Bays said he thought the entity should write letters. "I concur that the senators or their staff will throw them in the trash. And we also need a letter to the chairman of the ISC, Mark Sanchez, and copy (Norm) Gaume, Heinrich and Udall."

Sera said that a resolution would have more impact than a letter, but "we should send the letter, too."

Sweetser wondered if resolutions from each of the counties, municipalities and entities represented on the board would reiterate the importance of "this water to the counties and the people in them."

Shannon suggested in addition to the letters to Sanchez, and copies to Gaume, Heinrich and Udall, if each board member should call the senators. "They work for us."

Runyan said that 10 to 12 members "going through the paroxysms of literary writing would need an editor."

Lee said he found it bothersome that "we have the governor, Heinrich and Udall finding comfort in sending our water to Arizona, where it can be sold. I wouldn't send letters to Heinrich or Udall. I don't think their comments deserve rebuttal."

Bays made a motion that a letter be sent to Sanchez, written by Domenici, with copies to the members of the ISC and Heinrich and Udall.

Domenici said the letter would have Shannon's signature. "I would like to reference the Silver City Daily Press article."

In the executive director report, Gutierrez said he didn't have much more to report, so they continued to the Round Table discussion by entity members only.

Bays said he believed the wild and scenic designation would be discussed at a July Grant County Commission meeting and that members need to tell the commissioners why it isn't a good idea. "I think wild and scenic is an effort to stop this project. I think the designation will have effects and will affect a lot of activities in the county. It gives them condemnation right to water, view shed condemnation. It gives them water rights. I would encourage you to come to the Grant County Commission when it is on the agenda and oppose it. There's no doubt, it's dangerous."

Allred echoed what Bays said. "I had a meeting with Heinrich and Udall representatives on the wild and scenic designation. Anywhere there is the designation, no one can use the land 400 yards from the high-water mark. The wild and scenic representatives said it wasn't going to impact our project, but it will. Our representatives need to know what they are supporting."

Bays alleged the wild and scenic folks said it would not affect private land. "These multi-million dollar supported environmentalists know it will affect land below our diversion. You can try to sue, but the Forest Service always just settles with the environmental groups. It will take grazing off all public lands. Our diversion will affect everything downstream that has wild and scenic attributes."

Domenici asked if the board should do anything.

"I would like to see the executive director be at the meeting," Bays said. "Go to the municipalities, too. The mayor I talked to after they accepted the designation felt duped by what they were told. The consequences are far-reaching. The wild and scenic folks can go to Congress and say: 'everyone wants this.' We have the obligation to educate the county."

Hutchinson said proponents of the designation are going around to all the municipalities. "Every representative on this board is bound by the decisions of their individual boards. I'm not sure how we can get around it. Catron County did not support it. It's a very complex, very vaguely written act."

On the issue of the next meeting, the Grant County Administration Center will not be available for use on Aug. 6, which would be the regular date. Members chose to meet at 10 a.m. on Monday, Aug. 5, at the usual locale.