NM CAP Entity holds workshop July 1, Part 2

Editor's Note: This is part 2 of a two-article series on a telephonic workshop held between the New Mexico Central Arizona Project Entity and AECOM, a consulting firm. This article begins with the preliminary alternatives description and ends with decisions of which alternatives to have AECOM pursue.

By Mary Alice Murphy

Using a PowerPoint format to discuss and refine projects to utilize water and funding as allocated to the area from the Arizona Water Settlements Act, members of the New Mexico Central Arizona Project Entity and consultants from the consulting firm AECOM connected telephonically in a workshop on Friday, July 1, 2016.

AECOM's Kathy Schlosser cited the significant factors in selecting the alternatives: screening scores, projects that have significantly different elements, projects that activate the Consumptive Use and Forbearance Agreement of the AWSA, projects that have phasing options, and engineering judgment.

She said it is difficult to compare one to another, because for instance, the irrigation diversions score better, but are just a building block. Ditches score well, but they are not building blocks.

NM CAP Entity Attorney Pete Domenici Jr. asked if any of the alternatives exceeded the limit set at the Albuquerque workshop of $80 million to $100 million. Nathan Walker, who had discussed the screening criteria in the previous article at http://www.grantcountybeat.com/news/news-articles/30313-nm-cap-entity-july-1-workshop-part-1, replied that many are in a range of $100 million to $200 million.

"We were directed to look at alternatives to meet the firm yield need of 3,000 acre-feet," Walker explained.

NM CAP Entity Executive Director Anthony Gutierrez said in a motion last week (at the previous workshop), a motion was made to develop for expandability.

"Although the Upper Spar has a higher cost, it has the potential for expandability," Gutierrez said. "Let's get to the system components."

Schlosser said Alternative 1 is Upper Spar. It would include a Gila Gage diversion, and a pipeline from the Gila Gage to the Spar pump station, which would pull up to 150 cubic feet per second up 30 feet to the Upper Spar reservoir. A return line would go to the Upper Gila Diversion. Bolt-ons, she explained were components that could be added on to the alternative to expand it. Components 2, 5, and 9 could be added on, but they were not included in the presentation. Component 2 was briefly mentioned as the existing ditches, component 5 is a diversion to provide water to Redrock and Virden, and component 9 as diversions on the San Francisco River.

Schlosser replied to a question about the pipeline going through a sensitive area. She said: "At this point, it is not a fatal flaw."

Martha Schumann Cooper of The Nature Conservancy said it is on land that the TNC manages. "We are concerned but have nothing formal to say at this point."

Referring to the scoring [Editor's Note: Found in Part 1], ISC's Ali Effati said he didn't see alternative 1A. Schlosser explained the Upper Spar is actually alternative 1C.

Allen Campbell, representing the Gila Hot Springs Irrigation Association, said he had "major heartburn" with Alternative 1, because the pipeline track is "absolutely impossible. I walked it. You don't have the gradient, and it runs right against the river in a bad bluffy place."

Alternative 2 is comprised of Four Reservoirs, with two diversion sites, at Mogollon and Spar Weir. A pipeline to reservoirs and pump stations would be gravity fill or pumping at 150 cfs. The reservoir sites are Middle Spar, Miller, Doyle and Winn, with return lines to the Upper Gila Diversion. The same bolt-ons of components 2, 5, and 9 are possible with this alternative.

Schlosser said the four reservoirs would be needed to meet the need of 3,000 acre-feet of storage.

Gutierrez noted that all alternatives that have Winn, Doyle and Miller in them come from a diversion on Mogollon Creek.

Schlosser said the elevation at Mogollon is 100 feet higher and allows more gravity feed.

An unidentified AECOM voice on the phone said as part of the alternative, they were thinking that doing two diversions at first could afford phasing and "if we don't have sufficient flow off Mogollon, we would have the ability to take water off the Gila River."

Domenici asked what the capacity of the four sites would be if they were not lined. Schlosser said the storage for all four lined would be 1,570 acre-feet.

Domenici also asked how likely it would be to divert from Mogollon or the Gila Gage to meet the CUFA?

An AECOM voice [who might have been Walker or Ed Toms] said the area does have the capacity to get water through the CUFA. "We are trying to deliver 25 cfs to the ditches and 25 cfs eco-flows. We will meet the demand about 60 percent of the time based on the entire period of record."

Assuming 9,000 acre-feet of storage, basically taken outside irrigation season, then it would increase reliability for when the crops need the water.

"What we're looking at is a model developed by the ISC and Craig Roepke (of Interstate Stream Commission)," the AECOM voice said. "We applied The Nature Conservancy drop criteria to the model and we're meeting the 150 cfs bypass, as well as addressing drought conditions."

Alternative 3 was aquifer-storage recharge, with a diversion at the Gila Gage. This alternative was suggested to be phase 1 of a multi-phase project, with flood infiltration on the TNC return wells, with a pipeline to the Upper Gila diversion. The potential phase 1 project would cost about $30 million for construction, but needs additional modeling, although it would have the same bolt-ons.

Mark Leverson of the Denver AECOM office said Alternative 3 would have selected infiltration at the horseshoe below the Gila Gage, where there is a wide floodplain, which would allow infiltration on the west and east sides of the stream. Conveyance would be pipeline or ditches. It would include five collection wells.

Alternative 4 would also be ASR, with added storage at Winn Canyon. Schlosser said it was the same concept as Alternative 3, with the storage and another area for infiltration.

Leverson said from the Gila Gage down to the Upper Gila diversion, there would be two infiltration areas, including shallow bermed spreading areas.

Alternative 5 would use the Freeport-McMoRan diversion to Bill Evans Lake. It would activate the CUFA very quickly. It uses existing infrastructure and screens well because there would be no new impacts, except for potential depletions. The potential liability relates to the aging infrastructure and high operations costs with the three-pump station. It does not deliver water to the Gila Valley. The water would be for municipal or industrial use.

Walker noted that any diversion sites below the Gila Gage would not provide gravity flow. Schlosser said the Ranney wells would afford the least amount of pumping.

Leverson estimated that for alluvium infiltration rates, if 300 acre-feet could be diverted, the water could get into the groundwater within several days. He said using ASR, it would significantly reduce the size of infrastructure and the costs of electricity.

Roepke asked how to keep the infiltration from plugging up.

Leverson said the process would be dealing with impermeable sediment sands and gravels. "We want to minimize the amount of sediment diverted. By using a Coanda screen, we would have more ability to exclude the sediment and allow the water to infiltrate."

Alternative 4 would have the ability to pump water into Winn Reservoir and to the ditches.

Domenici asked if a collector well was placed downstream of an unlined Winn Reservoir, if it would be able to collect the water from there, to which the reply was Yes.
Wendell Hann, representing the Gila Farm Ditch, asked if, for Alternative 3, a carryover reservoir and/or collector wells farther down the valley had been considered.

Leverson said the difference between alternatives 3 and 4 was the carryover storage. "Once it's in the groundwater, you have a limited time to recover the water. With storage you have the ability to carry water for days or years."

Schlosser said any of the potential reservoir sites could be used, but Winn requires the least amount of pumping.

Hann asked how to minimize the area reverting to cottonwood and willow with more groundwater.

"We are not trying to do anything different from what you're doing now," Leverson said. "The intent is to take the water outside the irrigation season. It would make irrigation more practical, because there would be more groundwater. You cannot recover all the water put into the ground, but you would have loss to groundwater or to the atmosphere. We need to study the losses to determine what trade off would reduce loss."

In order to meter the water to pay for exchange costs, for groundwater, typically monitoring wells are used.

Leverson said over-widening the ditches might exclude sediment so it settles. Keeping most of the sediment in the river keeps the ecological system in place.

ISC's Ali Effati asked what the capacity of Winn Reservoir would be, to which he was told about 3,800 acre-feet of storage.

As for costs for the alternatives, Alternative 1 is estimated to cost $200 million; alternative 2 about $400 million and alternatives 3 and 4 are new, but would be significant cost.

A draft was submitted to the ISC on July 6, with the CAP Entity to receive it July 8, and the next workshop to take place July 11 in Silver City.

"We have to finalize the alternatives memo to the ISC on July 13 and to Reclamation on July 14," AECOM said.

When it came time to decide on alternatives, Gutierrez said the CAP Entity should look not just at today, but at 50 or 100 years from now. "We have to identify the costs with phases and how to meet current and future needs. I have an interest in combining alternatives."

Leverson said the initial phase of each alternative could meet the $80 million to $100 million cost level members of the CAP Entity had set.

Ed Toms of AECOM suggested the members choose two primary alternatives. "You will get a bigger bang for the buck with alternatives three and four. I would want the most yield possible up front. I think alternative 4 gives carryover for agriculture and for the environment and the river.

The Bureau of Reclamation's Jeff Riley said AECOM and Reclamation were coming up with different numbers. "We're thinking 2,800 square feet in Winn. I would like to chase it out with AECOM."

Roepke said he would set up a time for the two to talk.

Domenici suggested combining alternatives 2 and 4, with a focus on Winn. He asked if a diversion at the Gila Gage could provide water to the ditches, to ASR and to Winn.

An AECOM voice said the group should build a diversion to take the most CUFA water it could. "I think we should look at the phasing of conveyance and storage."

Toms said estimated costs of conventional storage would be in line with $300 million discussed at the first workshop. Alternatives 3 and 4 would cost about half that.

He said AECOM could combine alternatives 2 and 4 for Alternative 6, but it would be helpful if someone could do a sketch of the combination.

Domenici said he could do it with Roepke. "We're not expecting anything more on alternatives 1 or 5."

Toms said AECOM could show what could be done with each alternative for $80 million to $100 million for phasing.

Roepke suggested looking at Alternative 1 with what yield it would provide for $100 million.

It was suggested that the Mogollon diversion be kept in the mix for information for the board.

Domenici suggested for Alternative 2, keeping the Mogollon diversion, but taking off the Spar piece. "I ask that none of the remaining reservoirs be lined." He asked for costs of reservoirs with and without liners in order to compare."

Chairwoman Darr Shannon summarized the decisions. Alternative 1 scaled down to $100 million; Alternative 2, keep Mogollon diversion, take off Spar and give costs with and without liners; Alternative 3 as is; Alternative 4, fill Winn from surface water and move groundwater wells downstream."

Howard Hutchinson, representing the San Francisco Soil and Water Conservation District, said: "This is kind of boring for those of us on the San Francisco. I didn't hear any detail on the San Francisco component. I thought we would have information so everyone on the board could go forward. Why can't the San Francisco be included in the design efforts? The San Francisco Basin is far better engineered."

Toms said component 9 is independent of the 3,000 acre-feet firm yield and has its own diversion.

Domenici asked for a map of points of diversion on the San Francisco. Roepke asked that the diversions and ditches be included in a San Francisco Basin map.

Lee noted that nothing had been talked about on Component 5, which encompassed diversions for Redrock and Virden. "They should also be mapped and shown."

The next and final workshop will take place at 9 a.m. Monday, July 11, at the Grant County Administration Center.

Content on the Beat

WARNING: All articles and photos with a byline or photo credit are copyrighted to the author or photographer. You may not use any information found within the articles without asking permission AND giving attribution to the source. Photos can be requested and may incur a nominal fee for use personally or commercially.

Disclaimer: If you find errors in articles not written by the Beat team but sent to us from other content providers, please contact the writer, not the Beat. For example, obituaries are always provided by the funeral home or a family member. We can fix errors, but please give details on where the error is so we can find it. News releases from government and non-profit entities are posted generally without change, except for legal notices, which incur a small charge.

NOTE: If an article does not have a byline, it was written by someone not affiliated with the Beat and then sent to the Beat for posting.

Images: We have received complaints about large images blocking parts of other articles. If you encounter this problem, click on the title of the article you want to read and it will take you to that article's page, which shows only that article without any intruders. 

New Columnists: The Beat continues to bring you new columnists. And check out the old faithfuls who continue to provide content.

Newsletter: If you opt in to the Join GCB Three Times Weekly Updates option above this to the right, you will be subscribed to email notifications with links to recently posted articles.

Submitting to the Beat

Those new to providing news releases to the Beat are asked to please check out submission guidelines at https://www.grantcountybeat.com/about/submissions. They are for your information to make life easier on the readers, as well as for the editor.

Advertising: Don't forget to tell advertisers that you saw their ads on the Beat.

Classifieds: We have changed Classifieds to a simpler option. Check periodically to see if any new ones have popped up. Send your information to editor@grantcountybeat.com and we will post it as soon as we can. Instructions and prices are on the page.

Editor's Notes

It has come to this editor's attention that people are sending information to the Grant County Beat Facebook page. Please be aware that the editor does not regularly monitor the page. If you have items you want to send to the editor, please send them to editor@grantcountybeat.com. Thanks!

Here for YOU: Consider the Beat your DAILY newspaper for up-to-date information about Grant County. It's at your fingertips! One Click to Local News. Thanks for your support for and your readership of Grant County's online news source—www.grantcountybeat.com

Feel free to notify editor@grantcountybeat.com if you notice any technical problems on the site. Your convenience is my desire for the Beat.  The Beat totally appreciates its readers and subscribers!  

Compliance: Because you are an esteemed member of The Grant County Beat readership, be assured that we at the Beat continue to do everything we can to be in full compliance with GDPR and pertinent US law, so that the information you have chosen to give to us cannot be compromised.