By Mary Alice Murphy
The Gila/San Francisco Water Commission held a special meeting today to finalize and approve a resolution, which had been discussed at the meeting held Oct. 21.
With commissioners representing nine entities and three on the conference call, representing four entities, the group had a quorum.
Charles "Tink" Jackson, representing Luna County and the village of Columbus, moved to approve the resolution, which was read by GSFWC Chairman Anthony Gutierrez, and Janice Kiehne, representing the 1892 Luna Ditch Association in Catron County, seconded the motion.
GSFWC Treasurer Alex Thal, who represents the Grant Soil and Water Conservation District, had questions. "Shouldn't we put in the 'Now, Therefore' that these recommendations are being made to the Interstate Stream Commission?"
Kiehne asked if that were not what was in the first Whereas. Thal said it should be stated in the Therefore, be it resolved, portion of the resolution.
Jackson amended his motion to include the language, "and that these priorities be recommended to the Interstate Stream Commission. Kiehne seconded it.
Billy Webb, representing the San Francisco Soil and Water Conservation District suggested that No. 8, the San Francisco Watershed Restoration proposal, should be moved under the category, Diversion, as it had a storage component to the project.
Darrel Allred of Catron County said he had been the coordinator of the San Francisco Project for the irrigation portion. "There were 10 different proposals. Every one of the projects had money allocated for off-stream storage of Arizona Water Settlements Act water. I think it would be fair to allow us to divert. I request that No. 8, be moved into the diversion category."
Gutierrez said the diversion category was chosen to use the 14,000 acre-feet of water, as allocated by the AWSA.
"I think the ISC said our proposals would improve water delivery and would store water, if it were available," Allred said.
Thal said diversion should be clarified, as the only part of the proposals that would tap into the average annual 14,000 acre-feet of water. "We chose No. 1 under the category Diversion, because it would tap into the 14,000 acre-feet and because No. 1 (the Southwest Regional Water Supply Project, also known as the Deming Diversion) would offer the greatest good for the greatest number of citizens."
Jackson amended his motion to include Allred's request. Kiehne asked if only the ditches listed in the proposal would be funded or improved.
Thal said the language of the San Francisco proposal includes the 4,000 acre-feet allocated to the San Francisco Basin and also has language in it that leaves it open for any and all irrigation projects.
Kiehne seconded the amendment.
Jim Massengill, representing Deming, asked if the proposals were listed under project type from highest to lowest, because of the rating made in the 2012 resolution, upon which the new resolution was based.
Gutierrez said they were ranked in the order in each category of their ranking in the 2012 resolution, and each remains an individual project.
Webb asked that the No. 8 San Francisco project be moved to No. 5, Jackson amended his second amendment and Kiehne seconded.
Jackson noted that each project might not be paid at 100 percent, with some being funded partially.
Gutierrez repeated the original motion; the second motion, which was the first amendment to add language as being recommendations to the ISC; and the third motion as the second amendment moving the San Francisco Watershed project to No. 5, and moving the numbers down below that.
Discussion ensued on where the San Francisco proposal should be placed in the Diversion category. It was finally decided to leave it at No. 5, because of where it had ranked in the 2012 resolution.
"I call for a vote on the motion, as amended," Gutierrez said.
The resolution passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned.