Editor's Note: This is the final article of five in a multi-part series of reports on the Interstate Stream Commission meeting held in Silver City on Nov. 14, 2014. This article gives an overview of the recommendations made by ISC staff to commissioners and the questions posed by commissioners.

By Mary Alice Murphy

David B. Anderson, Interstate Stream Commission senior water resource specialist, led off the presentation with a summary of the Arizona Water Settlements Act, which amended A Colorado River Basin Act.

The AWSA allocates up to 14,000 average annual acre-feet of water to the southwest New Mexico four-county region, encompassing Grant, Luna, Catron and Hidalgo counties. The act also allocates up to $128 million in federal funding to the region.

The first $66 million of the funding is for developing a New Mexico Unit for storage of the allocated water and/or for alternatives that meet a water supply demand. The second portion of up to $62 million can be used only for a unit.

One of the conditions of the act is that the ISC must notify no later than Dec. 31, 2014, the Secretary of the Interior of News Mexico's intent to utilize the allocated water.

"You heard the list of proposals and their proponents this morning," Anderson said. "They represent a distribution of proposals throughout the region. We have investigated a number of the proposals and have constructed a number of matrices to determine how important factors are in each."

(Editor's Note: Although only a very brief overview of these processes was given by Anderson, the Beat thought important enough to include the following information from the report to the ISC earlier in the week.

"The Commission's Gila Policy, recognizes three critical elements: the Gila ecology, the historic and traditional uses for water, and cultures and traditions related to those uses.

ISC staff modified the choosing by advantages method to provide identical maximum importance values for the highest advantage in each of the three policy elements. Staff addressed cultures and traditions with the factors "interests served" and "people served." Staff split the 100 possible importance points 50 each between the two factors.

In response to a long-standing request by some stakeholders, all evaluation methods consider cost per acre-foot for each proposal. In the modified matrix, cost per acre-foot is explicitly included as a factor.

The staff chose several methods for constructing decision-making matrices:
•Choosing By Advantages (CBA by importance)
• Choosing by AdvantagesISC
 (CBA with importance-cost ratios
• CBA as modified by IS to best reflect ISC Gila Policy
•Multiple-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM)

Staff found that no method could be entirely objective. Each method biased some proposals over others for subjective or numerical reasons.

Anderson said at the Nov. 14 meeting that information was taken from studies from the Harvey Economic assessment, from Reclamation and from findings by the Gila/San Francisco Water Commission and investigations and studies, as well as comments from over the past 10 years.

"We calculated the mean first and the median second and ranked on the median first and the mean second, because there was such a disparate set of proposals," Anderson said. "The watershed proposals are not ranked, because we were unable to estimate water yield, but we will still consider them for funding."

Anderson began "running through" the proposals, with the highest ranked project being the Gila Conservation Coalition's municipal conservation proposal. It is recommended to receive $1.5 million in funding, to be provided to municipalities and other local governments. The funding and implementation will terminate no later than by fiscal year 2020. "Many already have conservation projects," he said. "These funds will be to initiate projects, but not for long-term maintenance. Each entity must keep data for a minimum of five years. It will also require a 30 percent local match, without administration being part of the match."

Ali Effati, ISC civil engineer/water resources, presented the second-highest ranked proposal, the southwest regional water supply proposal, The amount recommended for funding the project is to be determined. "This proposal needs further assessment, but the ISC must notify the Secretary of the Interior by Dec. 31, whether it intends to pursue development. We ask you to give permission to the staff to create the paperwork and to coordinate with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation on the process of NEPA."

The third-highest ranked project, Effati said, was the Gila Basin Irrigation Commission's project for diversion-structure improvements. The recommendation is to fund it at $750,000, plus from the ISC an additional $150,000 per year out of the Acequia Program to prioritize and improve one ditch per year. "This has benefit to water users and the environment," Effati said.

(Editor's Note: The fourth-ranked project was skipped at this time, but as it was referred to later in the presentation, it is being included at its proper position.)

Helen Sobien, ISC engineer, presented the fourth-ranked proposal—improvements to Catron County ditches. It is recommended to receive funding of $500,000 for construction only. The ISC Acequia Program will also prioritize $150,000 each year for one ditch per year to create a permanent diversion structure.

Sobien also presentde the fifth-highest ranked as the Deming effluent reuse project to be funded at $1.75 million, because it is a proven, effective conservation method. "We recommend Deming seeks other funding to complete the project."

The sixth-ranked proposal is the Grant County Reservoir, with the amount of funding to be determined, depending on the construction of the Southwest Regional Water Supply project. "We ask the ISC to direct staff to continue to study the proposal," Sobien said.

The seventh-highest project is the Pleasanton Eastside Ditch, which is recommended to receive $50,000 plus the prioritization of one ditch per year at $150,000 out of the ISC Acequia Program. "We recommend only $50,000 for the ditch lining and pipe," Anderson said. "There was nothing in the proposal about reconstruction of the diversion."

No. 8 was the Sunset-New Model ditch improvements proposal to be funded at $100,000—$50,000 to each ditch. "With no proposal to construct or reconstruct the diversion, it can be phased."

No. 9 is the Grant County well field and pipeline. It is recommended to receive funding of $2.1 million. "It did not fare well in the matrices, but this amount covers 70 percent of the cost to deliver water to Hurley. It is also recommended that Silver City convey title of its 193 acre-feet of water rights to Hurley."

The 1892 Luna Irrigation Ditch Association landed at No. 10. The ISC staff recommended it be funded at $100,000 to construct a permanent structure at the point of diversion, which at this time is a temporary earthen berm. The group is continually moving equipment into the river. Reconstruction would keep equipment out of the channel.

No. 11 combines the watershed proposals, with funding up to $1 million. One person said there is no clear yield increase, while another said it is proven, so the amount is recommended at up to $1 million as a match for other funding. Staff recommended a 10-year study to determine water yield and availability. Staff also recommended a steering committee to develop the study. The study must accurately monitor water yield, and all participants should contribute to the study.

The combined funding recommendations totaled $7.85 million. Staff has as the highest priority to send notice by December 31 to construct a New Mexico Unit. The comment received boos from those attending the meeting.

Staff recommended no project for full funding, as local groups are encouraged to seek additional funding from state and federal sources.

ISC Chairman Dunlap called for questions and then asked the first one. "When you ask for $150,000 to be earmarked from the Acequia Program, how many ditches are you trying to help out?"

"One per year for 17 years," Anderson replied.

"If you allocate the funding, will it hinder others from seeking funding from the program?" Dunlap asked.
"If the funding is that which is earmarked for one ditch in southwest New Mexico, yes, it will not allow others from the region to apply as there is a finite amount each year," Anderson replied.

"What about local matches?" Dunlap asked. "Some many not know how to seek the funding or may need help to fill out the paperwork."

"Certainly, we will provide assistance to help ditches seek funding," Anderson said. "The Gila staff has contacted the National Resources Conservation Service to provide engineering and planning."

"The NRCS is two to three years behind," Dunlap observed.

State Engineer Scott Verhines said he had a question about the Grant County Reservoir. "It is ranked No. 6. What do you see how it meets a water supply demand?"

Sobien said, although it is slated for recreation, the Shoemaker report estimates an additional 60 acre-feet per year added to groundwater recharge.

Commissioner Phelps Anderson asked how staff had differentiated in loan and grant structure. "Why did you eliminate the administrative contribution as part of participation?"

"We did not recommend loans out of the Unit fund, but from other sources, which require local cost share," David Anderson replied. "We excluded the administrative costs as part of the match because it is difficult to quantify what types of administration fit the match."

Commissioner Topper Thorpe asked for clarification that three of the proposals could receive up to $150,000 per ditch through the Acequias Program.

David Anderson clarified that it was the recommended maximum amount per single ditch. "The ISC will prioritize one ditch in southwest New Mexico per year to receive the $150,000."

Dunlap clarified that any ditch in the state can compete for other funds, but the ISC staff is earmarking $150,000 for southwest New Mexico.

Commissioner Blaine Sanchez asked if staff were assuming the entities receiving the funding are recognized as New Mexico acequias.

"They must have bylaws," Dunlap said, "but a community ditch and an acequia are the same thing."

Sanchez asked if any other acequias were in line to receive funding. "Prioritizing these might put others behind in line."

David Anderson said what staff envisions is one per year prioritized from southwest New Mexico. "Any of these proposals needs guidelines established and what the criteria are. They need policy formulation to move one ditch to the front of the line."

Dunlap asked how many acre-feet of effluent Deming's proposal would make available to the municipality.

Sobien said the original proposal would have prevented 400 acre-feet a year from being pumped from the aquifer. "With the scaled-back proposal, it will be about 300 acre-feet a year not pumped."

Sanchez said he had not been able to print his list of questions and hoped he could follow up. "I do have a question on the Luna Ditch. It is to construct a new diversion?"

David Anderson said the funding was to construct a new diversion structure and pipe the water to the ditches.

"The point of diversion is on Forest Service land," Sanchez said. "Is there any potential to prohibit new construction?"

"The point of diversion is on Forest Service land," David Anderson concurred. "Luna Ditch Association has a special permit. Yes, it is on federal land and would require a NEPA process done by the Forest Service."

Sanchez pointed out that any proposal could be held up or stopped by NEPA.

Dunlap added that everyone would be required to have a conservation plan approved by the state.

David Anderson said any project that requests an application under the Conservation Fund would be reviewed by the Water Use and Conservation Bureau.

Verhines noted the bureau works with groups all over the state.

Effati re-iterated that conservation plans must provide management approaches to administer the plans.

Sanchez asked how the watershed projects scope was being formulated. "For instance, is grazing management being included?"

Sobien said out of the five proposals, only one—the proposal from the New Mexico Forest Industries Association—mentioned grazing. "One of the items we would like to see put into all proposals that go into partnership is that they should include all soil types and grazing uses."

Sanchez said it would depend on the watershed whether grazing was included or not. "It should be considered as part of the management of the studies."

Dunlap said the ISC should firm up the need for engineering and education factors on acequias and ditches. "The weakness is not being able to communicate with the ditch owners. We need to assist them in getting the engineering done."

Verhines said he wanted to express how much he appreciated that the meeting had been "mostly civil. Your comments were well received. All of us are taking into account your points of view. We are having to weigh everyone's, including our own, opinions."

Dunlap also said he appreciated the "by and large orderly meeting. When we started this process, we knew we wouldn't please everyone."
As Dunlap called for adjournment, Kyle Johnson yelled out: "See you in court."

Editor's Note:
Please find the entire presentation at http://nmawsa.org/ongoing-work/interstate-stream-commission/isc-staff-recommendation-for-stakeholder-awsa-proposals/view