By Mary Alice Murphy

During public comments, Gerald Schultz representing New Mexico Resource Conservation Districts, said during the 1970s the U.S. Geologic Survey did massive studies on large aquifer systems. "Our region wasn't covered extensively because of the low population and low water demand. This area is volcanic in origin, so it may have compartmentalized groundwater sources."

"Someday, in my professional opinion, we will see more demand on the groundwater and the surface water from within or without," Schultz said. "Studies have been done by the county and by the city, but we need an enormous study to determine the interaction between surface water and groundwater. I am in my 49th year of working on water. Paid or volunteer, I still stay up with my practice."

The quorum arrived late, so the commission approved the April 30, 2015 special meeting and the May 19, 2015 regular meeting minutes, because neither had had a quorum.

Under new business, the first topic was to discuss the next steps for the Gila/San Francisco Water Commission.

"The Gila/San Francisco Water Commission is the successor to the Southwest New Mexico Planning Group named in the Arizona Water Settlements Act," GSFWC Chairman Anthony Gutierrez said. "Under the AWSA, this group still has its duties intact. The business at hand is in the hands of the New Mexico Central Arizona Project Entity, but I think it's important to keep the Gila/San Francisco Water Commission intact to consult with the Interstate Stream Commission on New Mexico Unit Fund expenditures. I would like comments from the commissioners. We may have to change the Open Meetings Act to change the frequency of our meetings."

Vance Lee, representing Hidalgo County and the village of Virden, agreed the GSFWC should remain intact. "We need to determine how often we meet. In conjunction with this, I would like to see us purge the membership that doesn't show up or participate, so we don't have to rely on them to get a quorum." He suggested quarterly meetings.

Javier Diaz, representing Luna County as one of its commissioners, asked if it was an option for special meetings as needed or possibly every other month.

It was decided that every other month might be a good alternative, with the next meeting in November and then January, when the Open Meetings Act resolution could be changed.

Gutierrez said he was concerned about the AWSA money that has been allocated by the ISC for other projects. "Lots of recipients have representatives on this board or represent those who have projects. Maybe that should be our focus to see that those partially funded projects become fully funded. I presume the entities have to go for reimbursement from the ISC, so they have to have the other funding in order."

David Anderson, ISC staff, said $3 million had been allocated for municipal conservation. "We had some applicants that are being reviewed. The Sunset-New Model Ditch decided how to split its AWSA funding. The contract with the Pleasanton East Side Ditch is under review. The contract with Deming is under review, as is the Luna Ditch Irrigation Association. The funding is on a reimbursement basis. The challenge is coming up with the rest of the funding."

Allyson Siwik, Gila Conservation Coalition executive director, asked about the $2.1 million that the ISC allocated to the Grant County Water Commission for the regional water supply project. "Is that contract moving forward?"

Craig Roepke, ISC Gila project manager, said the ISC allocated the $2.1 million to pay for 70 percent of a wellfield near the Grant County Airport to provide water to Hurley, which has no water rights of its own. "The Grant County Water Commission agreed to provide a business plan. It has not arrived. I understand it is being created. This project will develop water that is offset by the town of Silver City's effluent. It's different from the water conservation projects. In terms of the conservation projects, out of the $3 million allocated, only two-thirds has been applied for. We expect a couple of additional projects to come in. I remind people to get their proposals in to the ISC as soon as they can."

"We would be happy for the Gila/San Francisco Water Commission to work with us," Roepke said.

"It's kind of surprising to me," Gutierrez said. "We hear constantly about non-diversion alternatives but you haven't received even $3 million worth for the conservation projects."

Siwik said she knew of five other proposals. "I think Silver City didn't want to compete. The others ran out of time by the deadline. I thank Craig for clarifying."

Gutierrez noted that Silver City has been doing a lot of conservation. "My comment was related just to the $3 million. Hurley is drilling another well. That will be depleting the groundwater resources even more."

Don Stailey, representing the Gila Basin Irrigation Commission, asked if there was more money for other applications.

"There is no other available, except for water conservation projects," Gutierrez said. "There is another $1 million for municipal water conservation."

Gutierrez also brought up an invoice he received from Wilson and Binkley. "They came to us when we were looking to advertise. They put together a straw proposal, but this invoice was sent after the fact. The commission never agreed to a contract with them. The bill is for $998. They did come and make an effort to get information. They would like to receive the money in lieu of services, because they usually get their money through contractual services they create with the recipients of the advertising."

Jim Massengill, representing the city of Deming said: "That was a long time ago."

Gutierrez said it was about a year or more ago. "I still don't have a treasurer's report, so I don't know if we have any funds. Wilson and Binkley periodically sent invoices and said they would charge only half because of no contract."

Lee said he considered it "unusual" to get an invoice. "They came and tried to sell us a product. We didn't agree to anything. We need to respond that we are not going to pay."

Darr Shannon, representing the Hidalgo Soil and Water Conservation District, said the group got nothing out of it.

"Only a proposal," Gutierrez said. "We have vendors come in and try to get us to let them do something. We never get invoices from them."

Lee asked for an update on the earlier New Mexico Central Arizona Project Entity meeting for those who were not in attendance.

"We passed bylaws, a resolution on the budget to be approved by the ISC," Gutierrez said. "Deming will be the second fiscal agent. The negotiating team is working with the Bureau of Reclamation on the supplemental terms. We will have another meeting to try to move forward on the New Mexico Unit Agreement."

Mary Burton Risely, Gila Valley resident, said she and no one else has seen the supplemental terms. "Why are they secret?"

"Nothing has been agreed on," Gutierrez said. "The subject matter is mostly with contractual agreements and regulations. The way it was explained to us is that they want the CAP Entity to be aware of what contracts it will be required to go through."

Gutierrez said a payment to Reclamation for NEPA would be part of the contracts. The Secretary of the Interior wants to be aware of all sources of funding. "There are a lot of issues we don't agree on."

Risely said she understood the deadline was 60 days prior to the Nov. 23 deadline for the Secretary to sign the agreement.

""The Secretary has given us until Sept. 30 for our deadline," Gutierrez said. "Counsel for Reclamation and for the Secretary are aware of our time constraints and of how we're moving forward. They wanted 60 days so the agreement could go through channels."

Siwik thanked Gutierrez for telling the public about the terms.

"Do they have to be signed?" she asked. "What if you can't come to agreement by Sept. 30? I heard there are negotiations and I heard from Reclamation that these are things we have to comply with. It sounds like the basic laws are not negotiable."

"We are trying to get a sense of this, too," Gutierrez replied. "Reclamation does know that this situation is unique. The Gila Project is different from anything else on the Central Arizona Project. Yes, we have to comply with NEPA and we understand that. Some of the things are just copied from terms relating to other CAP projects. They're putting in more legal jargon, but we're sticking to our guns. I feel confident we can do it."

"Say we have the supplemental terms," Siwik said. "Does it revise the New Mexico Unit? Does it have to go to all the respective entities?"

Gutierrez said that each representative has to make the decision. "There are some terms we can't agree to, such has sovereign immunity. We are saying this certainly won't work. I don't see the terms conflicting with what we've done to this point. Some is difficult to understand, but what about this hasn't been difficult to understand."

Schultz noted that "while the public knows what's going on, they don’t understand what is going on. People ask me what does it mean. Make sure the public is informed. The lambasting I continue to read about and people ask me why. I don't even know what supplemental terms means."

Gutierrez said the negotiating team had one meeting with Reclamation when "we discussed supplemental terms. We just got them yesterday (Monday)."

Lee pointed out that it has been give and take on the redlining. "It's evolving. It's not in the form it will end up."

The next meeting is set for Nov. 17 at 9 a.m., with presumably the NM CAP Entity meeting at 1 p.m.