Editor's Note: This is the final part of a two-part series of articles on the NM CAP Entity meeting of April 5, 2016.

By Mary Alice Murphy

At the Tuesday, April 5, 2016 monthly meeting of the New Mexico Central Arizona Project Entity of the Arizona Water Settlements Act process, members representing area governmental agencies heard an update on the National Environmental Policy Act process. The the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, as co-lead with the Interstate Stream Commission, must perform the NEPA process before a unit can be constructed to utilize up to 14,000, acre-feet of water from the Gila and San Francisco river basins, as allocated by the 2004 AWSA.

"This is a joint lead process," ISC Gila Project Manager Craig Roepke said. "Some of you attended a workshop on the process. Reclamation and the ISC are negotiating a memorandum of understanding to set out the responsibilities of each agency. We will hopefully have it completed by the end of April. I recommend doing the same negotiation process with the CAP Entity.

"There has been no decision made on the New Mexico Unit by the CAP Entity, but this list (see at http://www.grantcountybeat.com/news/news-articles/28300-list-of-phased-new-mexico-unit-facilities-and-construction-under-the-awsa ) is intended to do a little head start, so Reclamation can issue a request for proposal on engineering for NEPA, so they have some idea of the scope of the unit," Roepke continued. "For example, if you use only No. 1, which uses existing diversions, a contractor might think it would be a simple environmental impact statement, but with No. 4, it would be more complicated involving more environmental issues.

"The ISC and Reclamation will enter into a joint funding agreement on where the money is coming from and who is paying what," Roepke said.

Howard Hutchinson, representing the San Francisco Soil and Water Conservation District asked if language for cooperating agencies would be part of the negotiation on the NEPA MOU.

"A significant part," Roepke said. "It will have who the cooperating agencies are and what their input will be. Considerations of cooperating agencies will be built into the MOU so there is a clear understanding that agencies with specialized expertise will be part of the process."

Pete Domenici Jr., serving as NM CAP Entity contract attorney, confirmed that the target for the MOU with Reclamation was the end of April and the MOU with the CAP Entity would be after that.

"I believe that is what is envisioned, with the authorities and requirements of the CAP Entity," Roepke replied. "We can't enter into an MOU with cooperating agencies before the funding agreement."

Kim Abeyta-Martinez, representing the ISC on the CAP Entity as a non-voting member, confirmed that the first MOU would be with Reclamation, the second MOU for funding and the third with cooperating agencies.

Roepke said he hoped some could happen concurrently or overlap because of time constraints.

Under old business, NM CAP Entity Executive Director Anthony Gutierrez, combined the finance and technical committee reports with his executive director report.

"I want to address earlier comments," Gutierrez said. "The CAP Entity could have brought the list to Reclamation earlier to engineer the projects or we could have hired our own engineer, but we have been cooperative in letting the public into the process. Although we have been accused of hiding things, I think the public is in this process, rightly so, because we are all concerned about how the Gila River will be affected.

"The reason I got involved was to make sure what is done is beneficial to the communities and to the Gila River," Gutierrez continued. "The Technical Committee went back to the original proposals from Deming, the Gila Basin Irrigation Commission, Virden, and the San Francisco basin entities on potential diversions. Each is unique and we've tried to address the needs and wants.

"Much of what we came up with has come from the public," he said. "We heard that they didn't want a big dam, that they didn't want to spend $1 billion, which we didn't either, and they wanted to preserve the ecology.

"I can understand that originally the state wanted the maximum amount of storage with a single approach," Gutierrez continued. "But, I, too, like to visit Turkey Creek; I like to float the river, and I like to fish. We have listened to what the public and other agencies have been saying. I had a visit with the Gila National Forest supervisor. He had a concern about how it would affect roadless areas. I met with Fish and Wildlife. They want fish passage with as little impact as possible, but would like mitigation for the dry stretches of the river during the irrigation season. They felt water in the river would be beneficial.

"We've been researching," he said. "Mr. Domenici and I went to the Central Arizona Project in Arizona. It's not just a delivery project; it's not just irrigation; there are huge conservation projects. It was an eye-opener."

He said he learned that the local southwest New Mexico regional water plan is insufficient, because it seems to think there is enough water in the aquifers to provide water forever and that reuse will solve problems.

"Look at the state of Arizona," Gutierrez said. "We want to prepare for what we think we will look like in 100 years from now. We went to Scottsdale, where only 7 percent of their water comes from mining water. And I call it mining, because it is coming from the ground. Yet, the way we handle it in New Mexico is we go drill a new well. ItG