[Editor's Note: This is the first of a multi-part series of articles on this meeting. It addresses public comment and old business agenda items.]

By Mary Alice Murphy

After the New Mexico Central Arizona Project Entity roll call, approval of agenda and minutes, public comment was presented at the Monday, March 5, 2018 monthly meeting.

Allyson Siwik, Gila Conservation Coalition and Gila Resource Information Project executive director, said: "Public discourse over the Gila Diversion has taken an ugly turn… with name calling, accusations of a sexual nature and personal attacks. I sincerely hope we can get back on the path of civil discourse." She gave a definition of civil discourse from the National Institute of Civil Discourse, as the free and respectful exchange of different ideas. "It doesn't mean we have to agree, but it means we can disagree respectfully We all want to secure a sustainable water supply for southwest New Mexico for the benefit of our communities and future generations."

The next to speak was Norm Gaume, retired engineer and former Interstate Stream Commission director in the early 2000s.

"I want to set the record straight," Gaume said. "The purpose of the work I have been doing is to provide facts. You cannot disregard my work. AECOM said its yield would be low. I disagree with their numbers and believe the yield will bring you little benefit. AECOM said there would be dry years. But did not mention as many as there are likely to be. At the legislative session, I heard claims that weren't true. AECOM talked about five dry years to my 20 dry years."

He said in February 2017, the numbers and data were public, but because a yield was not attached to the report, Gaume said, he and his colleague Peter Coha modeled it. "I did the same thing last month. You need to know the yield. It's critical. Fifty cfs (cubic feet per second) will provide 96 percent of your water."

Gaume alleged that $13 million had been spent on studies but the amount reported by the Interstate Stream Commission was in error. "The New Mexico Unit cannot be used to keep the river wet and your diversions are why the river is dry."

The first item of old business was consideration of removing some items from the proposed action. New Mexico CAP Entity Executive Director Anthony Gutierrez said one item was in the Upper Gila Valley and the other in Virden.

"One of the places in the Upper Gila Valley for a storage pond, we have received notice that this pond is on private property and on a conservation easement," Gutierrez said. "The owner doesn't want a pond, so we will not do NEPA analysis on it, since we won't be able to use it. In the Virden area, we recommended three storage ponds. One, with a potential for 140 acre-feet of storage, is partially on BLM land and is in the flood plain. It would add to the NEPA analysis and would need protective measures to protect it from floodwaters. We ask the board to remove both of them. We may be able to deepen other ponds to make up the storage difference."

Gutierrez said he had spoken to the Bureau of Reclamation and they had told him, it was not a problem to remove things, only to add things. "There are some other areas on the Upper Gila we may not use either."

NM CAP Entity Chairwoman Darr Shannon noted that in February, B.J. Agnew, representing the Upper Gila Irrigation Ditch, said 90 percent of one piece of property proposed for a pond was owned by one owner.

Gutierrez said he had sent correspondence to Freeport-McMoran on the issue but had not yet received a response.

The next item of old business addressed an amendment to work order CAP 1702-
P with Occam Engineers. Gutierrez said, the amendment would provide information for the NEPA analysis. "As Gaume stated, AECOM had done a yield analysis on the prior proposed action, but, with the new proposed action, we need a new yield analysis. We have contingency dollars left in the AECOM scope of work, but we need Occam to provide the information to AECOM for the NEPA analysis."

He said the annual diversion would be 50 cfs for each diversion. Joe Runyan, representing the Gila Farm Ditch, said he sees a clash of determinations, with disagreements on the yields.

Gutierrez invited Dave Maxwell of Occam Engineers to explain the amendment.

"The question posed to us was for the annual maximum diversion," Maxwell said. "The diversion will include adjudicated water and Arizona Water Settlements Act water. The diversion is limited by the capacity of the diversion structure and the conveyance. We will base it on 50 cfs per ditch."

Howard Hutchinson, representing the San Francisco Soil and Water Conservation District, said he has read through the Consumptive Use and Forbearance Agreement on many occasions. "It makes me cross-eyed when I'm digging into the formulas for maximum amounts that can be utilized and the points where those calculations take place. There is also a calculation that takes into account demands in Arizona. I'm hoping these calculations can be put into everyday language, so we can see the proof of what yields we can expect. Maybe annual flows, minimum and maximum flows, as well as when we can take the 50 cfs and for how long a period."

Maxwell said the yield model may be limited by the CUFA and by capacity of the facility." The yield analysis will give us an idea of how much you can divert."

"What we have requested is to develop all 10,000 acre-feet of water on the Gila River and the 4,000 acre-feet on the San Francisco [as allocated by the AWSA],"
Hutchinson said. "Looking at the hydrographs we cannot predict when we will get flows at those points. The restrictions on the large amounts are in the conveyance and storage. As we look into the future on future storage sites, we need to look at the maximum to help us design projects for future storage."

"Right now, we are just looking at the proposed action," Maxwell said. "AECOM's numbers originally were looking at 225 cfs, which were expanded to 350 cfs. If you want to look at the full amounts, it will be a future study. This yield analysis will be based on the proposed storage and conveyance."

Hutchinson said the entity needs to determine what the future capacity will be. "If we have a 2,000 cfs flow that lasts for two weeks, could we capture 40,000 acre-feet off a 2,000 cfs flow? I would hope at some point, we achieve an understanding of how much water we can capture. Unless we can store 40,000 acre-feet in the future, it's not economic or feasible."

Maxwell said the yield analysis "will tell us how much we can capture and ultimately store, but it will help us determine how much more capacity is needed."

"I'm looking for information I need for going forward with any of this," Hutchinson said. "We restructured the proposed action based on a finite amount of dollars. It didn't mean we don't want 140,000 acre-feet of storage."

Allen Campbell, representing the Gila Hotsprings Irrigation Ditch, said he has looked at his model, on which he spent hundreds of hours, at AECOM's model and Gaume's model. "Is the principle we're missing here, is it storage, is it volume? Every one of these problems is basically an engineering problem. Every day we have the possibility of looking at the river running at an excess of 20,000 cfs. It's unpredictable, so we go with 50 cfs on so many days in a probable year. The models are pretty close, but can we take 50 cfs off a 30,000 cfs flow? We have to develop protocol for the management of the unit. We have to do a fairly simple analysis. We have the figures."

Dominique Work, ISC counsel participating on the phone, said the completion of compiling and using the data is not possible by March 15, as stated as the deadline. "Even if it could be done expeditiously, it would take a month to month and a half."

Maxwell noted the March 15 date was for Occam. "We realize AECOM needs time, but we can provide the information by March 15."

Gutierrez said he understands the additional scope with AECOM will take about 90 days. "But in order to get to that point, we need to approve this for Occam to use the contingency funding for the yield analysis on the proposed action."

Work said a formal scope process was not needed for usage of the contingency funding. "It still seems unlikely that AECOM can get it done by the July deadline for NEPA, because it will involve the end of the fiscal year and waiting for state approval."

"We still need the scopes for NEPA from Occam and AECOM," Gutierrez said. "We are not changing AECOM's scope of work. AECOM's sole purpose is to take this information and put it into their process."

Work asked for language in the scope of work amendment to make it clear that point one is for Occam, not AECOM.

David McSherry, representing the city of Deming, said he was frustrated that in approving this, "we may have to come up with a new scope for AECOM."

Gutierrez said all the analysis the AECOM has done to date has been preliminary. "We need to use all their data and analysis for NEPA. We are not asking them to do more than their scope of work requires. It is critical to have AECOM work with us and with Occam. We are going to use both resources."

"Next meeting, we will address the next scope of work for AECOM," Gutierrez continues. "It will make sure there are no duplication of efforts for AECOM and Occam."

Campbell noted that "if we decided we are going to take, for instance, a maximum of 1,000 acre-feet, we will change one red figure in the model and hit calculate. That's all it takes."

"That is exactly the information that Occam will provide to AECOM," Gutierrez confirmed. "AECOM has the old information from the prior proposed action, it needs the new information for the new proposed action."

The last item of old business was a discussion on a second amendment to the joint powers agreement.

Gutierrez said he received several comments on the JPA from entity members. "I modeled the language on another document. We have not met with the ISC on the amendment. Our counsel Pete Domenici Jr. thought we should meet with the ISC before we finish the amendment. If anybody else has comments, I will gladly take them."

He noted he modeled the language on the process used by the Colonias Infrastructure Fund. "Colonias has a committee. We will need significant expertise on the committee we chose to see if applications meet our criteria. If we have 50 to 75 applications, I'm not sure this board wants to do that job."

Vance Lee, representing Hidalgo County, said his concern is not with the makeup of the committee but if the committee would approve expenditure of funding. "I think this board and the ISC should be responsible for approving any expenditures of funds."

Gutierrez said the committee would only made recommendations and the board would have to justify why or why not to fund.

Gabriel Ramos, representing Grant County, said people on the CAP Entity board should also be considering the applications. "We should consider them first. The funds should be only for shovel-ready projects, although some may need engineering first."

Gutierrez said the process would have two sections-one for shovel-ready and a separate one for plan and design.

Ramos said he liked the direction the board wants to go.

Lee concurred but emphasized the ultimate control of expenditures must be with the CAP Entity and the ISC.

Gutierrez agreed that the ISC would have to approve expenditures.

Hutchinson asked that language from the AWSA itself should be inserted into the amendment "that the ISC act in consultation with the New Mexico CAP Entity."

McSherry said he sees the advisory group as a technical committee to score the applications. "It is not unusual for the ISC to move lower scores above what a technical committee recommends."

Hutchinson had a concern about the distribution of funding. Gutierrez said he had tried to reach out to the Department of Finance and Administration for that language.

"The first year, the funding would come from capital and in subsequent years from interest accrued, right?" Hutchinson asked and received confirmation.

The next article will begin with addressing new business.