Editor's Note: This is part 4 of a multi-part series on an Interstate Stream Commission meeting in Silver City on Nov. 14, 2014. This article continues a report on public comments received by the commissioners.
By Mary Alice Murphy
The first to speak on proposals other than diversion and storage proposals was Van Clothier of Stream Dynamics. "We do watershed restoration, wetlands restoration, and storm-water management. The purpose is to create a supply of water to be put to beneficial use. My proposal offers maximum benefit to all citizens. We al live downstream from our roofs. Water harvesting is done in Tucson and more can be done here. The water goes into a cistern or a water basin to irrigate our trees. The Big Ditch was caused by poor storm-water management. My proposal would be to build 80 water basins in Silver City. It can serve as a demonstration."
Ronnee-Sue Helzner asked the commissioners to "please" ensure the more than $66 million is available for non-diversion alternatives. "If a New Mexico CAP (Central Arizona Project) Unit is approved, it should use only the additional $62 million. The Grant County reservoir is storage in a lake. It would be more efficient to store the water in tanks, rather than in an inefficient lake. The basic premise of watershed restoration and removing trees to provide water has not been proved. Tree removal for water yield on the Gila is not expected. Evaporation and sublimation are real problems. Roy Jemison of the Gila National Forest determined that tree removal is not proved for water yield."
Sara Boyette said, as a small business owner and taxpayer, she is about conservation. "I came to admire farmers and ranchers in the valley I lived in. They made use of what they had and determined how to best use each penny. Like them, your decision, I hope, will be guided by fiscal prudence. The $66 million New Mexico will have can be spent on alternatives—conserve, reuse and restore. Non-diversion alternatives improve on what we have. You have the power to do good for us, by choosing to pass on the diversion and storage and use the $66 million on conservation and restoration projects."
Donna Stevens, Upper Gila Watershed Association executive director, said 200 members in the valley form the group. "We support improving irrigation and ditches; we support municipal and agricultural conservation; we oppose a diversion. We have to live within our water budgets. Save the Gila River; no diversion."
Larry McDaniel said he supports municipal water conservations projects. A study shows such conservation can save 3,000 to 4,000 acre-feet of water a year. "That is the highest net benefit. The gap between present use and future use is a paltry 35 acre-feet. It is a painfully obvious conclusion that conservation can meet our water needs into the future in a fiscally responsible way. As a former consultant, the insider definition of a consultant is that there is good money to be made in prolonging a problem."
Richard Martin said he offered a proposal to ISC commissioner Randy Crowder at the meeting in Albuquerque on Monday. "He said he had been to Bill Evans Lake and about seepage and evaporation. The pumps run 24 hours, so the water level never goes down. After a fire, Freeport secured the pumps. I saw the lake way down. I encourage the utilization of the money for water users in the four counties. They have lovely water rights from the 1800s. Spend the money on watershed preparation. Climate models agree that the snowpack is waning. Nineteenth Century uses of land are not solid now, including farming."
Kyle Johnson said he is an advocate for the $66 million to be used without a Unit being developed. "I think the $66 million should go into a permanent fund to fund water projects. I think the Silver City project (the Grant County Water Commission proposal) is good. Conservation is the wisest bang for the buck. Hopefully you are arriving at a responsible decision."
Todd Schulke, co-founder of the Center for Biological Diversity, said he is supportive of common-sense solutions. "I am biased against diversion and the resolution by the Gila/San Francisco Water Commission. We have filed a complaint to the attorney general on the water commission's violations of the Open Meetings Act. A good reason to spend the $66 million now is to get us off your back. We have a 90 percent rate of winning in court on projects like this. If you go for diversion, you will get lawsuits. We will fight against diversion tooth and nail. To people in the room, we will win this four times and forever."
Dan Lorimer, Sierra Club Rio Grande Chapter conservation coordinator, said his group has 7,000 members and the Sierra Club is the oldest conservation organization. "There has been a 10-year time frame to discuss this issue. We are astounded that there is no decision until the 119th month. Get the job done with the lowest impact on natural resources. We reject diversion and storage. We support the Grant County Water Commission project. It is low cost and offers good benefit. We also support the Gila Conservation Coalition's leak detection and repair. We urge you to take a conservative path to meet water needs."
(Editor's Note: These are the corrected comments taken from printed remarks from Lisa Fields.)
Lisa Fields, retired certified crop advisor and current ag journalist, refuted statements she said had been made in various press outlets to the effect that diverting water from the Gila River is needed to supply local agriculture. "USDA Farm Service Agency data shows that Luna County averaged 26,587 irrigated crop acres from 2009 through 2013. In 2011, according to the Office of the State Engineer, 88,462 acre-feet of irrigation water were applied to those crop acres. The proposed diversion states 2,500 acre-feet of water to be piped to Deming for municipal and agricultural use. After a conservative 20% loss from evaporation and transport, that's 2,000 acre-feet. If all 2,000 acre-feet went to ag and none for municipal use, that's 2.2 % of the irrigation water used in 2012. Math fact: 2.2% does not qualify as meeting a need."
She continued: "Scott Verhines was televised on Monday saying that our SWNM region's water supply was declining by 30,000 acre feet each year. That is not correct. Fact: His assertion is based on well measurements that include only 12 wells in common measured at different times of the year each year. Many measurements taken weeks into irrigation season when water is actively being drawn This lack of factors in common means these are merely measurements from which no conclusions can be drawn. But ISC commissioners received John Ward's detailed report that illustrates this fact point blank."
"The Cliff/Gila River Valley has about 1100 irrigated acres according to OSE: mostly pasture," she cited. "The claim of lack of water without diversion and storage cannot be supported as their flood method of irrigation with open, dirt ditches has 50% efficiency. Inefficiency must be addressed before a claim of lack of water availability can be made. Another fact is yield potential for grass and alfalfa in the clay, gravelly and sandy soils there. Water cannot mitigate the crop growth potential of soils as nature made them. Fact: More water cannot make it feasible to grow higher value crops in those soils, either, especially under flood irrigation, which is so punitive to plant and soil biology in contrast to the diverse mix of vegetables and grains grown with sub-surface drip irrigation in Luna County's more productive (prevalently loamier) soils.
"Meeting a regional food supply has nothing to do with diverting the Gila River. It requires action by cattle growers and vegetable and other crop producers and agency staff, together, to get regional slaughtering and packing facilities and coordinate within-region marketing and distribution of the food produced here. That would make a secure ag economy and food supply for middle- and lower-income working people. Water? There is enough if irrigation efficiencies are funded and put into place."
Samantha Larisch, an Aldo Leopold Charter School sophomore, said she is also in the eco-monitoring YCC crew. "We monitor the rivers in the Gila Wilderness. I support helping farmers to improve their ditches and the proposal to bring water to residents. I feel like they are more cost-effective, from going to other meetings. If a diversion would be chosen, Grant County would have to help pay off loans that would hit poor people the hardest. If there is conservation, it would help Hanover, Vanadium and other communities."
Dr. Michael Brown, a chiropractor and herbalist, said, since he has had cancer for the past seven years, he has a different perspective. "I have two neighbors who get water from me. People still have lead pipes, and there are sewer pipes overlaying water lines. We have twice the murder rate as Chicago. Does the Gila River have the right to exist? I presented to two lawyers, one named White and another one, whose name I don't remember. White said a right only exists if it has valuation to give it legal status in court. I'm here about valuation. Is anything sacred? Animals and plants underneath a diversion: Do they have legal rights? It is said in America, water flows uphill to money. Nothing is sacred in this country, except money."
Steph Smith, Great Old Broads for Wilderness leader, said the organization gives its support for non-diversion. "We should use water in several ways. Capturing water off roofs is not diverting. In our beloved Grant County, 50 percent are families living under the line considered stable, strong and healthy. We can't afford to pay taxes on a diversion project and can't pay to be in court for years. We need to find other ways to keep families strong and healthy."
The next and final article will cover the ISC staff recommendations for use of the water and funding allocated by the Arizona Water Settlements Act.