By Mary Alice Murphy
The Interim Legislative Water and Natural Resources Committee met Oct. 17, 2019 at Western New Mexico University's Miller Library. WNMU Vice President of Student Affairs Isaac Brundage welcomed the legislators on behalf of President Joseph Shepard.
Brundage:
One of our areas of distinction here is the Gila Wilderness. We hope you also get to see more of our campus and have time to engage with our students. They are why we are here.
Prospectors President Evangeline Zamora:
Welcome from the Prospectors. We bring forth the issues from the community to you legislators. I would like to invite Prospectors to stand up. Our sponsors include Dr. Shepard for use of the room, Advanced Airlines for the continental breakfast and lunch will be provided by the Silver City Regional Association of Realtors and Prospectors.
The first item on the agenda addressed the Gila River planning, process, projects and alternatives: New Mexico Central Arizona Project Entity updates:
Interstate Stream Commission Director Rolf Schmidt-Petersen:
I have 20 years experience with the ISC. This is one of the most complex projects we've dealt with. I want to thank Silver City and Freeport-McMoRan. When I started as a hydrologist, I cut my teeth in the area around the mine.
In 2004, the U.S. Congress enacted the Arizona Water Settlements Act. It allocated money for building a Gila diversion and additional money for construction. Other things that Congress also did that year was to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to design, build, operate and maintain the New Mexico Unit. The New Mexico portion of the Central Arizona Project had to inform the Secretary of its desire to create the unit. The AWSA authorized establishment of the Southwest New Mexico Water Planning Group, which has been succeeded by the New Mexico CAP Entity. The ISC did vote to go forward with a unit and is the joint lead with the Bureau of Reclamation.
Congress authorized the planning group to own the unit and provided for the New Mexico CAP Entity to design, build, and operate and maintain the unit. The CAP Entity has accepted the authorization to design.
[He had provided to the legislators a two-page handout explaining the the funding.]
The project is currently in the environmental impact statement process. It has been underway for about 1½ years. The joint leads have produced the preliminary draft of the project. The CAP Entity came forward and downscaled the project. We are at the point of developing and preparing to put out the draft EIS for public comment at the end of the year.
In the AWSA, Dec. 31, 2019 was the original date set for a record of decision by the Secretary of the Interior. The secretary has the sole authority to allow an extension, which the CAP Entity has requested.
The New Mexico Gov. (Michelle Lujan Grisham) does not believe an extension is warranted, because of frequent changes and costs. The ISC will not provide extra funding until we see the overall areas of the project. Since 2012, the ISC has spent $13.9 million on studies. In 2014-16, several water projects other than a unit were proposed and vetted by the planning group and the ISC. The ISC allocated $9.1 million for those projects, which include acequias improvements on the Kiehne Ditch, metering aquifer storage and recovery, the Hurley well project, which still has a lot of questions to be answered. The reality is that all of the non-unit projects have issues that arise. To date $4.6 million has been sent to the participating entities, with six of the 17 projects operational. Costs are escalating. The ISC has spent a total of $6.2 million for staff and operations.
NM CAP Entity Executive Director Anthony Gutierrez:
I have provided you a description of the proposed action for a unit diversion. When it was first vetted in its first permutation, it was set to cost $700 million for a 65-acre reservoir. When the NM CAP Entity took charge of the design, it was drastically downsized. We changed the maximum diversion to 150 cubic feet per second. When we saw the EIS preliminary draft, we could have built the unit with the New Mexico Unit funding and the construction funding. But the board did an amendment that give authority to it to fund other water projects with the New Mexico Unit Fund. We submitted it to the Department of Finance and Administration several weeks ago and are awaiting approval. It opens the door for the CAP Entity and the ISC to fund other projects.
I want to point out: the New Mexico Unit is comprised of three separate components, any of which can be a stand-alone project. The overall costs will be paid for through the construction funding. We would have to take on external funding related to reservoirs. The CAP Entity removed the storage projects from the San Francisco and the Gila rivers. We have asked for the extension for the record of decision, and we feel that our components are economically viable.
[He said on page 5 of the handout, the operating budget was at the bottom and included a full-time employee to take care of the operations and maintenance.]
The operating budget would be $352,000, half what we're spending now. Board members were shocked at the costs, because they already do routine maintenance on their agricultural diversions. We identified the costs, including total labor, operations, maintenance, contractors, and a database to make sure we keep a running total of water allocated and used. Costs per acre-foot at this time stand at $158 for the exchange costs. Minus return flow, which is calculated at an average 40 percent by the state engineer, but Reclamation is saying it is more like 12 percent because of wells. The last page of the budget shows the cost per acre-foot, incorporating all the above costs we figure at $234 per acre foot. We believe that we can get a return flow of 25 percent because of efficiency due to drip irrigation.
Howard Hutchinson of the San Francisco Soil and Water Conservation District says that $305 per acre-foot for exchange and operations costs on the San Francisco is way too high.
Scott Verhines of Stantec Engineering:
I will talk about the business plan. I have talked to potential users. They have said that the AWSA exchange water would be best used as supplemental water to help them meet their full adjudicated water rights. The potential users say they could put the estimated costs into their current costs and lower them.
The component in Virden is an already existing concrete diversion. Virden has the largest agricultural operation off the Gila River in New Mexico.
We designed a cutout on the Gila Diversion for fish and an instream flow. We recognized the concerns of the governor's office. We will have a meeting this afternoon to discuss the financial viability. We have a meeting with the Secretary of the Interior next week.
Committee Chairman Senator Joseph Cervantes:
I'm already lost on where we're at. I want to remind everyone that the ISC is a creature of statute responsive to us as the Legislature.
Attorney D.L. Sanders was late due to a delayed flight, but he was there to give a history of the AWSA:
I'm trying to be objective. In 1938, folks here were sued by the Gila River Indian Community and said they had jurisdiction over a good portion of the surface water rights here. That was the first time folks here got short shrift.
In 1963, in Arizona v. California, New Mexico was limited to existing and historical uses with nothing for the future.
In 1968, a lot of blood, sweat and tears were spent to get 18,000 acre-feet of water from the Gila and San Francisco rivers to be allocated to the four-county region. It was instrumental in getting the Central Arizona Project water. We were given water because we had no water for future uses in the Arizona v. California lawsuit when we got screwed.
In 2001, we got a call. Phil Moots said we have a problem. Arizona was trying to take New Mexico's 18,000 acre-feet of water to fulfill their needs. Senators Kyle and Ron Lewis came up with a plan to write the 18,000 out of the settlement. The free-flowing Gila was going to Arizona so they could suck it up.
I'm only thinking about future needs for water in these parts of New Mexico. It is an essential element to keep water for the future. When Ute Reservoir was built, the area didn't need water, but the engineers recognized there would be a future need. That is our perspective now.
In 2001, we started talking internally. Sen. Kyle of Arizona was floating a plan. We had Sen. Jeff Bingaman and Sen. Pete Domenici on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Kyle was giving a presentation rolling through his bill. Sen. Domenici made a grand entrance, sweeping the door open, and slamming it against the wall, so everybody jumped. He said: 'I just want to make sure everyone knows I'm here to protect New Mexico's interest in the CAP water.' Domenici and Bingaman made sure the bill backtracked to preserve New Mexico water.
A quote from Domenici that day
"I come up with the conclusion that little old New Mexico is going to get her share of the pot of money and to make sure we get our 18,000 acre-feet. Anybody that thinks this project is going to go through and we're not [going to get our water] has it wrong. Too often, New Mexico gets left to the end, but finds its way back to the water. I want to make sure the senators understand, and especially you Sen. Kyle, that it will be an expensive project, but New Mexico out of the big project will get its water."
So, me, John D'Antonio, Estevan Lopez, and Norman Gaume started project negotiations. The goal of Arizona was not to let us get this water. I think the goal was that we couldn't do it without harm to the environment. We have a certain obligation downstream, and we will make sure the environment and wildlife are protected. We will only take water at a certain flow. Arizona was insistent that the funding come from the Lower Colorado River Basin Fund. The money is not where it was in 2003 when the negotiations were going forward. We were fighting for our 18,000 acre-feet, but we compromised to 14,000 acre-feet. Under the Act, we were guaranteed $62 million, although the original estimate was $70 million in 1968. In 2003, the estimate was $220 million to build the project, so if we could come up with $170 million, we could do it.
Pete Domenici Jr., NM CAP Entity attorney:
I will carry on where DL left off. The Arizona Water Settlements Act was passed in 2004 and signed into law. There was a hiatus on doing studies for the New Mexico Unit for about six years The New Mexico Unit Fund statute was passed in 2011, which took control of what I call the non-construction funding. It is controlled by the Interstate Stream Commission. This funding is not dedicated to the current project. We have created an amendment to our original joint-powers agreement, which will let us set up a protocol process for funding other water projects in the region. The CAP Entity has always been sympathetic to the need for other water development projects. Our proposed action is designed for the costs to stay within the construction funding. This funding can be used only for a unit and nothing else. We committed in 2014 to design a unit.
The CAP Entity has always been chasing deadlines. Right now, it's the NEPA process. Without a positive EIS, we cannot build a unit. The studies by the NEPA contractor will not be done by December 31, 2019. When it is complete, D.C. will have a month to review it. We have the option to request an extension, and we have set up a meeting with the Secretary. We have already presented our written presentation. The Gila River Indian Community is saying don't spend our money, because they may be shorted. Senators Heinrich and Udall had made comments against a unit. This afternoon the entity has a special meeting to address a difficult decision. We will consider identifying alternatives A through E. E is the San Francisco, D. is part of A, B and C, but it's just storage ponds in Virden.
Virden is the most well-developed for agriculture, due to the adjudicated water rights under the Globe Equity Decree in 2000. They are able to assess and make decisions. The capital cost for that project is $7 million for 600 acre-feet of storage. The vote this afternoon is whether the entity can shrink the project. There are several good reasons for it. 1) Virden is on Arizona time; 2) and water that leaves the Virden Valley unstored goes directly into Arizona; 3) The land is 100 percent privately owned by Mormon farmers, who were pushed out of Arizona and settled on the first river they came to—the Gila River; 4) The area is highly productive and highly efficient.
There is no proposal to change anything, just to build the ponds with gravity flows. There is not an ounce of storage in Virden or for anyone in the Globe Decree. I've spoken to owners of the New Model Ditch and they support this approach. The location is four miles from the Arizona border and has not as many environmental concerns.
Hutchinson:
I will be here to answer questions. I've been engaged in this process for 48 years.
Joe Runyan, representing the Gila Farm Ditch Association:
I'm the only farmer here. I turned off my irrigation today, so I could come here. For context, the Gila Farm Ditch is 440 acres for which we maintain our ditch ourselves. For the three diversions in the Gila Valley, we push up a gravel berm across the river to divert water onto our land. When we put up the berm, there is no water flowing below it. Nobody thinks this is a good idea. We have to constantly repair the berm. The irony is that a permanent diversion would have a lower profile than the three diversions. We would have to enlarge the ditches to carry up to 50 cubic feet per second. We would divert the water into storage ponds. The footprint of a unit would not be as invasive. The farmers are dismayed that politically, we can't get 10,000 acre-feet of water or that people believe no one would pay for water at $240 an acre-foot. Our water rights on the ditch are worth about $11 million. At $240, the water is slightly more expensive than adjudicated water, long-term. We are not going to use flood irrigation but will use drip and sprinklers. Yes, it's definitely affordable. We need a permanent 100-year project.
Allyson Siwik, representing the Gila Conservation Coalition:
I've been involved for 15 years. My message is that it is well past time to spend money on a Gila Diversion. The entity has missed deadlines. I believe a project is not technically feasible and not financially feasible. We still feel in reality, the CAP Entity just wants to hold onto access to the construction funds for future times. You've heard in the past about the $1 billion project. They want to hold onto the money to pursue their fantasy. The governor and the GRIC oppose the extension. The Gila River Indian Community is one of two downstream water users that would be impacted. The 14,000 acre-feet of senior water belong to Arizona. GRIC and the San Carlos own the water. The only way for New Mexico to get the water is through an exchange by paying to deliver water to GRIC and the San Carlos, so senior water rights can be fulfilled. Reliability is a big issue.
[Note: As part of the Arizona Water Settlements Act, GRIC signed the Consumptive Use and Forbearance Agreement that they would not contest New Mexico receiving the water.]
Some years the water will not be available. The potential users must prove they can pay the operations and maintenance for the unit. The CAP Entity is built on a house of cards, with no specific revenue. The only way to pay for the water is if farmers transition to higher-value crops. It is unlikely the farmers will switch to higher-value crops, because there won't be a reliable water supply. We believe these are low-ball cost estimates and the water is more expensive than the current ditch fees. In the Gila, about 40 times the ditch fees. I thank our representatives for supporting the governor's water plan. The latest infrastructure capital improvement plans show $64 million in water infrastructure needs in the area. These could be funded using AWSA funds. The Mining District needs money now.
Harry Browne, representing himself as District 5 commission on the Grant County Board of County Commissioners:
I reviewed my testimony of two years ago. My comments are very similar to what I said then. The project keeps changing. It's a moving target. Their being open to thinking about Virden is suspicious to me. Other aspects are not identified. As for users, you heard from the creative Joe Runyan. The CAP Entity is not up to the task. At a CAP Entity meeting the chairwoman showed dismay at missing the deadline. (Allen) Campbell (representing the Upper Gila Ditch Association) said what they are doing isn't worth the aggravation, as the swirl of federal funding goes down the drain.
The Regional Water Plan needs to be funded, especially after disappointing well results. Hurley cannot fund the project, with their residents already paying $10 more a month, then maybe another $14 and then maybe $14 or $34 more, It's not good for the residents. We can't wait for the CAP Entity to do its diversion. It's a zombie-like project that shambles forward, when it should be shot down. It's time to take a deeper look at the yield. Climate change is happening. By 2050, the prediction is that there will be no snowmelt to feed the Gila. We don't see it in the modeling. It ignores climate change. The average annual amounts show some years with flooding and some years with nothing. The costs they say are $200 an acre-foot. We believe that is dramatically understated and should be $430 an acre-foot. It's not just for every acre-foot applied to land and every acre-foot stored, but they will suffer seepage.
The modified Alternative B shows consumptive use of 821 acre-feet, with a return flow of 63 acre-feet. With that consumptive use, there will be 499 acre-feet of evaporation losses, so the total is 1,957 acre-feet to pay for. They use about 2.4 to 1 acre-foot applies, so if you pay for 2.4 acre-feet that's 3,884 acre feet at a cost of $474 per acre foot. The return credit, they believe they should not be charged for. The Technical Committee will be populated by downstream users, most of whom will be from Arizona. I see them saying, do send us that 634 acre-feet of return flow and you pay for it. Sober up.
The next article begins to address the questions from legislators.