By Mary Alice Murphy

At the beginning of the New Mexico Central Arizona Project Entity meeting on Tuesday afternoon, April 18, 2017, after members present and those on the phone had introduced themselves, it was brought to their attention that the meeting had not been properly noticed.

Claudia Duerinck of Gila said the official notice of the meeting time in the Silver City Daily Press had said 9 a.m., instead of 1 p.m. "I suggest you hold a work session, since you cannot legally conduct business." She also asked if the suit with the engineering firm AECOM had been resolved.

Entity Chairwoman Darr Shannon asked the attorneys on the call if the meeting could go ahead. ISC Attorney Dominique Work, who was on the telephone, said the agenda was sent out with the correct time.

Entity Attorney Pete Domenici Jr., also attending by conference call, suggested the one item, the scope of work revision, requiring action be moved to the May 2 meeting.

During public input, Donna Stevens, Upper Gila Watershed Association executive director, said several months ago an agenda item had addressed amending the Joint Powers Agreement the Entity works under.

"It was approved in January to discuss amending it," Stevens said. "The request was that your executive director, Anthony Gutierrez, meet with the Interstate Stream Commission on the issue. Has anything come of the discussions? We shouldn't have to do an IPRA (Inspection of Public Records Act request) to find out what you're doing."

Allyson Siwik, Gila Conservation Coalition executive director, said she continues to be concerned about transparency of the group. "The ISC Director Deborah Dixon said the CAP Entity's meeting minutes are posted on its website, but the website is not up yet. There is a major gap in understanding what this group is doing. By an IPRA request, we found out that more than $208,000 has been paid to Domenici. He was to give a presentation this month, but it is not on the agenda. We have never seen options on creating revenue. It's time to have a report. Lots of trips are happening and expenses being paid for going to Phoenix."

Nancy Kaminski, Southwest Chapter Audubon Society conservation chair, said she wondered if anyone had gotten her message.

"Luna County is No. 1 in child poverty in the country," Kaminski said. "We are all poor counties in the region. It is a problem that is associated with what you have done. You've gone down the way to a diversion, not to benefit anyone. If you abandon the project, I figure $30 million will go to each county. Instead you seem to be using taxpayer dollars for some sort of agricultural users who don't need the water and don't use what they get."

She said the Audubon Society chapter was formed to fight the Hooker and Conner dams. "The valley is permeable. You can't store water there. I am encouraging the protection of the riparian areas and the wetlands."

Gerald Schultz, who said he represents New Mexico Natural Resource and Conservation districts, said several recent presentations had been given on the amount of available water supply for diversion dams of the CAP Entity. "Each one resulted in significantly different final numbers which surprised me. I assume any reservoir operation study (ROS), as this kind of activity used to be called, should use the same correct data from the U.S. Geological Survey, which is generally known to use controlled, checked, rechecked and accurate processes to publish the annual water supply report for each of its many stream flow stations."

He said he and his USGS colleagues used to compute the data by hand, which was tedious and subject to errors. He continued that the ROS was done to "size a reservoir to determine if there was enough water supply to satisfy the known demand of the area the reservoir would serve. Using simple arithmetic, the basic flow equation was inflow equals outflow." He went into detail on how the equation changed with storage and outflows.

"I just don't understand why the final number varies so much with all the different versions of the specs," Schultz concluded.

Norm Gaume, retired engineer and former ISC director, spoke next.

"You have no plan; you have no project; you don't know the yield yet. You, no, not you, but the ISC has spent $11 million of the $90 million that is available and could be used for projects that meet water supply need in the four counties of southwest New Mexico," Gaume said. "And there are needs. Grant County has a project; Luna County needs water. But the holy grail of diversion seems to be the only thing this group thinks about.

"You are at a crossroads," he continued. "You need to make a decision by picking one of two paths. You started on one path. Howard Hutchinson at a meeting moved and you passed unanimously to have your executive director, Anthony Gutierrez, create an RFP for an engineer. You spoke about not being able to talk directly to AECOM, because it works for the ISC. We see no RFP on the agenda, but we see a discussion on a revised scope of work for AECOM. Can you trust the recommendations you get if you go with AECOM? If you continue with AECOM, you need to reverse the motion that you made for seeking an engineer. I'm sure you can find a reliable one who can help you. It's a bigger choice of where you go. I believe you need your own engineer."

Gaume said he knew, through an IPRA request, that the ISC plans to spend about $20 million on the Environmental Impact Statement. "You have the funding for an engineer."

"And just this morning, I send an Open Meetings Act complaint to the state attorney general," Gaume said. "The complaint states that you are spending money in violation of the OMA."

Gutierrez addressed the scope of work on the agenda. "First I want to clarify which scope of work."

Shannon said she was unclear on which document and had sent the wrong document to Gaume.

Gutierrez said the reason for the revised scope of work was that after discussions with The Nature Conservancy and the state of New Mexico, it became clear the Gila Gage site would not work for a diversion.

"We have to fall back on another diversion site," Gutierrez said.

He said he has been discussing the issue with the ISC and through the ISC to the engineer that the Entity needs a new diversion site. "We came up with some potential options. In the scope of work, they are the same tasks, but we do need some additional studies. We need to look for other options in the Mogollon area for gravity feed to Winn Canyon. Another option is groundwater recharge."

Gutierrez said Entity Member Wendel Hann has suggested looking at Raney wells. "There has to be a model for recovery of aquifer storage recharge and from on-farm ponds," Gutierrez said. "We have models for yields from the Gila and from Mogollon as well as from the San Francisco, which will be surface diversions and on-farm pond locations. These are things that have already been analyzed. We want a yield model to support the analyses. We are trying to capture the overall picture of diversion, storage, ASR and on-farm ponds and how to transfer them to where the existing diversions are in the valley."

"In speaking with the engineer for the Gila River Indian Community, he is interested in what we're evaluating for the one main diversion," Gutierrez continued. "We have a few weeks to take a good look to move forward with this scope of work."

Entity Member Allen Campbell, representing the Gila Hot Springs Ditch Association, said he has worked a lot with ISC's original program to see if the numbers are within the Consumptive Use and Forbearance Agreement and "how much water we can get."

"I want to comment that the data is all Gila Gage data and should be consistent," Campbell said in reference to an earlier comment. "The same values should be used on all of these studies, although the Mogollon Gage has only 34 years of operation.

"How is anyone going to find anything but historical data?" he asked. "What time period are we going to use? Can we ask what time period AECOM is using? I've been arguing for yield value for the Mogollon and San Francisco with the CUFA requirements."

Campbell said the entity needs to direct AECOM to set a period of historic time that "we can replicate. If there are errors in some of the suppositions people have made, we can destroy them. Stay away from means, averages, medians or maximums. Use raw data."

"Within this group, we need to set up a manageable task for the engineers to do to get the best data we can," Campbell said. "Have we done any work on the San Francisco?"

Gutierrez said he met with the two board members from Catron County and visited two sites.

"If Mogollon does not flow enough water, we cannot pull any out," Campbell continued. "Is it there for us to harvest? That's what we need to know."

Van "Bucky" Allred, representing Catron County, said what the county is hoping to understand is what the flow rates are on the San Francisco River. "Our ditch diversions are the same push-up dams, with the same headaches, as those on the Gila River. If we don't have an option to look at data, we hope to have some analyses. They should have the same data points on the San Francisco."

Campbell said the same data was not available for the "Frisco. The ISC spreadsheet does not have Frisco data. They did some on Mogollon, but this is just my work. It's the first time it's been done that I know of."

"That's why we're asking the engineers to look at each model separately," Gutierrez said. "There are restrictions from the CUFA. We have to look at a diversion and the on-farm ponds for adjudicated rights. AECOM will look at them and incorporate them into their report. The model is only as good as the data."

Vance Lee, representing Hidalgo County, asked that the entity keep in mind that the initial purpose of the Arizona Water Settlements Act was to make whole the 30,000 acre-feet of water that had been taken from the area in the 1964 decree.

"A large percentage of the agriculture on the Gila River is in the Virden Valley," Lee said. "We've yet to see what is being done to keep water in the river that will benefit us, the downstream users, and the ecology of the river."

Shannon said the entity had approved getting an engineer. "Why have we taken so long to go out for RFP?"

Gutierrez said the entity can spend up to $60,000, "which isn't going to get us much. We have had discussions with the ISC and with Deming and their procurement officer. We haven't had a decision from the state of New Mexico. We don't want two contractual agreements to have two 30 percent designs."

To address Lee's comments, Gutierrez said what he is hoping to do with ASR is to slow down the water so it gets to the lower valley. "We looked at the potential of a diversion site there."

Lee said he has not seen any real effort to provide water to the lower valley. "We talk about keeping water in the river, but AECOM seems to be ignoring that."

Shannon asked what could be done to resolve the issue.

"Within the next day or two, I will complete the RFP and we will look at it at the next meeting," Gutierrez said. "Once we hire and contract with an engineer, we can talk to him."

"I was in hopes we would soon have an engineer to talk to," Lee said. "We can't direct AECOM to do anything. They don't work for us."

The ISC non-voting representative to the Entity, Kim Abeyta-Martinez, asked what kind of RFP it was going to be. "Is it a second 30 percent design contract?"

Gutierrez said it would be a general services contract, not a 30-percent design contract.

Domenici asked where the process was in the timeline. "Weren't we supposed to have a project by June?"

Gutierrez said the group had met the timeline, but wasn't prepared for a change in the proposed action, to which Domenici asked: "Why not?"

"We needed more discussion with The Nature Conservancy and the state land office," Gutierrez replied. "The Gila Gage seemed the most logical diversion site, because of the stability of the site. It was our priority site. But then TNC and the state said it was not acceptable. So we had to take a step back. All that should have been done before the proposed action was developed. We have to decide what our proposed action will be."

"Am I the only one worrying about an EIS timeline?" Shannon asked. "What is our absolute timeline?"

Abeyta-Martinez said: "In defense of ISC and AECOM, we are taking direction from your representative, Anthony Gutierrez. You guys need to make a decision on a project. We will not make the DFA deadline, which is in June for approval in July. Then it will be 15 weeks before a notice to proceed. We are looking at late fall. For your own engineer, it will be two to three months before approval of notice to proceed. Because of the improper notice, you can't make a decision today."

Gutierrez said at the last meeting, the members looked at Phase 1. "The direction I got was to attempt to put forth your recommendations. I received zero phone calls, zero emails from board members, aside from Wendel. It was the same project moved downstream. We eliminated the Gila Gage, but it was still ASR, still the component for Raney wells and storage into Winn."

Lee said he assumed that the part about water running downstream meant what it said. "I was remiss in not bringing that more forcefully to you. For a time AECOM was absent, maybe on the phone, but not here."

"These task orders are specific to what AECOM does," Gutierrez said. "AECOM did a report on Phase 1 in the presentation they gave."

Abeyta-Martinez said what AECOM presented "were the deliverables."

Gutierrez said the members also have to look at what is budgeted. "Nothing is budgeted for Phase II."

Abeyta-Martinez said ISC has a contract with AECOM and had a savings in the contract. "We are asking them to use the savings to do these analyses. It will take time. If you add more, that will add to the cost and time to this contract."

Gutierrez asked the members to look at the scope, which he had sent to them the previous week. "Give me a call if you don't understand something so you have a full understanding of what will come to us."

Abeyta-Martinez said there are two scopes. One is task 13. And there is Phase II, which is pre-NEPA and Phase IIB.

"The on-farm ponds and ASR were in Phase I, but didn't get any analysis," Gutierrez said.

Abeyta-Martinez said scope 13 had already been approved. "You need to approve scopes 14-17."

Shannon asked the members to make sure they are ready to approve them at the next meeting.

The next item for discussion was the NM CAP Entity website, for which this author has the contract. It is ready to have documents added, as soon as they are received. She asked that members let her know what they want on the website in the way of personal information, so it can be placed and go live as soon as possible.

Gutierrez said he was gathering documents that would be placed on the website.

The only item of new business was to discuss the request for NMCAP Entity membership from the Grant Soil and Water Conservation District, which will be on the next agenda.

Gutierrez gave his executive director report.

"Maybe I need to create a full report for you to look at," Gutierrez said. "The ISC, Bureau of Reclamation and I have weekly meetings. We had a preliminary discussion on the JPA, but we still need to create the draft of the changes we want.

"I have talked to engineers, and I have looked at RFPs," Gutierrez said. "I have one from Santa Fe that might work. I will have the RFP draft done for you to review. The contractual agreement has to come before the board."

Gaume noted the motion directs the executive director to bring the RFP back to the board for approval.

"We will bring it to the board," Gutierrez said. "We brought the RFP last meeting and there was discussion on the specifics, and whether it would be for 30 percent design. We decided we wanted just general services. We have to rescind the motion that we brought, that we didn't approve for 30 percent design."

"You need to get it right on the agenda for May 2," Domenici said. "You need to clarify the engineering for general services, the RFPs, all those issues."

The next meeting is set for Tuesday, May 2, at 9 a.m. at the Grant County Administration Center.

After the meeting, Bureau of Reclamation Engineering Division Manager Jeff Riley spoke to the Beat about reaching deadlines for NEPA and the EIS.

"What we've done is a written scope of work for the contractor as much as we can," Riley said about preparing for the NEPA process. "We can plug in the proposed project. It was based on earlier discussions."

When asked whether there is enough time to get an EIS, Riley said, with a small project, "we can get it done on time. For a large and complex project, it might be tight. The Entity will be heavily involved in scoping for the NEPA and EIS."

Much of the process is detailed in the agreement among the co-leads in the process.

Riley said a complex project might include pumping plants, long conveyance pipelines, electrical lines. "Those add complexity. Gravity flow not so much. But we still have to make sure the fish are protected."

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.