Print
Category: Front Page News Front Page News
Published: 08 December 2016 08 December 2016

By Mary Alice Murphy

The first part of the New Mexico Central Arizona Project Entity meeting, held Dec. 6, at the Grant County Administration Center, featured roll call and a request for a change to the agenda to place the item on public comment and telephone participation to the January meeting, as the requestor was not present.

After approval of the revised agenda and the minutes from the last meeting, public comment was given.

Allyson Siwik of the Gila Conservation Coalition was the first to speak. "There is nothing on the agenda about the schedule. It seems like we're about three months behind on AECOM getting going on Phase 2. I hope to hear during the meeting where we are in this process. I would also like to hear about where we are in the process and items for the Interstate Stream Commission funding for non-diversion projects. The deadline is the end of this month. I know some have requested extensions."

Claudia Duerinck, Gila Valley resident, said the purpose of her comments was to reiterate what she said last month that people in the area are in economic decline. "They are less willing to face substantial draws on their limited resources. Only 2 percent of the economy in Grant County is agricultural. Yet it is the perceived need that will guide the diversion. There are 50 people in the Gila Valley, 16 in the Mimbres and 36 in Virden. Only 66 people in Grant County will benefit from the substantial expenditures."

"I believe you have a genuine belief in what you are doing, but people don't trust you," Duerinck declared. "A sizeable amount of money has already been spent, and in fiscal years 2017 and 2018, you have hefty budgets totaling $1.75 million. The water that you say you want to keep from going to Arizona is not yours until it is paid for."

Hueteotl Lopez, self-described community organizer and activist, started giving some history about his background on the Food Policy Council where he served with NM CAP Entity Executive Director Anthony Gutierrez.

[Editor's Note: This writer was so taken aback by the accusations thrown at the CAP Entity and Gutierrez that she failed to take many notes, so Lopez's comments are truncated and mostly not quoted, due to accusatory, inflammatory language.]

His recitation of history included a packed Town of Silver City Council meeting (several years ago), where the councilors turned down a suggestion by Gutierrez, as a member of the Food Policy Council, who said a slaughterhouse would provide local food to the community.

"This project is not worthy of honor," Lopez said about the entity's planned diversion It is a wild, free river, life to wildlife, plants and people, and companies cannot control it, he said.

"You are illegal," he again charged this month, at which point Entity Chairwoman Darr Shannon broke in to tell him the entity is not illegal. A short shouting match ensued, and Lopez said his son wanted to speak.

The Lopez son alleged the group is doing "evil stuff" to the animals. "I don't like what you're doing and I think it's illegal."

Shannon asked both of them to quit speaking. The Lopez father and son remained for the engineering part of the meeting and then left while shouting their feelings as they walked out the door.

Norman Gaume, retired engineer and former ISC director, spoke next about the aquifer recharge and storage. He said that AECOM, the consulting engineers on the project, said that 160 acres of land can be used to store water. "For the sake of math, let's say 200 acres. AECOM says the depth would be 18 feet to the water table, so does the Reclamation report. Let's say 20 feet. That times the 200 acres provides 4,000 acre-feet of volume. If you build an expensive project, removing all the soil and lining it with concrete, you would have a 4,000 acre-foot reservoir. BUT, if it's built of alluvial aquifer material laid down by ancient floods, it will leak, leaving you a maximum yield of 0.2 of the 4,000 acre-feet, which will get you about 800 acre-feet for supplemental irrigation."

Because, he alleged, no need as been nailed own, "let's assume 20 cubic feet per second for one day, that's 40 acre-feet. "So you have 20 days of supplemental irrigation. That's the math and it is so conservative that it has to be less than that."

Gaume alleged the storage would leak like a sieve. "It will not yield 800 acre-feet."

He said he had questions for AECOM. He asked if AECOM had penciled it out before they proposed a contract for more than $400,000 for engineering "to study the feasibility of this clearly infeasible activity." To the CAP Entity, Gaume said its lawyer instructed AECOM that it needed to become an expert in the Consumptive Use and Forbearance Agreement (CUFA). Gaume said he had provided the same advice from the same podium and alleged AECOM did not use the CUFA in its preliminary report.

Gaume said AECOM is recommending the entity spend $1.75 million to purchase AWSA water on the exchange. "That will buy you at least 40 years of exchange water yield credits. How can you justify this? I ask you that honestly."

Ed Toms of AECOM described the purpose of the presentation on Phase 2 of the engineering.

"We had time to come up with other options after receiving direction from the state and from meetings with you folks," Toms said. The firm took the information and looked at available data and scaled the storage down to 4,000 acre-feet. "We looked at surface water and at aquifer storage and recharge (ASR) and came up with alternative 4."

AECOM will proof out the alternatives "so you folks can take them to Reclamation for the NEPA process," Tom said. "We have one more task on the Gila Gage diversion site. Part of the property is on The Nature Conservancy (TNC) property. It is a critical aspect of the project if TNC will allow it."

The scope of work in Phase 1 included developing screening criteria for the diversion and storage concepts along the Gila and Mogollon Creek; storage reservoirs and ASR; diversions, open channel, pipeline and pumping; and assessing the environmental impacts. "The most important is the environmental impact statement (EIS)," Toms said. "We have identified cultural facilities to avoid high-risk areas."

Diversion of 150 cfs of water using Ranney wells, which are subsurface wells, will be lifted into Winn Reservoir with 3,800 acre-feet of storage. "We have looked at the lowest impact to the environment."

Phase 2 includes the diversion; the ASR ground water model; the ASR geotechnical investigation; the ASR down valley sites; agency requirements and additional work, as needed.

"We are looking at a low impact diversion and will continue talking to TNC," Toms said. "We will drill shallow wells to determine deliverability of water, to proof out the capacity, how it will move, and how we will capture it in the Ranney wells in real time. The system has the flexibility of real time use and later use."

The agency requirements include pre-NEPA cooperation.

He said tasks 1-6 were completed in Phase 1. Phase 2 will address tasks 6-12, including the project management notice to proceed, notice to proceed with diversions for which the draft report has been submitted, a coordination meeting NTP date to be determined, and an ASR ground water model NTP TBD, ASR down valley sites NTP TBD, and agency coordination NTP TBD.

"We have submitted a draft diversion report and would like to gain some input to make sure we are on the same page as you folks," Toms said. "We want to make sure we have a doable project. This information is in support to proof out the ASR in support of the NEPA."

Deliverables include the recently submitted draft diversion report to the ISC. Next will come the ASR numerical model, the ASR geotechnical report, the down valley ASR observations memorandum, and the permitting summary memorandum.

Vance Lee, CAP Entity member representing Hidalgo County, asked if the ASR diversion could easily be done in accordance with the CUFA.

"You can take it from the diversion into the recharge basins," Toms said. "You can turn the diversion on or off. We will 'color' the water so we can track it. This model is an operational tool."

Allen Campbell, representing the Gila Hot Springs Irrigation Association said one of the principles in groundwater storage is to have boundaries.

"We will possibly need slurry wall cut offs," Toms said.

"The crest on the river elevation change between high water and low is about 12 feet," Campbell said. "I tend to feel we need to have a low head wall height, not a dam, but a diversion. The math didn't work out for me either, just as Mr. Gaume suggested. Have you used well logs?"

"We are using existing well logs," Toms said.

AECOM'S Dan Woolley gave an overview of the concepts.

"We are looking at Gila Gage land ownership, which includes the U.S Forest Service, TNC, and the state of New Mexico," Woolley said. "Access to the diversion site is an existing two-track road of about 1.5 miles. It is steep and you would have challenges getting equipment in and across Mogollon Creek. It may require improvement."

Criteria for diversion evaluation include the available head, which would be the highest point below the Forest Service boundary; all weather access to the diversion except during a flood; structure stability key is tying diversion to bedrock, with the ability to control and build off it; and lateral and vertical channel stability, with bedrock along both banks, because of observed channel degradation.

The structural design would be a choice of grouted boulders versus cast concrete; adjustable versus fixed invert (which means the ability to gain head); and at grade level versus surface water intake.

Sediment transport would require promotion of sediment continuity to prevent erosion and sedimentation.

Structure bypass would maintain the design of channel alignment and prevent further channel avulsion.

Another criterium is to allow upstream fish passage, with a design to threatened and endangered species requirements by minimizing limiting velocities and depths. Woolley said fish passage would require an elongated riffle rundown.

Also recreation opportunities would be maintained allowing downstream navigability.

He presented several options. An engineering riffle diversion would have an invert of 4662 feet to 4666 feet, fixed construction of grouted boulders with cast concrete walls, riprap bank protection, bedload deflection, fish and debris exclusion, sediment sluicing and surface conveyance canal.

Pros would be the cost to construct, with fewer mechanical systems and reduced power requirement and would allow recreational navigation. The cons would be a non-adjustable invert, static sediment management, no fish passage channel and reduced flood flow conveyance.

The Obermeyer pneumatic gates diversion would allow gates to be raised from 4662 feet to 4666 feet. It would have a cast concrete sill and walls; riprap bank protection; mechanical infrastructure, including steel gates, pneumatic lines, bladders, compressor, operations controls and housing; bedload deflection; fish and debris exclusion; sediment sluicing; and surface conveyance canal.

The pros are an adjustable invert, dynamic sediment flushing, fish passage opportunities and flood flow conveyance.

Cons would be more costly to construct, require mechanical systems maintenance and additional power requirements.

A combination Coanda screen and Obermeyer pneumatic gate diversion would have many of the same options as the Obermeyer system, with the addition of Coanda screens with 1 mm opening, water collection vaults and a subgrade conveyance culvert.

The pros are a partially adjustable invert, limited sediment flushing, sediment and debris exlusion, but with fish passage opportunities.

The cons are the cost to construct, the systems maintenance, as well as sedimentation in vaults, reduced head for conveyance and additional power requirements.

Woolley next discussed Cliff-Gila Valley geomorphology.

Channelization by straightening and leveeing the river valley caused steeper channel slopes between 1945 and 1953 and a disconnection of the floodplain with reduced overbank flood storage and loss of vegetation and bank stability between 1953 and 1964.

He said the dynamic channel response in the valley, independent of flood severity, has vertical channel instabilities and lateral channel instability.

Campbell said the Gila River has changed "phenomenally in my lifetime. We had massive floods in the 1950s. I rode the river several times from Gila Hot Springs to the lower Gila Valley. There also was extreme grazing, with few trees. These results were inherited. Now it's a forest, which is going to continue because of better management plans. I think we will see natural channeling with an active river channel."

Wendel Hann, representing the Gila Farm Irrigation Association, asked how much upriver changes would be influencing the lower river changes.

"If you see head cutting, that will impact downstream," Woolley said. "If you can no longer hold it, it will dump the sediment out and will begin to incise the banks."

Campbell said he thinks many of the recent changes are because of fire management. "The channel dropped about five feet prior to the fires. Now it's building up again. I think gravel movement will continue to be a problem."

Woolley noted that some fines have been moving into the Gila Gage site. "For a diversion we must consider these key criteria and make sure sediment moves through."

Hann asked if the proposed diversion could benefit the river by stopping the head cutting."

"Yes, it would be a backstop," Woolley said, "but preferably that wouldn't be the case. We saw a lot of evidence from the '40s and '50s that agricultural sites were using flooding irrigation, but the channel is now lower.

"We see continuing channel abandonment," he continued. "With a lower water table, today you can see the zones where riparian areas were abandoned and the upland vegetation is taking over.

Between 1964 and 2009, observed channel response at the Gila Gage site shows ongoing channel incision, with propagation of headcuts initiated downstream; channel abandonment into historically irrigated fields, with fluvial landforms; and lowered shallow water table with perched riparian vegetation and expanded upland conditions.

Woolley said to provide ecological and functional restoration of the Gila River, the intent of reach-scale channel restoration is to re-elevate the incised channel; restore stable channel geometries; reduce over-steepened banks; reconnect abandoned floodplains; raise the shallow water tables; and re-establish native riparian zones.

The pros are to improve river function with vertical and lateral channel stability and sediment continuity of reach; raise diversion elevations to use gravity feed ASR infiltration fields; restore aquatic and riparian habitats for threatened and endangered species; and benefit river-based recreation. The disadvantages of restoration are increased project cost and temporary construction impacts.

Woolley said the benefits would include enhancement of riparian areas, especially downstream of the diversions.

His recommended path forward for next steps include continued fluvial geomorphic analysis; additional hydraulic modeling; initiation of sediment transport modeling; field investigations for ASR; and stream restoration evaluation.

Hann said he had read an article showing how people have managed river channels. "The ways it was done by the Anasazi is quite similar to the way we manage today. Will you look at anthropomorphic uses?"

Lopez as he left the room yelled: "Mother Nature will be the best model."

NM CAP Entity Attorney Pete Domenici Jr., who was attending by telephone, asked if part of Phase 2 would be a broad overview of what AWSA water can be used.

Toms said: "We will determine how to use the CUFA and get the maximum amount of water."

"I would like to understand, if diversion work is installed, what and when can the AWSA water be used," Domenici said. "Can it be made available for immediate use? And I have a question about ASR. Is part of the work looking at satisfaction of Office of the State Engineer permitting?"

Toms said it would meet technological and environmental permitting requirements.

Hann said the Gila Basin Irrigation Commission would have a 30 percent design of its projects for more permanent diversion structures for three ditches. "If we could work together, could we stabilize and improve the ecology of the river system?"

"Yes, that is the intent to work together," Woolley said. "Yes, it will be associated with river benefits."

Howard Hutchinson, representing the San Francisco Soil and Water Conservation District asked about the restoration work. "Maybe if it goes to the ISC, it's not necessary for the CAP Entity to approve, because 319 funding could be used for restoration work, also USDA funding and other sources. Why are we including it in the scope of work at this point?"

Toms said it is a different aspect the firm is considering to return the river to its natural state, which would benefit the overall project.

Hutchinson said such work would, to a large extent, be mitigation. "I was just wondering to what extent you are using scarce funds."

Woolley said the work would help promote river enhancement.

Gutierrez said Hann and Hutchinson had both recommended that environmental enhancement and restoration should be included in the project.

"I've been involved in several restoration projects in the valley," Gutierrez said. "Bringing in this restoration along with the diversion can only be a benefit."

Campbell said after 1978 and the big flood in December 1979, which did a massive amount of damage, construction set up the 1984 flood. The construction was just a big amount of gravel pushed up. "A part of the problem today was the work done then."

Under old business, Gutierrez talked about the NM CAP Entity website. "The contractor, Rose Hessmiller, brought up extreme enhancement. I had a conversation with her and she appreciated the input I had received from members. She said she could do a simpler site for a fraction of the cost she had estimated. She would incorporate it with her ISC contract. I spoke with the ISC Director Deborah Dixon, who told me to speak with Ali Effati, ISC Gila Basin Manager and Helen Sobien, ISC engineer. We would use the same portal and same server, but we would have a separate website."

Shannon noted that she had heard many complaints about how hard it was to navigate the nmawsa.org website.

"It's not the website, but how the information is put into the website," Gutierrez said. "I requested it be as simple as possible. We potentially could incorporate into our website what's in the nmawsa.org one, but in a way that pulling it in would make it more accessible."

Hutchinson moved to proceed with the website plan to incorporate the CAP Entity site into the nmawsa.org site. Gutierrez added: "pending ISC approval." It was approved.

In new business, Gutierrez said the CAP Entity is requesting permission from the ISC to grant the entity the flexibility to adjust the budget between approved operating budget line items as long as the total budget amount does not increase nor the items in the proposed budget change.

He noted that in each of the 2017 and 2018 fiscal year budgets an amount of $850,000 is budgeted for AWSA water credits. "Because we have not entered into contracts, we do not want to purchase credits until we are sure we will have a diversion. The 2018 amount is estimated and what we don't spend this year will be carried over for the exchange costs."

"To buy credits, do we have to wait until after the Secretary of the Interior makes the decision?" Hann asked.

Gutierrez said water could be used by the Upper Gila diversions, which are not getting their full allocation of water rights. Later he told the Beat that AWSA water could not be taken without the Record of Decision.

Kim Abeyta-Martinez, representing the ISC as a non-voting member of the CAP Entity, noted that the $850,000 set aside for exchange could not be moved out to adjust the budget items, but any other funding could be transferred between line items.

Jim Massengill, representing as alternate the city of Deming, said that was the intent of the request.

Abeyta-Martinez then gave a report on the New Mexico Unit Fund, reading only the executive summary of costs. She said New Mexico has received five annual payments of $9.04 million totaling $45.2 million. Expenditures to date total $6.55 million as of Oct. 31, 2016, leaving a balance in the NM Unit Fund of $38.88 million. More payments will be received each year for the next five years.

The planned ISC FY2017 operating budget is $425,300 from the NM Unit Fund and includes 3.5 full-time equivalent positions and support costs. The ISC's FY2017 AWSA/Gila Work Plan, as approved by the commission is $12,116,000. The ISC approved the CAP Entity's FY2017 budget of $1.33 million, which includes the $850,000 for exchange costs.

The FY2018 includes the ISC's appropriation request for $315,000 for three FTEs and support costs. The ISC's Gila/AWSA future work plan will include engineering, environmental compliance costs, legal services and non-NM Unit projects. The specifics of those costs are currently unknown, because the work plan will be prepared in May 2017. The NM CAP Entity's requested budget is $1.354 million, which was approved by the commissioners.

Shannon asked what the estimated cost of the website is, to which Effati said on the order of $16,000. Shannon also asked about details of the budget such as facilitators. Effati said the breakdown of costs includes the expenditures of all past meetings. Shannon asked for a more detailed break down of the costs. Abeyta-Martinez said it could be done since 2012."We can provide personnel, contractual and other costs.

Siwik asked for an update on the non-diversion expenditures, as they were to expire at the end of this year.

"Entities are coming forth with requests for extension," Abeyta-Martinez said. "Maybe such a report would be better for January."

For discussion only, Hutchinson asked for procedures for approval of actions or agreements by the NM CAP Entity as a whole prior to execution.

"We have a lot of information that passes before the CAP Entity," Hutchinson said. "We have been asked to approve actions by the ISC and will be asked to approve actions by Reclamation in the future.

"We have had circumstances where actions taken on behalf of the CAP Entity had not been properly vetted by the Entity," Hutchinson alleged. "Whenever something is going before the ISC or Reclamation, we should have procedures that allow the Entity to have the opportunity to vet them in open meeting so our record is kept clean, and so items are open and transparent among us and the ISC and Reclamation."

He said the group is operating under MOUs that require actions to come before the group. "But we are operating under time constraints so the ISC can issue contracts that must go through the Department of Finance and Administration."

"Delays for us to vet are not desirable," Hutchinson said. "But when something requires our approval, we should call a special or emergency meeting because all parties of the Entity need to have the information, as well as for our constituents and the public."

Gutierrez said: "What we've been attempting to do is get the drafts before the board. For instance, the budget took from July through November, because we three agencies each have our own attorneys. Schedules are difficult. We could take advantage of special meetings as needed. I try to explain as much as I can. This board has to read the drafts so we can discuss them. This is still the same project and the same scope of work put into phases. I'm not sure the descriptions of the San Francisco project have been fully discussed with this board."

Shannon said the ISC requires information 10 days prior to its meetings. "We need to make our demands stricter for our own board."

Abeyta-Martinez said the ISC does a draft agenda. "We would love to have the packet to the commissioners four to five days ahead of the meeting."

Gutierrez suggested it might be beneficial to better align meetings. "I think a website will help. We can publish our agendas ahead of time."

He said he has had discussions with Gaume and is always willing to discuss items. Gutierrez said he has also had productive meetings with Siwik and Todd Schulke of the Center for Biological Diversity.

In his executive report, Gutierrez said he would like to qualify what had been said earlier in public comment. "I was put on the Food Policy council and was also in charge of economic development for the county at the time. Lopez is right about some of the comments made in the Food Policy Council. It was no longer televised because of language used by some members of the council."

"The issue sort of pertains to us," Gutierrez continued. "The Food Policy Council's focus is food security and sustainability. We are talking about water for ranching, which could be a benefit to food security. Cattle raised here are mostly grass-fed and then shipped off elsewhere for processing.

"I came up with the idea to process the meat locally," he continued. "A rancher proposed the slaughtershouse. Water security is at the top of the list for local food. Grant County never gave me the incentive to recruit a slaughterhouse, but I thought it would be beneficial to the community. We can grow our own vegetables, fruits and meats."

Gutierrez said Gaume had brought some "easy penciling out today. Last week, I gave an update to the Luna County commissioners, and received another request to hold a meeting in Deming."

He said he has been working on agreements and has had discussions on the MOU among the CAP Entity, ISC and Reclamation. "Hopefully, we will have a draft by the next meeting."

Gutierrez said he has also had preliminary discussions on potential modifications to the joint powers agreement. "We have incorporated existing infrastructure, including the Freeport infrastructure. I think the JPA may need changes. We also need to discuss the Open Meetings Act resolution. It was carried over from the Gila-San Francisco Water Commission. I ask from comments from the board on changes to the OMA."

Shannon said the OMA resolution had been changed a bit, but she welcomed more input.

"When we dissolved the Gila-San Francisco Water Commission, we did it with the idea that the CAP Entity would take a more active part in all the AWSA projects," Lee said.

"Yes, but we don't want to undermine anything," Gutierrez said. "The ISC allocated the funding for the non-diversion projects. I've wanted to help find more funding sources for more projects. Maybe amendments to the JPA might involve individual projects to secure our water resources."

He said he didn't want to open the process up again, "because our main focus is still the New Mexico Unit while it evolves. We need to continue to pay attention to the Freeport infrastructure and we have talked about recharge and others."

Shannon said she would send the current JPA and OMA to all members so they can read them and give input.

Hutchinson brought up an issue heard earlier in public comment that the proposed expenditures were going to benefit a limited amount of the population.

"$9.1 million has gone to non-New Mexico Unit projects that cover the four-county area," Hutchinson named ditch improvements, municipal water conservation projects and others. "How many people are in the four counties?"

Gutierrez estimated about 60,000 in population.

"So quite a number of people are benefitting from what has already been allocated," Hutchinson said. "Agriculture is less that it was historically. The idea that this money is going to a limited number of people is false. It benefits 60,000 people, not 50 or 60 people.

"I think everyone on this entity is seeking to improve the lot of everyone," Hutchinson continued. "Agriculture is sustainable. Mining is finite. Some activities, such as tourism are seasonal. The service economy is different from the productive economy. We need both. I know you, Anthony, have always expressed wanting to make it better for all."

Gutierrez said the actual cost of the proposed project phase 1 is $58 million without the contingency. "There is a potential to receive another $50 million for the construction. If we can enhance the agricultural economy by that difference of $8 million, that's beneficial to the whole area."

He said once the money is gone, "if the water is not secured and we need it, we will have to find it somewhere else, and it will be expensive."

Siwik asked about schedule issues.

Gutierrez said no revised schedule has been issued. "Once we get a contractor hired for NEPA, maybe we will know more. I'll try to have something by next meeting."

Gaume noted the AECOM report was due by December 2.

Effati said it had been submitted last Friday on time. "We will review it and it will be posted."

Shannon asked what it would take to get it finalized. Effati said it would need to be sent to TNC. "We haven't had time to review it."

Gaume said he resented the secrecy.

"If you request it be posted, we will post it tomorrow," Effati said.

Abeyta-Martinez noted if it was posted, something might change after the review.

"We anticipate changes from TNC and from Gutierrez," Effati said. "It will be revised and when it is finalized we will post the final report."

After a brief discussion on when the next meeting should take place, it was decided by members that the usual first Tuesday of the month, Jan. 3, 2017, at 9 a.m. at the Grant County Administration Center, was the best time and place.

The meeting adjourned.