By Mary Alice Murphy

Public comment opened the July 11, 2016 meeting of the New Mexico Central Arizona Project Entity.

Donna Stevens, Upper Gila Watershed Association director, requested that public comment take place after the discussion on alternatives for a project.

M.H. "Dutch" Salmon of the Gila Conservation Coalition said it was hard to "conjure up something to say when we don't know what alternative you will choose. The cost of more than $100 million for water to be delivered to a few farmers in the Gila Valley seems excessive."

He said the Mimbres Basin has an "ocean underground. Nobody in the Gila Basin needs water. Each is allocated six acre-feet. The Arizona Water Settlements Act threatens our precious free-flowing Gila River. You say it must be diverted and used before it goes to Arizona. I ask you to discuss the non-diversion alternatives and use the $66 million available for them."

Patrice Mutchnik said she would like to speak on behalf of her daughter, Ella Jaz Kirk, and all young people in the county. "How can we respond without knowing what option you will choose? Ella urges the Interstate Stream Commission to approve a plan that would not divert, dam or do damage to the Gila. I ask you to choose non-diversion alternatives from a 13-year-old."

On a letter that Ella wrote to the ISC, she gathered in 2014 the signatures of more than 2,000 people. In the letter, she wrote: "All I ask of you is to consider what a diversion would do, consider the opinions of the people in this state who don't want a diversion, who would rather have a free-flowing river home to wildlife, farmers and regular citizens trying to make a life in New Mexico, than a sole trickle of water in bone-dry desert, evaporating reservoir and our taxpayer money down the drain. Please, regard our opinions as citizens, as people who are invested in the future, as humans who want to make an effort to conserve."

Sue Wolf from Deming said: "There will never be enough water," she said. "A magnesium mine is trying to get water through a pipeline in Deming. We will use this water and we still need water."

She said the need to get more water would continue. "We need to learn to live with what we have."

Ed Toms of AECOM engineering consultants, said he had had a team of 20-25 people working "to meet your needs. Input from you indicated you wanted a firm yield of up to 3,000 acre-feet in the Gila Basin, 1,000 acre-feet in the San Francisco Basin and 3,000 for municipal use through the Freeport-McMoRan infrastructure."

"We were directed to draw up the Freeport portion for a future phase," Toms said. "Our main purpose today is to gain more input. The deadline is Friday to send to the Bureau of Reclamation to set up the NEPA process. I have Craig Hoover of Bohannon Huston here in person and my technical team calling in on the phone.

"We did the screening," he continued. "All of the alternatives have environmental and social issues, as well as technical issues that can be addressed with mitigation. The alternatives are pretty comparable. We were asked to look at phasing with the initial phase to cost between $80 million and $100 million, and do the full build out later."

He said they developed system alternatives with different add-ons including one in the San Francisco.

"We're at about 5 percent engineering," Toms said. "For the NEPA process, we don't have to have the system design. We have to have the conveyance to deliver, pump stations and the site of diversion. We looked at the gravity option. Keep in mind we can trade out a pipeline with a canal. After NEPA, mitigation will come up. Keep that in mind when you're coming up with an option."

Toms said a draft of the report would be given to the ISC on July 22, with the final due on Aug. 1.

Hoover presented the four alternatives worked on since the July 1 workshop.

They are Alternative 1, called the Upper Spar; Alternative 2, Three reservoirs; Alt. 3, ASR (aquifer storage recharge); and Alternative 4, ASR with Winn Canyon storage.

Add-on components, also called bolt-ons, which are included in all alternatives are first, Component 2, which encompasses the Cliff-Gila Valley existing diversions to make them more permanent, with water being fed to the ditches using a siphon under the river connecting Upper Gila Farm to Fort West and to Gila Farm ditches, so they could convey 250 cubic feet a second.

Component 5, which provides water to the Redrock and Virden areas, would utilize the existing ditches through the existing three diversions, with storage in the Cliff-Gila Valley, released in block releases from storage.

Component 9 uses the 16 existing diversions on the San Francisco River and includes improvements to the canal ditches. Hoover noted the components are covered by contingency funding.

Alternative 1, Upper Spar includes a diversion at the Gila Gage; a pipeline from the Gila Gage to the Spar pump station; the Spar pump station; the Upper Spar reservoir for 9,000 acre-feet of storage; a return line to the Upper Gila Farms diversion and additional conveyance.

Hoover showed a map and a schematic of the project, which he did with all the alternatives.

Alternative 2, Three Reservoirs, included a Mogollon Creek diversion; gravity flow to Miller, Doyle and Winn reservoirs; return to Upper Gila Farms diversion, which requires limited pumping. He said if Winn is less than one-third full, it would require pumping, otherwise, it was a gravity system.

Alternative 3, ASR, included a Gila Gage diversion; flood infiltration on The Nature Conservancy Land; Ranney Wells to collect and pump to bring back to the surface for irrigation or to keep the river wet; and a pipeline to the Upper Gila Farms ditch. Hoover noted that Alternative 3, could be a potential phase, and additional groundwater modeling is needed.

Toms said the detention ponds would be shallow to allow percolation into the groundwater.

Alternative 4 is a variation on Alternative 3, with the difference being the addition of Winn for carryover storage. Hoover said the water would move through the valley and be in Winn for long-term storage. Ranney wells would be downstream of Winn.

"We haven't yet included the costs," Hoover said. "Water storage will be provided by others at no cost to this project either through the ASR or a surface reservoir in the San Francisco Basin.

Alternative 1, in its initial phase, would provide 83 annual acre-feet for $82.5 million, with a $4.2 million 10-year operations and maintenance cost.

For full build out to provide a 3,000 acre-feet annual firm yield would cost
$336 million if a dam and liner are included, with a 10-year O&M cost of $20.9 million. The three components are included in the indirect contingency costs.

Alternative 2 for the initial phase would yield 100 acre-feet annually and cost $90 million with a liner, and $82.5 million without reservoir liners, with a 10-year O&M cost of $3.9 million. Full build out would cost $373.5 million with liner and $298.5 million without a liner, with the 10-year O&M cost at $21.2 million.

Alternative 3 for the initial phase, which could yield up to 1,800 acre-feet per year would cost $84 million, with 10-year O&M cost of 1.6 million. Full build out would yield up to 3,000 acre-feet firm yield at a cost of $124 million and O&M costs for 10 years at $2 million.

Alternative 4 initial phase would be the same costs as Alternative 3 for the same yield.

Full build out for up to 3,000 annual acre-feet firm yield would cost $366 million with a Winn reservoir liner costing $31 million. Costs of 10-year O&M are estimated at $11.6 million.

For a PDF of the complete presentation of July 11, 2016, visit nmawsa.org.

AECOM and Bohannan Huston recommended Alternative 4, which maximizes the yield with the lower dollar tag. "Evironmentalists should be less concerned because storage is underground," Hoover said.

The next steps for the process are the delivery of the NM CAP Entity proposed action to Reclamation on July 15, 2016, submission of the draft report to the ISC on July 22, and the final report on Aug. 1.

Wendel Hann, representing the Gila Farm Ditch, pointed out that the area being proposed on The Nature Conservancy land is in a destination area for many people for camping, hiking and fishing. "It was a field restored to a quasi-dry grassland. Are there options to make it look more natural, like a wetland?"

"We can use different approaches, so I would say yes," Toms said. "They are shallow ponds and would get vegetation, so yes, they would be addressed in a mitigation plan."

Campbell said a couple of things concern him greatly. "I did some rough work and I found some inconsistencies. One that worries me the most is that there is nothing that is pure gravity flow."

Toms noted that for elevations, they used LiDAR data, which is "pretty accurate. We're pretty comfortable with the overall design, but we will go out and spot check things."

He said the NEPA process needs only the locations. "If it's a gravity system, we are confident our information is conservative."

Vance Lee, representing Hidalgo County, asked about the yields in each reservoir of Alternative 2. AECOM's Nathan Walker on the phone from Denver said Miller would see 175 acre-feet a year, Doyle 138, and Winn 305.

Walker also said that Winn could replace Miller and Doyle or vice versa.

Lee said he also didn't quite understand how much could be stored in infiltration in ASR in Alternative 4, and how much could be delivered downstream.

Mark Levorsen of AECOM, on the phone, said he had high confidence that "we can do infiltration. We have to confirm access with fieldwork. The water would move just over an inch an hour. That's conservative."

He said water at high flows would be diverted through the infiltration area, and within a couple of days it would be moving slowly downstream. "The time from infiltration to collection is a hydrological calculation."

Howard Hutchinson, representing the San Francisco Soil and Water Conservation District had questions from the previous presentation on the cultural and ecologic impacts. "When I look at a proposed area for the San Francisco, it is listed as a 5, which is a major impact. My understanding of cultural impact is that it is the surface impact to a surveyed cultural area. I'm not proposing to change the existing diversion. In the Tularosa, most of the known sites are on a mesa or other elevated areas above the floodplain. When it is moved on to Reclamation, can you create the impact, whether it is high for endangered species? We have moderate impacts on the San Francisco. But our vision envisions riparian restoration. There would only be short-term impacts, but not long-term. We want the understanding that although they are listed as high impact, what we want is low impact long-term."

Andrea Parker of AECOM said the way they did the cultural impacts analysis was from the database. "The ones that received a 5 were in the buffer zones of 500 feet. Otherwise, it would require boots on the ground research."

Walker noted the research was the preliminary engineering. "We are trying to identify possible issues. There will be permitting and mitigation. The ultimate impacts will be determined in NEPA."

"If there is no surface disturbance in an identified site, there is no impact, right?" Hutchinson asked.

"Correct," Parker replied. "For cultural resources, we have to consider the indirect impact. The (State Historic Preservation Office) would require the analysis."

"We asked you to look at an initial 1,000 acre-feet, with long-term 4,000 acre-feet. I presume it can be included," Hutchinson said. "It was included in the notice to the Secretary of the Interior."

Van "Bucky" Allred, representing Catron County, said he submitted 12 diversion points off the San Francisco. "We are concerned about the potential to store water in the future. We have diversions, but our hope is not to be in the stream. We want to do it in a smarter way and want to have the ability to build diversions in a smarter way."

Aaron Sera, representing the city of Deming asked how much area would be needed to infiltrate the water.

Levorsen said, in the Upper Gila area, about 190 acres and in the Lower Gila, 40-acre plots on agricultural land.

Sera also asked, if the group decided on Alternative 4, and started doing the 30 percent design, "what if the Secretary says no?"

"We won't be pressing toward 30 percent, until we have permission from Reclamation, which can ask questions of you and us," Toms said.

Parker said the point is to identify the preferred alternative. "I think there will be other opportunities for refinement."

Hann asked if a diversion at the Gila Gage would impact Forest Service land, because the Forest Service wants to avoid impact to forest land.

NM CAP Entity Executive Director Anthony Gutierrez came forward to make comments and ask questions and would answer Hann's question.

He asked to make sure the priority document sent to the ISC from Catron County had the improvements to diversions and ponds for storage.

He noted that Alternative 4 had nothing about gravity flow from the Gila Gage to Winn Canyon. "Was that analyzed?"

Hoover said with the elevation of the Gila Gage at 4,660 feet, gravity could partially fill Winn, but to completely fill it would require pumping. He said the bottom of Winn was at 4,585, but the elevation at the Upper Gila diversion was 4,610, so if Winn were nearly empty, water would have to be lifted.

Gutierrez asked what the reasoning was for 10-year O&M costs and if the exchange costs were included.

Toms said they estimated on the 10 years to make the alternatives comparable. "And, no, the exchange costs are not included."

Gutierrez thanked everyone who has been working so diligently. "It's a testament to the ISC, the engineers and this board to be at this point."

"We still have a lot of people uninformed about where the CAP Entity is now," Gutierrez continued. "It's hard to overcome the prior proposed $1billion project by Reclamation and a dam on the river. I was at Bill Evans Lake and a friend asked me when we would have a lake on the river, so he could take his boat.

"This entity never looked at a $1 billion project," he continued. "We came to the conclusion that we needed a more reasonable project. Whether or not there is a diversion, we have to consider conservation. It's a real concern about how to meet our water needs.

"My recommendation is to take a larger look, larger than the comment about providing water to a few farmers," Gutierrez said. "We are looking at 30, 40 50 years in the future. No one can tell what the area will look like then. Although Silver City is not on this board, in the original Grant County plan, Freeport McMoRan's diversion could be used to recharge Silver City's wells.

He said his recommendation was a little farther than a single alternative 1 or 4. With each there will be some immediate gain and then long-term phases. "We don't know if there will be municipal need. The only real project that meets the real need is Spar Canyon. I asked Hoover about Winn and its storage. He said if it were excavated, it could hold about 10,000 acre-feet. A smart man told me once: 'It's about the water,' and it is. We need to take a look at the larger Spar. ASR right now would provide lower flows. We need to recognize during the dry months, it's really dry."

"I am recommending Alternatives 1 and 4," Gutierrez said. "Both include a diversion off the Gila Gage. I talked to the Forest Supervisor Adam Mendonca. I said we were here to help the Forest Service without impacting what they're here to do. He said the Gila National Forest appreciates the low impact and feasible projects and said there were ways the forest could help. We talked about roadless areas, and ways to do inundation and permitting."

Gutierrez said he preferred to start with Winn Canyon. "Why put money into two reservoirs, if we don't know at what point we will need that water. There are lots of ideas we haven't gotten to yet. The board needs to consider long-term needs. This is a stepping-stone for projects to come. When I talk to my daughter about what I do, I tell her that we're trying to have water for when she's my age. I appreciate the input from Todd Schulke and Allyson Siwik."

"This decision is part of our programmatic approach," Gutierrez continued. "We have no real plan, but everyone is trying to get all the water we can. I think we need to take good conversation projects in hand. One of the things we can do to move the project forward is to have phases."

Sera asked for confirmation that Gutierrez was saying both alternatives 1 and 4.

"Yes, but Alternative 4 would be the primary one," Gutierrez said. "It would be the infrastructure for both reservoirs, Winn and Spar. The only addition needed would be a pumping station to Spar."

Hann said he strongly supported the recommendation, as well ha looking at conservation and talking with the Forest Service. "What is your recommendation? Is it alternative 4 and considering alternative 1 as phase 3?"

"I need to describe the project as a whole," Gutierrez said. "It can be phased with ASR as the first step. I have questions about ASR and think they will have to do analyses to get to 1,800 acre-feet. Moving the diversion through is really investing in ASR, which I think will provide immediate benefit."

Hann asked about Gutierrez's earlier comment about keeping the river "free-flowing. Is it your perception only to divert during floods or will there be a pond behind the diversion?"

"We will take from all flows that we can," Gutierrez said. "We don't need a dam. We will use a Coanda screen to divert and we can get the flow we need. We will have a diversion, without elevating the river. Around the world and in the U.S., mainstream dams are trying to be replaced by technology. I live out there. We can take 20-30 cfs into the river and put it in the ditches. Put in that water for irrigation and water in the river stays in the river."

Allen Campbell, representing the Gila Hot Springs Irrigation Ditch, said one of the biggest advantages of infiltration is that "it gets us clean water, without major sediment and trash problems. We are likely to have different flows from the past, so we need storage. Spar has less outflow or percolation. The outflow will re-enter the Gila River higher than Winn so it will benefit the downstream users."

Gutierrez said he knew the group was trying to get away from pumping. "If you look at most agricultural areas in southwest New Mexico, if you have the goal of obtaining a better value crop, it will require sustainable water."

Lee commended Gutierrez for his analyzing and consolidating ideas. "In my 12 years sitting here wanting to keep this water in New Mexico, I agree with his recommendation."

Hutchinson, too, agreed with the recommendation for aquifer storage and recharge. "It will have a certain amount of pumping, but we don't get charged the evaporative loss and it's cheaper to store and pump."

Gutierrez said he would put his recommendation in writing. "I think it's actually three different alternatives, 1, 3 and 4."

Gabriel Ramos, representing Grant County, said he is proud to be part of "this CAP Entity. I congratulate Anthony for reaching out to Allyson and Todd and working with them instead of fighting."

Gila National Forest Silver District Ranger Diane Taliaferro said she appreciated the efforts to move the project off Forest Service land. "We want to work with you. Adam spoke with Anthony and we're here to support, listen and learn."

Entity Chairwoman Darr Shannon said Mendonca's being willing to work with the entity is "important beyond measure."/

Javier Diaz, representing Luna County, said he appreciates the foresight shown in this adventure. "When I'm in the forest, I wonder if there had been better past management, how much more water there would be in the Gila River. With these alternatives, we can show and calm fears that the river will run dry. Well, up to now the river is dry, and we've done nothing to it. I think we should be good stewards of what God has given us. The Luna County water table is dropping. Drip irrigation is efficient, and that sort of philosophy is helping this happen."

Entity Attorney Pete Domenici Jr. pointed out that several items in alternatives 1 and 4 are duplicative. "I think he said, if we're going to build 4, it can be used in 1. The costs are not additive. We can see the basic components are the same. If we do a build out for alternative 4, we have a lot except for a dam for Spar. We need to think about what we might need to make sure that what we give to Reclamation does not exceed the budget we set forth. Some items can be pushed out in time. What we want in the initial phase is essentially the ASR project, which includes the Gila Gage diversion, three collector wells, infiltration at the Upper Gila, pipeline to Upper Gila diversion plus $30 million indirect in contingencies, which is paying for the components 2, 5 and 9. Through Phase 2, we would be creating the dam across Winn canyon, with collector wells below to get water for surface storage. Phase 3 would be a pipeline to the Ranney wells to built out Spar."

"If the project doesn't meet the criteria of NEPA," Gutierrez said, "that's why I recommend alternative 4, which has lots of components. By using collector wells, they can be used to fill the reservoir. I think in NEPA we have to combine the ASR and the reservoir. We can always take away. We have component 5, which is enhancing the amount of water downstream, which will be recharged through the diversion, so that could be removed."

Domenici asked the members to keep in mind that the full build out of Spar might be 50 years out. He said if the NEPA analyses show infiltration in the upper area won't work, "we still need infiltration."

Toms said it was the best area, but "we should be able to identify other areas."

"Going back to the purpose and need," Hann said. "If part is environmental enhancement, do we have the analyses on the amount of water we can keep in the river at critical times? How best can we describe a component to meet the basic agricultural needs, so we don't mess with the river? Anything we do with ASR enhances the river. The baseline is 150 cfs, but we haven't gotten to a baseline cfs for fishes."

Campbell said the Gila irrigators are "obviously concerned about short-term storage with infiltration. Will pumping activity degrade the river flow? Would it be a problem?"

Gutierrez said it was all about timing. "If we are not able to store water in the upper area, recovery would be shorter."

He said his reason not to recommend a diversion at Mogollon Creek was that if water were taken at Mogollon, it couldn't be used downstream. "They didn't analyze Mogollon Creek for aquifer storage."

Craig Roepke of the Interstate Stream Commission said he agrees with the recommendation. "I think it has all the aspects needed, and if some part doesn't get past NEPA, we would still have a project. Today is the day for the CAP Entity to decide." He said he thought there was enough detail in the alternatives. "We need the footprint and the impacts. The costs are detailed."

Hann made the motion to recommend alternatives 1 and 4 in the context Anthony described, with Anthony and Pete as contacts for further detailing.

"My written recommendation will include details," Gutierrez said.

In other business, the entity members approved the draft fiscal year 2018 budget. "We've already approved the FY 2017 budget. This is a forecast and can be amended." The budget was for $1,354,684.89.

Shannon said she was asked for a presentation from the office of the state auditor. "He contacted me, I responded, and have heard not word one back. They did not respond to something they requested."

Gutierrez said he would be making a presentation to the ISC on July 21.

The next meeting was set for 9 a.m. Tuesday, Aug. 2, 2016, at the Grant County Administration Center.