By Mary Alice Murphy

The New Mexico Central Arizona Project Entity is used to having its proceeds filmed by Community Access Television of Silver City. However, at the meeting on Wednesday, Oct. 14, 2015, in addition to the behind the scenes filming, a fellow from the Discovery Channel was also videoing the meeting. After the session, he said they were also interviewing people on all sides of the issue.

Donna Stevens, Upper Gila Watershed Alliance executive director, gave the first public comment. She said she was representing the group's 200 members, "all of whom oppose a diversion."

"We can meet water needs with municipal and agricultural conservation, with watershed restoration and water harvesting," Stevens said. "We have about $85 million available, but most of that is going to consultants. For the $1 billion project that the Bureau of Reclamation estimated would be the cost, we are about $900 million short. There are no end users who can afford the water, especially if they continue to grow low-value crops like alfalfa. Only in 20 percent of the years can water be diverted, and that will be made worse with climate change because the snowmelt will disappear. There is not enough money or water. I ask you to reconsider the project."

Andy Payne, Grant County taxpayer, former educator and fisheries biologist, said the project is unfeasible financially. The vast majority of the public doesn't want to pay off debt that will benefit too few agricultural users, he alleged. With seepage and evaporation and not enough water, the project won't work.

"The area has several endangered species," Payne said. "The boondoggle benefits only those planning and building the project. We are wasting tens of millions of dollars we've already paid out as taxpayers. Good conservation measures could be spent on now. I sincerely hope you will realize you are wasting money and disband while you have money left."

Allyson Siwik, Gila Conservation Coalition executive director, said she was extremely concerned by the lack of transparency that has been in existence the past three months. "You passed the New Mexico CAP Unity Agreement with only one minor question. Decisions have been made with minimal input in the meetings."

She asked that the Sunshine Law be observed with deliberations done in public.

"Recall that the Gila/San Francisco Water Commission worked behind the scenes to develop a flawed financing plan that was presented to the Interstate Stream Commission before it was approved by the Gila/San Francisco Water Commission—a violation of the Open Meetings Act," Siwik said. "Once the public saw the plan, we knew it had huge problems and erroneous assumptions you could drive a truck through. But it was too late. The ISC heard through testimony that the diversion could be done, even though no one knew who the end users were, how much the water would cost and how much people's rates would increase. Norm Gaume (former ISC director) calculated that Deming water rates will rise ten times and each acre-foot of water used for agriculture would cost $8,000, but the ISC forged ahead despite the fact the project is financially unfeasible and totally unaffordable. Now, this afternoon, you are talking about hiring a financial advisor. You need an independent one, and the advice given to you needs to be provided to the public for review and comment."

Jeff Boyd, also a self-identified Grant County taxpayer said, "with the overwhelmingly negative input you receive, one wonders why supporters are for this boondoggle. Maybe they are living in fantasy land."

He listed 10 fantasy items, including that the "ISC has been truthful and wants only the best for southern New Mexico; endangered species will be found in the Hackensack River in New Jersey and delisted; you can take as much water as you want whenever you want; evaporation is an unproven theory; you have no concern that the ISC-run project will meet all federal and state laws; with the CUFA (Consumptive Use and Forbearance Agreement, the Gila River Community will let us have more water at no cost; the state of New Mexico will give you money; it will cost only $36,000 a year plus another amount for operations and maintenance; and the biggest—it's New Mexico's water."

M.H. "Dutch" Salmon of the GCC said the current Arizona Water Settlements Act proposal for the Gila Upper Box Canyon presents a "rueful irony." He recalled a meeting some 30 years go in Las Cruces, when the lead planner for Reclamation, the late Joe Smith, was challenged to justify the Gila River proposal of the time, the Conner Dam. "We're a construction-oriented agency," Smith said, "but even Reclamation must recognize when a given project turns out to be a dog."

After a couple of beers that evening, Smith was even more "insightful, saying: 'You know, Dutch, one of these days senators and congressmen from places like Ohio are going to figure out it doesn't make sense to spend large sums of the public's money to subsidize water and growth in the Southwest so the Southwest can attract more people from Ohio.'"

"Bringing the situation up to date, in April of last year, on a tour of the Gila Upper Box Canyon with ISC staff, commissioners, and sundry citizens, we stood on a point overlooking the river," Salmon continued. "The attendant riparian zone was in full spring bloom, accenting in juxtaposition what one could only imagine would replace it: tons of cement at the diversion point, a 6-foot wide conveyance canal, 10-foot diameter pipeline, a three-mile tunnel blasted through an innocent mountain; and, as we would view later that day, a leaky depression called Pope Canyon that's supposed to be a reservoir, but alas, it won't hold water.

He said the morning estimate was $350 million, and by afternoon it had increased to $450 million, and "it is currently pushing a billion dollars, with no end in sight."

He cited the 50 million birders in the USA, 35 million fishermen, 15 million hunters and an uncounted number of hikers, backpackers, horsepackers and river runners. "I know of no place in the Southwest that offers more to each recreational interest than the seven-mile reach of the Gila River, Turkey Creek to the Mogollon Creek confluence." He said it rivals Arizona's Arivaipa Creek or New Mexico's San Juan Quality Waters, but "not with an industrial fist in its face."

Salmon recommended studying the non-diversion alternatives. "None is bad and some are very good. Take the $66 million and let's get on with it."

Carol Fugagli said her family lives on the Gila River because of its beauty. She said their son has been raised going almost daily to the river, playing in the water and the mud. "It's also a gathering place for neighbors to visit and sing under the cottonwood trees. With the potential for a diversion, it would forever change the area. The flow variability creates habitat for birds and animals. Taxpayers would have to fund the diversion in perpetuity, while the diversion would yield little to no water. Conservation, water recycling, groundwater management would all provide the water we need."

Rebecca Summer holds a doctorate in hydrology and geomorphology. "I have another set of facts and some you've already heard. According to an independent scientific review, a diversion is unfeasible with potentially no water available. The uncertainty cannot be well quantified, but the uncertainty will increase with climate change. According to the Bureau of Reclamation, construction will cost $800 million to $1 billion. It will cost in excess of $10 million a year in operations and maintenance. That's $900 million plus for taxpayers to cover. The project is unnecessary, because conservation, watershed restoration and groundwater management will provide enough water."

Peter Burrows spent 20 years in an investment insurance company and in investment banking. "I don't see how the money can be raised unless it's a general obligation bond out of the state of New Mexico. I can't see anyone investing in this project. But in New Mexico, maybe, because you have the Railrunner and the Spaceport."

Janet Wallet-Ortiz said she is speaking once again, as "we continue knocking our heads against the wall. A dam is unfeasible. What it will do to the environment is a travesty. This process has been cloak-and-dagger, with things happening in secret, dollars going to consultants. The public is aware when the cloak is draped over their eyes. You are stabbing the river and wildlife in its heart. This diversion proposal is pure foolishness. The ones who support it are misguided. The costs will be borne by the taxpayers in this area and by the river environment."

Ronald Perry, a new resident, said: "I am in complete agreement with what I've heard. The salient facts are that we are No. 1 in the level of poverty and No. 50 in educational competence. If the state is going to spend $1 billion on a diversion, it might better consider other priorities."

Jerry Egan, who said he writes about the Apache. "I'm coming back to this after illness and my wife's death and I'm frankly baffled. I think your names should go on the bill for this project, because we'll be sharing the costs. I have hiked all the forks of the river, which have been untouched for millions of years. Go look at the headwaters, the most beautiful. The Spanish, the Mogollon, the Apache all left it alone. Why don't we leave it alone, too? It's a spiritual affront to those who have lived along this beautiful river. It's a spiritual and emotional connection with a body of water that is not hurting anyone."

Stephanie Smith of the Great Old Broads of the Wilderness said she got a call about an hour before the meeting asking her to come to it. "This diversion has so many problems. You've heard them. For the Great Old Broads of the Wilderness, it's a social and economic issue that we cannot afford. Fifty percent of families in the community are food insecure. You are our friends and neighbors. Do the right thing for your people."

Jason Amaro, who said he hunts, fishes and boats, said it makes him sad that the demographics of the entity don't match the demographics of the community. "I grew up on the river. We are not being given a solid answer. A storage unit will have water that is too warm to support the Gila trout, for which I have worked to recover. I looked at the potential storage sites. Sportsmen will lose access. Sportsmen do not want this. I want to see money spent on the headwaters for the Gila trout. Bring back the fisheries."

Van Clothier of Stream Dynamics said he has been restoring waters for 30 years and the book he wrote is called "Let the Water Do the Work."

"Many people may not know that the Gila River is the size of a small creek in the East," Clothier said. "It's at best knee-deep in the riffles. Yes, you can get flows of 30,000 acre-feet, but they carry a lot of sediment that will not work for a diversion. It's a gold mine that has been salted with a bit of gold to draw economic investors. It's not necessary. There's not enough water, but maybe we can get rich off it anyway. Listen to all of us. Do our will. Let us have a democracy here. You are just waiting for us to get through up here so you can continue your work. Shame on your Christian name."

The meeting went into action items. The first was to ratify signature authority for the chairman to execute agreements and documents as authorized per the New Mexico CAP Entity parties. The authority was approved.

The next action item was to name a three-member committee appointed by the chairman to study and score the request-for-proposal applicants for the attorney position that had been approved at the last meeting.

Chairwoman Darr Shannon, representing the Hidalgo Soil and Water Conservation District, appointed Wendell Hann of the Gila Farm Ditch, Vance Lee of Hidalgo County and Anthony Gutierrez, representing Grant County as alternate.

Deming city manager Aaron Sera said the city's procurement officer would contact each of the committee members. "The RFP closes Oct. 16."

Item C was to name a person to lead a Financial Investigations and Options Committee. Shannon, at the last meeting, had named Sera; Lee; Gutierrez; Howard Hutchinson, alternate for the San Francisco Soil and Water Conservation District; and Charles "Tink" Jackson, Luna County alternate.

"I ask Vance Lee to be the lead person," Shannon said. "I forgot last month to name the lead person."

"It seems to me that we may not need to move forward rapidly until the ISC and the Secretary of the Interior sign the New Mexico Unit Agreement," Lee said.

"You're probably right," Shannon said, "but I would like to see ideas going forward. Do we need to consider a financial advisor?"

Kim Abeyta-Martinez, non-voting member representing the ISC, attended the meeting by phone. "If the ISC approves your budget, does it allow for paying a financial advisor? You may need an increase."

"You could be correct," Sera said, "but we budgeted $110,000 for professional services. We won't know until we know the cost."

Javier Diaz, representing Luna County, said he thought it might be better to wait until "we get closer to the need."

Allen Campbell, representing the Gila Hot Spring Irrigation Association, suggested the question of an advisor be set aside because funds will be fluid. "We are going to have to research how the money is currently invested. It's very possible the money can be a fund transfer that might preclude extra fees."

Abeyta-Martinez said the funds are held in the New Mexico Unit Fund, which was set up by law, with the ISC statutorily in charge of those funds. "The ISC has hired a financial advisor to invest this money, according to state law. If the entity decides to have a financial advisor, he or she would have to work with ours. I would like to work with the committee to keep them apprised so we are on the same line of thinking."

Gutierrez said he agreed it was premature to hire a financial advisor. "Once the 30 percent engineering design and NEPA are done, there will be significant costs. I hope we can set up the fund so we can make money while spending money."

The final action item was the topic of much of the rest of the meeting. It was to appoint a team to work with the ISC, regarding the scope of work for the firm that will be selected for the 30 percent engineering design.

Hann said he has been involved for many years in environmental impact statements for forest management and wildfires, but never for water projects.

"How does the 30 percent design address action or no-action alternatives?" Hann asked. "I'm worried that the pre-EIS sites have not been identified. Are we prepared to do into the 30 percent design?"

"I think the concern is warranted," Gutierrez said. "To this point, we have accepted ISC's design. The Deming proposal had a diversion with a cost of about $350,000. The ISC came up with a diversion. I have voiced my opinion that what we want and need is a small project that is more simplified and could be phased.

"I certainly have reservations on how this project was developed, and then the engineers added a 107 percent contingency," Gutierrez continued. "Do the calculations and then you double it doesn't make sense. There has been no geologic study done. I had issues with what they came up with. I think this gives us an opportunity. To be part of the scope of work is good. I have the same concern on the diversion site as what we heard earlier. Now is the time for the CAP Entity to get involved in a project we can agree with."

"I was part of a 30 percent design team," Sera said. "It gives you a voice, so we are not doing a $1 billion project, but one which will make it affordable."

"We want the best for us," Shannon said. "The thought of spending $1 billion never entered our minds."

Campbell pointed out that no member of the entity had ever been part of formal or informal meetings on a $1 billion project. "We are looking for a project that is doable and affordable. It's time to say: 'It is our job starting right now.' Up to now, we have been forming the organization to make decisions. Now is a very important stretch of time to keep those who have problems with what has been proposed to be part of the process."

"I know the design was formulated to take the maximum amount of water when possible, to convey and store it," Gutierrez said. "I think that's why it's a large project."

"Having been involved since before the AWSA, in the spring of 2004," Lee said, "I argue that 100 percent we need to get our two bits in to the 30 percent design before the NEPA begins. This is the time we've been looking for to develop a project that suits us and the region, and is affordable. There have been a lot of proposals that have not been what we wanted."

Hann noted that pre-EIS, understanding what is available on the no-action alternative leads to possible actions. "Can we currently lease the water now going down the river to Arizona? How much else can be done with the diversions already out there? There is a lot of stuff not addressed that is in the no-action alternative."

Gutierrez agreed that some issues needed to be looked at. "That's the reason why we are looking at a diversion project. We want to address the fact that the water rights of the irrigations as allocated to them are not being met. Some can be remedied with smaller storage areas. We need to be looking at the no action alternative. The reason why many have only permanent pasture is because they have no stable water supply for value-added crops, because water rights are not being met. No action has to be part of the engineering process."

Craig Roepke, ISC Gila project manager, came on the phone. Hann asked his question about clearly defining the no-action alternative. "Does the 30 percent design engineering address no action?"

"I think the 30 percent is only on an action," Roepke replied. "The first step is to determine the actions."

Hann emphasized that for the CAP Entity to formulate the 30 percent, "we need to have a fairly good idea of the action items as well as the no action consequences."

"We, as an Entity, need to know all the options, including the no action alternative," Hann reiterated.

Shannon asked Lee to explain the situation why, even when there is water in the river in the Virden Valley, farmers cannot take water.

"The Globe Equity Decree includes part of the Virden Valley in New Mexico that then stretches into Arizona," Lee said. "The Globe Equity has a Gila commissioner that tells irrigators when they can and can't take water. Sometimes there is water in the river, but we can't take it. Sometimes, a ditch has reached its allocation and can't take more or sometimes, if the water quality deteriorates downstream, we can't take more. The Gila commissioner calls and tells irrigators to close their head gates."

Sera reiterated how important it was for the scoping committee to decide what project to support.

"If you're for a $1 billion project, you probably don't need to be part of the committee," Sera said.

The members of the NM CAP Entity named to the Scope of Work Committee for the 30 percent engineering design include Hann, Lee, Gutierrez, Campbell, and Jim Massengill of Deming, who was appointed chairman, in his absence. More members wanted to be part of the committee, but agreed to be removed so they did not approach a quorum.

Shannon requested an earlier meeting than next month be set. The next meeting was scheduled for 9 a.m. Tuesday, Oct. 27, at the Grant County Administration Center.