Editor's Note: This article comprises only the public comments portion of the Gila/San Francisco Water Commission meeting on Tuesday, Jan. 27, 2015.

By Mary Alice Murphy

At a special meeting called by the Gila/San Francisco Water Commission on Tuesday, Jan.27, after roll call, including those on the conference call, a quorum was met, with 13 of the 18 members being present.

The first agenda item called for public comment. The first to speak was M.H. "Dutch" Salmon, Grant County resident and member of the Gila Conservation Coalition.

"In April of last year, on a tour of the Gila Upper Box Canyon with Interstate Stream Commissioner Phelps Anderson, ISC staff and sundry citizens, the full brunt of the proposed diversion via the Arizona Water Settlements Act was in view," Salmon said. "On a point overlooking the river, the attendant riparian zone was in full spring bloom, accenting in juxtaposition the ugliness even the most indulgent viewer might imagine re: the placement of tons of cement-the diversion point-60-foot wide conveyance canals, 10-foot diameter pipelines, a three-mile long tunnel blasted through an innocent mountain; and, as we would view later in the day, a leaky depression in the hill called Pope Canyon that's supposed to be a reservoir, but alas, won't hold water-all part of an egregious proposal called AWSA."

He commented the river won, hands down, and it was acknowledged even by some proponents that it would not be pretty.

Salmon said the capital cost that morning was $350 million. "This morning it's closing in on $800 million, and a memo from this outfit's attorney indicates you would like to appoint for yourselves taxing authority to pay for this monstrosity. What kind of sock-and-show outfit is this that you think you could assume such powers?"

He said, as costs have gone to "outrageous, the water quantity, the yield, has gone down from a blue sky 14,000 acre-feet last April to less than half that today. And your investment firm, G.K. Baum, sill leaves you overdrawn at the bank by half, even using their best blue sky numbers."

He said it would be a mistake to think the GSFWC is fatally flawed. "It's the project that is flawed, and the diversion would be ugly as sin, even if the water came to the town or farm, without a bill."

Salmon said it made much more sense, financially and otherwise, to leave a minimum 10 cubic feet per second in the river for fish and wildlife rather than tear it up, divert, then re-direct 10 cfs back "where it belonged in the first place."

He said that for the more than 50 million birders in the U.S., 35 million fishermen, and 15 million hunters, he knows of no place in the Southwest that offers more than the seven-mile reach know as the Gila Upper Box Canyon.

"The solution, once again, folks, is to study the non-diversion alternatives; none are bad and some are very good," Salmon said. "Then take the federal funding we get regardless, divide it four ways to the four counties and let's get on with it."

Allyson Siwik, Gila Conservation Coalition executive director, spoke next.

"Fundamental questions remain unanswered," Siwik said. "None I posed at the last meeting were addressed. Either you don't have the answers or you are not answering them in public. If you have the answers, you need to inform the public. I will submit an IPRA (Inspection of Public Records Act) request."

She said her questions include Mark Valenzuela's relationship to the GSFWC. "Is he your advisor, broker, contracted? Who are the parties to the contract? Does G.K. Baum stand to gain from its proposal? Has Valenzuela redone his plan to address the errors? I don't know if you have the capacity to be the CAP Entity."

She said the CAP Entity is asking for levy authority to tax. "Does the project leave anything for non-diversion alternatives that, as we know, is a much more efficient way to meet water needs?"

"The public needs to know," she reiterated. "You will get the IPRA request with all the questions. We are concerned that taxpayers will be on the hook."

Mary Burton Riseley, Gila Valley resident and member of the Gila Oak Land Trust, "which means we are a user of the water," said: "I agree with the questions. At the last meeting, I heard on the question of sovereign immunity that the group will not have sovereign immunity, but each member does. So who will be liable? Will we?"

Norman Gaume, engineer, said he grew up in Deming. "My grandfather was an Episcopal priest in Deming and my godfather, an Episcopal priest in Silver City. I have deep roots here. I care about you and this area."

He addressed the $66 million, set aside for any project to meet water demand. "Sen. Pete Domenici was concerned in 2001 whether a diversion was feasible, as the previous ones had failed. He wanted to make sure the area would get value from the AWSA, so he allocated the $66 million."

"The ISC, in my professional opinion, will waste millions on what I think is a fatally flawed proposal," Gaume said. "The $66 million is indexed funding, and you will have $34 million for construction of a unit. I think the extra $28 million will not be available. What is the net amount of water available and what is the cost on taxpayers? The ISC is spending money on false studies. They are making selective disclosures. I ask again to be on your agenda. I've done substantive work on this project-I think more substantive than what the ISC has done."

He said he was concerned about the low attendance at the meeting. "I know rivers mean different things to different people, but the river is the secondary value. You should be concerned about transparency."

Gaume said the Open Meetings Act requires that any meeting include approval of the minutes. "You do not have meeting minutes of the last meeting on this agenda."

Gerald Schultz, representing New Mexico Natural Resource and Conservation districts, gave a summary of a recent meeting, the 2015 New Mexico Water Dialogue meeting on Jan. 8 in Albuquerque. The theme was "Learning to Live with Less Water."

John Fleck, keynote speaker and an Albuquerque Journal staff writer, spoke about "Sharing Water: What an environmental experiment in Mexico can teach us about social capital, institutional arrangements and the future of water management in Mexico." The speech referred to a recent release of water from the Morales Dam and Reservoir to go down the usually bone-dry Colorado River channel to the Sea of Cortez. Fleck, according to Schultz, said the Colorado River delta area was bleak, because early planning did not consider future droughts.

Minute 319, an agreement between the U.S. and Mexico, and an amendment to the 1944 Water Treaty allow for release of water to the delta to revive the riparian corridor. The amendment, in effect for five years, calls for a larger one-time release of water to mimic the once-common floods that rejuvenated the delta every spring.

A three-person panel talked about "Planning Beyond the Supply/Demand Gap." "The trend in nature, regarding climate, is different from project smooth curves and short term is more erratic," Schultz reported. "The 1950s drought was worse than the present one, with more successive non-rainfall years. The forecast for 2015 is worse than for 2014."

He also said the groundwater system has been under stress during the drought. He posited that increasing temperatures would result in less groundwater, resulting in more pumping, making the aquifers vulnerable. "If groundwater goes down, so does the Gila River."

Because farms have increased in size over time, more produce is being grown. Rio Grande water demand sees 90 percent of the water going to irrigation. Because of the drought, agricultural income has dropped, slowing the New Mexico economy.

Schultz reported that Angela Bordegaray, state and regional water planning manager, discussed the present regional water planning, which shows that some regions are ahead of others.

Another panel of four people talked about "Preparing for the New Realities." Schultz highlighted several items, such as a bad drought in the Pecos Valley in 2011-12, followed by very wet years in 2013-14; saline aquifers as a water supply; lower Rio Grande conflict; Gila River water development; Plains of San Augustin pumping; and regional water planning. Andy Nuñez, NM Rep. from the Hatch Valley reported chile product may have to be reduced if a solution is not found to improve water supply.

Schultz gave the URL for a circular from the U.S. Geological Survey on Water Quality in Principal Aquifers of the United States, 1991-2010."
Circular 1360 may be accessed at http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/cir_1360. And Circular 1368 at http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1358

Monica Rude, a Gila Valley resident for the past 25 years, said: "All I can say is that this organization is unaware or unwilling to apply the Open Meetings Act. I think they will be more lacking in future meetings."

This concludes the public comment period.

The next article will cover the discussion part of the meeting.