Editor's Note: This is part 3 of a multi-part series of articles on the Interstate Stream Commission meeting held in Silver City Nov. 14, 2014. This portion of the report covers the comments in favor of and in opposition to diversion and storage proposals. Many of the speakers did not complete their presentations, as the limit of three minutes cut them off.

By Mary Alice Murphy

Interstate Stream Commission Jim Dunlap opened the section of the meeting by saying: "I can assure you we are taking all your comments and looking at them carefully. I ask that there be no whooping, hollering or clapping. Each person has three minutes and you will be called as you signed up on the list. The first comments will be received from those in favor of diversion and storage."

Charles "Tink" Jackson, Luna County manager, said he would like to speak on behalf of the 25,000 residents of Luna County.

"We stand in favor of using the water," Jackson said. "We want to secure and utilize the water. Older residents of the area say the current drought reminds them of the 1950s. They see opportunities for monsoons that go away. And there's no water.

"Some of the comments we hear still amaze me," Jackson said. "Whether their intention is to deceive or they just don't know, I can't answer. I want to refute some of the comments I hear. 1) That it will ruin the Gila wilderness. There is no project proposed in the wilderness. 2) That the Gila is the last free-flowing river in the state or wherever. No, there have been more than 100 dams on the Gila. The current proposal diverts less water than has been diverted in other times. The challenge is to take real numbers to see the impact on the river. The Cliff-Gila Valley used to be thriving, but now, it has almost no businesses, fewer people and no place for future generations."

Anthony Gutierrez first read a statement to the ISC commissioners from Grant County Commissioner Gabriel Ramos: "I know you have a difficult decision before you. I ask you to support the water development projects. The majority of Grant County residents are in favor of the project to divert."

Gutierrez said, as chairman of the Gila/San Francisco Water Commission, an Aldo Leopold High School student had approached him. The student told Gutierrez he felt although the school presented a different type of learning that he was told "we were trying to destroy the Gila River and its riparian habitat. I answered his questions as best I could, except for one question. He asked me: 'In 20, 30, 50 or 100 years, what would happen if we didn't keep the water and we needed it?' I couldn't answer him. Although I could explain the municipalities of Albuquerque and Santa Fe and what they had done to secure water, we are not the same. I think every municipality and agricultural business in New Mexico, Arizona and California is trying to answer that same question."

Darryl Allred spoke in place of Ralph Pope who had had to leave the meeting.

"I support what Jackson had to say," Allred said. "I find him forthright and knowledgeable on water rights. There are a lot of misconceptions. Our intent is purely to stay where we're at, so it can sustain my children and grandchildren so they will have the ability to continue to live here. What you've heard about diversions is wrong. We are not here to rape and pillage, but to sustain. I support conservation. If you look at the diversions and if we put in pipelines to conserve water, we would be diverting 30 percent to 50 percent less than we were. What we don't divert goes into return flow into the river."

Vance Lee of Hidalgo County said he would like to talk about the agenda of those who oppose diversion. "As a high school principal, when I dealt with a student situation, I tried to gather information and make a decision. I had to determine credibility. Those opposed to a diversion want to talk about the harm we will do. What they avoid is the good that diversion and storage will do for the river. I call their comments of harm a 'smokescreen.' Most of you commissioners don't live here, but it is so important to the region whether the water stays here or not. I hope you look at the good the water can do."

Don Stailey of the Gila Valley got emotional. "I have lived on the Gila River for 75 years. I'm very passionate about that river. My folks came to the area 93 years ago. We understand the need for this water. The Arizona Water Settlements Act has given us the opportunity to secure this water for the Gila Valley. I look at your faces and see people dedicated and honest. I think you have integrity and honesty. That's why you're on this commission. I am confident you will make the best decision for the people and the economy of this region."

Stan Jones of Hidalgo County said: "Without water in the river, there is no conservation possible nor does a pipeline do any good. On the upper end of the Virden Valley, last summer we had no water in the river. We had a 100 percent fish kill. I speak in favor to impound the water and release it to keep the river flowing and the fish alive. Skim off the top flows and store it to keep the river alive. They are already impounding our water in Arizona. We need to keep the Gila flowing the last five to eight miles of river in New Mexico."

Howard Hutchinson said he is a proponent of what is proposed for Catron County. "I have been working on this issue since 1983. I have read studies done in the 1930s up to now. The studies have cost hundreds of millions of dollars. They all say the same thing—they keep advocating for the use of this water. In the '80s, there were 18,000 acre-feet of water allocated. We have proven projects for water conservation and for diversion and storage. They benefit the riparian areas and the environment of the river. Catron County has gotten grants from multiple sources for projects that have proven effective."

Buddy Jensen said he has spent his lifetime in Hidalgo County. "I was raised in Virden and worked for 34 years with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, when we repatriated native fishes. I love the Gila Wilderness, but, as Mr. Jones says, the Gila River has not been a perennial river for many years in the Virden area. It impacts not only agriculture, but also listed species. We lose the fish every year. Fish still require water. By storing the water, we can keep the river perennial, can maintain endangered species and can even provide sport fish. I am an environmentalist, but I'm also a realist. Common sense should rule. Yes, the time will come again when we have adequate water, but we need to store the excess now when we need it."

Rose Shoemaker was next scheduled to speak, but had had to leave the meeting.

Next began the comments of those in opposition to diversion and storage proposals.

Peter Coha said he had been working with Norman Gaume, former ISC director, to determine how much water is available for diversion and storage. "What is negligently absent in all the reports is that no yield information is available to the public. The costs that have been provided only study the potential maximum yield. Even the Bureau of Reclamation states negative net benefits for diversion and storage. The reports are biased as they are unreliable estimates."

He said the ability for mitigating flows is unrealistic. Under the parameters of the CUFA (Consumptive Use and Forbearance Agreement), it indicates less availability of water. He said the long-term mean is 12,000 acre-feet of water available for storage, with a median of 3,700 per year. Only three years provide more than 20 percent of the reported available water. The CUFA needs to be accurately used in the studies.

Jim Brooks, who retired from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service this year, after 29 years, said he worked on protected fish and the impacts of the proposed project. "Federal compliance requires the best available science. That means it requires peer review. That has not occurred on the Upper Gila Valley studies, so they will require more environmental studies. They need peer reviews. The reports are without credibility until peer reviewed. A flow study by The Nature Conservancy was critiqued by the ISC staff at a meeting in Albuquerque. It should be made clear that studies are not peer-reviewed. The NEPA process is coming. The ISC-funded studies do not represent scientifically peer-reviewed studies."

Ronnee-Sue Helzner, retired hydrologist and fisheries biologist, said she was active in the Stakeholder process until 2011. "I can understand the passion for storage, but I hear common goals among the proposals. There are various way to increase flows—conservation and riparian zone improvements can increase the amount of available water. I have concerns about conflicts of interest. The Gila/San Francisco Water Commission has had a pro-diversion stance for years. I am troubled that Topper Thorpe, as a member of the GBIC, was appointed to the ISC. But if anyone can remain neutral," she said to Thorpe, "you can. I have also written about the potential long-term impacts of diversion and storage."

Gaume, who introduced himself as the ISC director from 1997-2002, said he was part of the negotiations on the AWSA. "I remind you that you are the state of New Mexico and you will make that decision (on whether to use the water and build a New Mexico Unit). You represent the state and the government. I have watched this process with pain because it reminds me of my relatives. I know their struggles as farmers, and I respect that way of life."

Gaume said Sen. Pete Domenici in the early 2000s was concerned that the previous three projects for diversion and storage had not happened. He provided money in the AWSA to improve water alternatives for the region. "He would have asked why you have kept your data secret. Why have you not provided it to the public? I invite Amy Haas to answer that question, when I meet her in court."

Jim Brainerd said he had a response to Commissioner Randy Crowder's question in Albuquerque.

(Editor's Note: Crowder was unable to attend the meeting in Silver City)

"His question was why he should believe our work and not that of the highly paid consultants," Brainerd said. "We have determined the project yield portion of the CUFA and the actual amount of water than can be used. An in-depth project yield has not been studied by the ISC. That's why Coha, Gaume and I created our models. We gave the estimates from the Bohannon Huston report, and ran the model. It was almost nothing to 5,000 acre-feet of yield a year. We do not claim we have the exact numbers, but the claim of the report raises red flags."

He said the RJH Consultants' review of the Bohannon Huston report said it expected seepage or evaporation could easily exceed the expected 10,000 acre-feet yield.

Joanne Allen said she was in opposition to the diversion and damming of the Gila River. "I oppose for the following reasons: It's too expensive and we can't afford it. Bohannon Huston recommended lining, then said clay would be better, then black plastic. Who will pay for that? Residents are expected to use it as recreation. When the reservoir is empty, the plastic will fail and cause a potentially catastrophic failure of the dam because of the liner. We cannot afford another boondoggle, with so little benefit. This one is the price of eight Spaceports and four RoadRunners. Don't fall for the smooth-talking bankers and consultants. It is dangerous, and we can't afford it."

Starr Belsky, Silver City business owner, said she has also been a technical editor and was a storm water regulator in Maryland. She said the BHI report had estimated a cost for capital costs of $703 million to $741 million, with $3 million to $4 million annually for operations and maintenance costs. Harvey Economics had revised that estimate to $500 million. A staff report estimated $548 million, but based on staff's interpretation the report was tentative.

"I'm not clear which of BHI's three reports is being considered," Belsky said. "I'm on the side of the small operators. I think we will pay for this in taxpayers' expenses."

Kyle Johnson of the Gila Valley said: "You cannot silence Norm Gaume. His arguments are compelling. This is a political situation, and you serve at the pleasure of the governor. I don't know how public officials in Grant County could imagine they will have a future by selling us out. When you find yourself in a hole, quit digging. Everything you've done tells me you have made a decision. I don't believe that Topper Thorpe has not reached a decision. I don't believe each one of us hasn't made a decision. You have the opportunity to refuse this decision and fund those proposals that repair the watershed."

Jason Morrow said he hunts, fishes and camps. "The river is who we are. I have been asked to speak for the sportsmen. We are opposed to a diversion of the river. Sportsmen spend $613 million and create more than 8,000 jobs. People won't come to a pristine wilderness if there is a diversion on the river. This is veterans' week. My dad told me: 'When you bury me, put me where I can see the wilderness area.' Think about what we're doing. I have taken Aldo Leopold Charter School students to the wilderness. They are getting out of the city and getting wet and muddy. A kid said to me: I will give you $2 and you'll give me $10. They are spending $1 billion to get $128 million.' Even a kid knows that."

Terry Timme of the Southwest Audubon Society, the oldest in New Mexico, said: "We organized to campaign against the Hooker Dam. This proposed diversion will disrupt the delicate natural balance of the Gila River. How many millions have you spent on studies that will be doomed by the NEPA process? We would hope you give more attention to the Bureau of Reclamation report than that of the ISC. We fear New Mexico taxpayers' money will be spent. The AWSA is about providing for water needs. We propose the alternatives be funded. The Grant County Water Commission project will provide for future water security. Also the Deming effluent reuse makes a lot of sense."

The next report will be on comments on proposals other than diversion and storage options.