Print
Category: Front Page News Front Page News
Published: 23 October 2014 23 October 2014

By Mary Alice Murphy

After public comments, Gila/San Francisco Water Commission members discussed a request by the Interstate Stream Commission for the GSFWC to re-prioritize its 2012 list of projects.

During public comments, Gerald Schultz, audience member representing statewide Natural Resource Conservation and Development districts, read from his prepared comments.

The first item he discussed was an article, "The Role of Geology in Shaping New Mexico's Future," which appeared in the NM Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources quarterly news pamphlet, "New Mexico Earth Matters," summer 2014 edition. Schultz talked about the water portion of the article. A pie chart showed the percentages of withdrawal in 2010 from surface water and groundwater, with the surface water percentage named first. Agriculture used respectively 42.82 percent and 35.80 percent; mining, 0.04 and 0.80; commercial, 0.09 and 1.68; domestic usage was 0.76 for only groundwater; power, 1.24 and 0.30; and residential was 2.13 for only surface water. Reservoir evaporation was 6.87 percent for only surface water.

"In a previous Gila/San Francisco Water Commission meeting, I had indicated that groundwater pumping has significantly increased in the western states because of the drought," Schultz said. "I expect the percentages I just presented would be different for 2014."

From an article in High Country News, Schultz took information on how much water is used for food. The example was for a cheeseburger, with 660 gallons for a 1/3-pound beef patty; 40 gallons for one slice of cheese; one gallon for two slices of tomatoes; 0.19 gallon for one leaf of lettuce and 100 gallons for three slices of bacon.

Schultz forwarded to many members of the commission and others on his mailing list a report, "In Times of Drought: Nine Economic Facts about Water in the U.S.," done by the Hamilton Project of the Brookings Institute. The project brings attention to recent trends in the nation's supply of and demand for water and describes the importance of an efficient allocation of water resources for economic growth. He also watched part of a webinar on improving water management in the U.S. in the face of scarce water supplies. The prolonged drought in California might cause national attention to be put to the issue. "There could be reverse migration out of California because there is not enough water," he said.

The main topic of discussion for the day was to review and/or modify the Resolution #R-12-02-21-1, which prioritized the projects as they stood in 2012, before many of the now completed studies on the Tier-2 projects had begun.

Discussion uncovered the fact that some of the names of the 20 projects had changed and/or been combined with other projects under other names.

Gutierrez suggested prioritizing the projects and voting on an amended resolution. "We can write a letter to the ISC telling them that our priorities recognize the combinations of projects that have occurred."

He explained that when the projects were prioritized in 2012, each commissioner used a point system between 1 and 10 to prioritize the projects.

Gutierrez also said two projects, the Silver City conservation project and the Deming conservation project had been funded as pilot projects by the ISC with $50,000 each. Silver City had put in a more efficient sprinkler system at Ben Altamirano Sports complex.

Jim Massengill, representing Deming, said the city's attempt to give rebates to those who replaced swamp coolers with refrigerated air or landscaped yards, with "hardscape" and less plantings had met with little enthusiasm, with three swamp coolers replaced and four landscapes changed. He said he believed the fund had closed, but Gutierrez said he thought the project was still under consideration.

Gutierrez gave a brief overview of the 20 projects, beginning with the one that had been the top priority, the Gila Basin Irrigation Commission diversion project. He explained it was a diversion and storage project for agricultural use in the Upper Gila Valley. The Luna Ditch Association project was for lining ditches to prevent seepage. The Gila Conservation Coalition project had been partially funded for the sprinkler system. The Sunset-New Model Canal improvements were for water delivery in the ditches. The Hidalgo County off-stream diversion was similar to the GBIC proposal. The Pleasanton Eastside Ditch, Gutierrez said he wasn't sure was still under consideration. The watershed projects, including the San Francisco watershed rehabilitation project, had been combined with other watershed projects.

Commission Treasurer Alex Thal, representing the Grant Soil and Water Conservation District, said the San Francisco proposal had been split into two components—watershed and the other being irrigation projects.

Janice Kiehne, representing the 1892 Luna Ditch Association said the proposal started out as a watershed proposal. However, after the Whitewater-Baldy Fire Complex burned much of the watershed, the irrigation projects were deemed more viable. The watershed requires rehabilitation, as it is open to environmental degradation.

The Grant County Reservoir project was originally planned to use effluent from the Bayard Regional Wastewater Plant, but the effluent could not be brought up to recreational standards, so the latest thought is to use Gila River water in the reservoir, and put the effluent upstream from the reservoir in wetlands to further filter the effluent. Bayard pulled its effluent reuse project, after receiving other funding.

Another conservation project still in the mix is the Deming water reuse for its parks.

The Grant County Water Commission regional supply would include Silver City drilling wells on its water rights near the county-owned airport and piping the water to Hurley, which has no water rights, and then into a regional system to provide water to Bayard, Santa Clara and Silver City, as well as to the mutual domestic water associations along the way.

A Gila National Forest Watershed restoration project brought disagreement from Thal. "This is a small pie of money for state water rights. I don't think the federal government should get the money. I recently heard that a lot of money is coming to the Gila to do watershed planning. If they have money, they shouldn't be taking state money."

Gutierrez said he believed the ISC has already set aside all the watershed projects for internal funding.

Cody Williams, a resident of Gila, asked to speak from the audience. "I attended the meetings in Gila when the ISC and Reclamation came. Does the estimated cost they gave include all the diversions lumped together?

Gutierrez said several estimated costs have been presented. "A report came out yesterday that did value engineering, with an estimated cost of $644 million for the combined diversions. The GBIC original estimate was for about $200 million. With value engineering, there are a lot of alternatives, while keeping the value-added diversion. It depends on what portion you're talking about."

Williams said, when the ISC came to Gila, the estimate was about $450 million. "Is this commission or the ISC going to present this to the public? Now that they have lumped things together and made revisions, will they open it up to the public?"

"There are no final projects, and this is still very preliminary," Gutierrez said. "The engineering is just at a 30 percent rate, so the costs are estimates."

Williams persisted in wanting to know the final cost.

"There will not be a final cost until it is fully engineered," Gutierrez said. "They are not going to fully engineer a project that they are not going to do."

Thal suggested the priority should be put on the projects, which best use the Central Arizona Project water allocation.

Gutierrez said the only projects to use the CAP water were the diversion projects.

With four diversion-related projects lumped together, Thal made a motion to recommend to the ISC that diversions should be the No. 1 priority. He also recommended that the project on the list named the Deming Diversion Project, which is now called the Southwest Regional Water Supply Project, be the No. 1 diversion project, as it "provides the most bang for the entire region."

Tom Bates, representing the Luna Soil and Water Conservation District, said he would vote for diversions as a concept, but not if the cost-benefit would not be good.

None opposed the motion.

A quick calculation was done of the previous point system, with the totals for each category being divided by the number of proposals in the category. The second one mathematically were the lumped-together water delivery projects, which included the Grant County Water Commission proposed county-wide supply lines.

Darr Shannon, representing Hidalgo County, suggested that the various water delivery projects be also prioritized within the category. The motion also passed.

Third were the conservation projects and fourth the watershed projects. Gutierrez said he would develop the resolution and call a special meeting, the date for which was determined later in the session, although some likely could attend only by teleconference.

Gutierrez discussed the presentation he had made at the September Interstate Stream Commission meeting on financing for a Gila Project.

"The costs are likely to be 10 to 15 times more than the funding available through the AWSA New Mexico Unit Fund," Gutierrez said. "I spoke with Mark Valenzuela of George K. Baum & Company. He put together a bonding proposal over 20 years. There are two assets, with the New Mexico Unit Fund, at $9 million a year from 2012-2021, having a 20-year investment horizon value of $133,796,750, with a conservative 5 percent annual increase. The New Mexico CAP Fund, at $6.2 million per year, having a 20-year horizon value from 2019-2028 of $89,304,125. The pro-forma financial analysis forecasting would be used to fund the bonds to pay for costs when the unit is ready to construct, for engineering and/or for further infrastructure projects."

The analysis showed the combined annual investment payments could produce revenues over 20 years of more than $223 million, with senior lien bonds of $130 million, subordinate lien bonds of $44.7 million and residual cash of $9.8 million. Lease revenues, with the assumption that New Mexico could get the water and lease it to companies in Arizona, would create an additional $189.8 million over 20 years.

Other financing sources, which could include USDA, Water Trust Board, Colonias and Community Development Block grants, would yield $80 million. The GSFWC would assist local governments in obtaining match funding for conservation, watershed or system improvement projects. Funding assumes a 25/75 match requirement from other sources, such as local financing or grant funding.

"I thought it was important enough to show how if we could use the dollars wisely, we can stretch them," Gutierrez said.

Gutierrez noted the presentation was already public information, and Schultz said it had been publicized on television in the meeting. "Don't forget the NEPA process. The projects that pass NEPA will leave more money for them."

Gutierrez briefly discussed a resolution that has been passed by the four counties in the AWSA region naming the GSFWC as the New Mexico CAP entity. "It shows we want to use the water," Gutierrez said.

On the agenda item of public outreach, Gutierrez noted that the group "got past the date when we wanted to do something, so other than a single ad, no outreach will be funded."

Gutierrez also noted that the ISC Input Group had not recently met, so there was no report.

Thal said the GSFWC treasury has a $7,007 balance, with an outstanding bill of about $900.

Gutierrez said the ISC would meet Nov. 14 in the Grant County Administration Center. The ISC would take comments from both sides of the issue of using water or not. He said the meetings usually run from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., but he did not know when public comment would be taken.

After discussion on a date for a GSFWC emergency meeting to pass a resolution, it was decided that 1 p.m. Friday, Oct. 31, would be convenient for most, if teleconferencing were available.

Thal said he hoped at the meeting, the priorities under each category could be developed, showing that diversion and water delivery were not mutually exclusive.

Bates said the word on the street was that the GSFWC was the entity being sued by Norman Gaume.

"It is the ISC that is being sued, not us," Gutierrez clarified. "The ISC is being sued for actions of the Gila Subcommittee."

Massengill asked if there were any reason for others to pass the resolution that had been passed by the counties. "That's up to you," Gutierrez said.

Gutierrez noted that the sole item on the Oct. 31 special meeting would be the resolution. The commissioners moved and approved the special meeting.

The next regular meeting of the GSFWC would be announced when needed.