[Editor's Note: This is the final article of a three-part series on the NM CAP Entity regular meeting Dec. 3, 2018.]

By Mary Alice Murphy

For new business, the first two items addressed a motion made at an earlier meeting, discussed at the November meeting, and resolved at the Dec. 3, 2018 regular meeting of the New Mexico Central Arizona Project Entity meeting.

The motion made by Howard Hutchinson, representing the San Francisco Soil and Water Conservation District, at the Sept. 4, 2018 meeting stated: "To authorize the executive director in conjunction with the engineering contractor and counsel to respond and communicate to these questions from the NEPA joint leads." He requested an amendment to the motion.

It was determined last month that the motion could not be amended, but only rescinded.

Vance Lee, representing Hidalgo County, said the motion has already been acted on and "there is nothing we can change. I ask Mr. Hutchinson to leave the motion as it is."

"I thought we had resolved this at the last meeting," Hutchinson said. "Because it was already acted on, it could not be rescinded. The troubling aspect was the phrase that said 'and any similar future actions.'

Because the decision had been made at the prior meeting that it could not be amended or rescinded, no action was required for item VII a.

His next request was for a new motion that reworded it: "Only after consultation with local proponents shall the executive director, engineer or legal counsel respond to future requests for information from the NEPA joint leads about the proposed projects. Information supplied from the local proponents shall be communicated without edit to the joint leads."

"This comes about because we have gone through several iterations of the proposed actions," Hutchinson said. "They are proposal changes and obstacles as identified by the joint leads and legal counsel. The actions were adopted in a general format, with engineers developing the details. The problems arose when we were told one thing in the field and they didn't show up in the details. They didn't show up in the documents to the joint leads. They didn't appear to be what we wanted as cooperating agencies. It's a backward way to do it. It would have been beneficial to have it clear before the development of the proposal. For any future changes, I am asking them to come to the proponents first to make sure that they fit what the local proponents want."

Joe Runyan, representing the Gila Farm Ditch asked: "Were the details not in the 30 percent design?"

Hutchinson gave one "little" example. "The board agreed on the San Francisco diversion structure, pipeline, delivery to the pumping station and to the reservoir. When we were out in the field listening to those involved in the scoping, we had concerns that piping water would affect the water flowing through some owners' properties. We may not need 75 cfs (cubic feet per second) and could maybe drop to 30 cfs. Our thought was that it would go into the alternatives. So, the 75 cfs going through the 40-inch pipe is what is being analyzed. If we told the engineer and he said it could be downscaled, then why not downscale it?

"Can you redesign on the fly once it's submitted?" Runyan asked.

John Sweetser, representing Luna County, asked Executive Director Anthony Gutierrez for his job description.

"I take what the board says and put it into the proposed action," Gutierrez said. "Some of those design features could be done as part of the engineering process. What's we're doing is the maximum. If we scale back, we don't have to redo NEPA. Not only are the proposed actions voted on in this entity, but the engineering report was also voted on. I was given the authority to take the information from the board to the joint leads. I don't agree with that last sentence that information should be supplied without edit. We are pushing a timeline. As long as what we give the joint leads doesn't add an impact, we're OK. If we are reducing impacts, there's no problem. If an individual board member comes to me with something to add, that would be in violation of the Open Meetings Act."

Runyan said he would vote against the motion. Lee said nothing should be changed after the action is voted on by the board.

Hutchinson said the entity already has its proposed action. "My comments were ignored and not brought before the board for agreement. That action has taken place. What I'm saying has nothing to do with the proposed action. I know the joint leads are always requesting information be communicated to them."

Chairwoman Darr Shannon asked: "If it doesn't change the proposed action, what does it do?"

Hutchinson said it makes local information available to the joint leads, so it benefits the contractor for NEPA.

David McSherry, representing the city of Deming, said he agrees on principle, but not on what he (Hutchinson) wants. "If we don't know about it, then new stuff we haven't heard about shouldn't be communicated. If it's something that needs a special meeting, then one can be called. If it's in the executive director's job description, then it's good to go. I don't like for a local person to do something without our knowledge. I would put it on the chairman to decide if it's a board decision or something the executive director can do. The request would come from joint leads and it might go to you (Shannon) or the engineers. You will be the focal point. We have to put our faith in you."

Hutchinson moved to table the item.

The next item of discussion was New Mexico Wild's proposal to protect 450 river miles of the Gila and the San Francisco rivers as wild and scenic and what the impact on the current AWSA diversion project might be.

Gutierrez said he was supplied with maps. "The proposed areas are solely on public lands belonging to the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. Some issues with tributaries and proposals to improve the watershed may be affected by legislation. The representative couldn't attend our meeting today, but hopefully can come to the next meeting. The proposal includes in Virden the upper diversion, which is on BLM land."

Shannon asked if it would be in the Federal Register. Gutierrez said it is a public process seeking comments. "It may affect individual board members."

Alex Thal, alternate representing the Grant Soil and Water Conservation District asked if the BLM was also evaluating the proposal or just the Forest Service.

Gutierrez said the Forest Service is evaluating it as part of the revision of the forest plan. "I don't know if it's in the plan."

Thal said the Gila National Forest is required to look at and re-evaluate the Wild and Scene Rivers designation as part of their planning process. "It's 2002 all over again." He asked Gutierrez to make a request for the documentation and evaluation done by the Gila National Forest in their forest plan update in 2002. "It's all abstract and subjective."

Gutierrez said he would get the information. "It would certainly be worth a comment. I've been contacted about the issue. The representative would still be willing to come answer questions. I think this has been going on for a while. I don't know for sure, but I suspect it's being pushed because of the AWSA. If the impact is downstream from the New Mexico Unit, how does it affect us?"

"If it's downstream from the project, our project is 1½ miles from the state line," Lee said. "The map includes your diversion point. The New Model Canal in Virden has deeded property, but I don't know about the Sunset Canal."

Thal said the forest plan is still open for comments. "I suggest we get the New Mexico Wild person here and that our board give comments. Maybe we need to provide documentation to the Gila National Forest about why we need an extension to the comment period."

Gutierrez said: "If we are outside the comment period, I will take the issue directly to our congressional delegation."

Dara Parker, representing Sen. Martin Heinrich, and calling into the meeting, said the Gila National Forest process is separate from these organizations. "What New Mexico Wild does is a community-based process, not related to the Gila National Forest process. The proposal for Wild and Scenic River designation is not an agency-led process."

Hutchinson noted the eligibility would be in the environmental impact statement in the Gila National Forest plan. "There will be another opportunity to comment during the draft EIS."

Gutierrez presented his executive director report. "I will attend the ISC meeting on Thursday (Dec. 6). I recently attended a biology team meeting related to our proposed action. There does seem to be benefit to diversions to eliminate the push-up dams and their ecological impacts, as well as modeling for downstream water releases during the dry periods, which will benefit the river. It shows the positive impacts of diversion."

He reported the recent presentations at the Interim Water and Natural Resources Committee meeting received more positive feedback than in the past. "We had some support from representatives based on their support of agriculture. I actually had one member tell me he appreciated what we were doing, and he supported us. They were willing to listen."

During the member roundtable discussion, Shannon thanked Gutierrez, Runyan, Hutchinson and Domenici for being there.

"It was extremely effective to have members of the board testify," Gutierrez said. "Joe (Runyan) gave specific benefits."

Shannon said Wendel Hann, previous member of the entity board, had precise measurements.

"He's a brilliant guy," Runyan said. "He's the lead consultant for fuels and fire. In his opinion, we should consider the Gila Watershed. One-quarter of it is under state management. He is willing to come to our next meeting and talk about it."

Thal asked if it would be appropriate to ask him how to rejuvenate the springs and how a Wild and Scenic River designation would impact the watershed.

Entity Attorney Pete Domenici Jr. said the governor-elect's transition team is up and running. "That will flow down to us. We could get an entirely new ISC. We need to be on the alert. With the flavor in Santa Fe, we may have lost some supporters that we may not be able to rely on or have their support. We must get them accurate information. It is a 60-day session coming up, with a new governor and new house and senate members. Our budget, with the new governor and the new Legislature, has the potential to be very detrimental to our board. Typically, we need an appropriation to be able to operate."

Hutchinson said the effort last year to reduce the appropriation for the entity had the language struck. "I think if our request is reasonable, we should be able to get it. I have put in an application to meet with the water transition specialist."

"I don't know what to expect," Domenici said. "Lt. Governor-Elect Howie Morales has taken positions adverse to us. I want to throw out a couple of ideas. When people say they want funding for regional water projects or whatever, we've suggested there are grants out there for them. I wonder, maybe now is not the time, but I've heard there's a lot of federal water infrastructure grant funding available and whether we should be looking at it for ourselves to finish a federal project. There may be state barriers. Put it on our radar for water infrastructure."

Gutierrez said there may be issues. "The federal monies Pete is talking about might require a match. You can't match federal dollars with federal dollars. However, we may be able to use the New Mexico Unit Fund, because that belongs to the state. I will familiarize myself with these grants and that application process. I have contacted the lieutenant governor-elect and will meet with him. He is also interested in the JPA amendment."

He noted the passage of the JPA by the ISC is critical because it will offer money to other projects.

Domenici agreed and said it would show that the entity is serious about using the money for additional purposes. And could open up new opportunities, especially if the construction fund becomes available for the diversion.

"I think we got that point across to the legislators at the committee meeting that we are below budget for the construction fund and the remaining New Mexico Unit Fund monies could be used for other applicants locally," Domenici said. "The future funding to get us to the end of NEPA is relatively small compared to what has been spent so far, and very small if we get to the point of being awarded the construction fund. The Unit Fund has been marshaled well by the ISC investment process and the budgeting. There are significant resources available for this region outside of our project. That was the message, we wanted to portray and hope we did portray. There are still people pushing against this project. I think the transition team is important. I know there has been some discussion about our new U.S. Representative representing this area. We need to make sure she and her staff are aware of our project from our point of view."

Lee noted that Representative-elect (Xochitl) Torres-Small used to attend the Gila-San Francisco Water Commission meetings for several years, so "she has some idea of what's going on."

Shannon asked that as many entities as possible get the signature page signed to be presented at the January meeting.

Also, at the January meeting, the members will elect new officers and pass the Open Meetings Act resolution for 2019.

Allen Campbell, representing the Gila Hot Springs Ditch Association, said he would like to bring up the results of the fires two years ago and similar times prior to that.

"We do indeed have enormous runoff from snowpack," Campbell said. "Over the past four years, the Gila has run at 170 percent runoff and Mogollon 200 percent runoff. This is something we need to keep in the back of our minds. Water in the future can increase or decrease, but we will never have water to waste. It's precious. It is not getting worse until the forest grows back and evapotranspiration increases. It is getting better. We know the forest benefits of additional runoff will extend for 100s of years. We have many new areas of grassland. We lost the spruce forest, but we are in flux right now."

The next regular meeting date falls on Jan. 1, so it was decided to hold the meeting on Tuesday, Jan. 8, 2019 at 9 a.m. at the Grant County Administration Center.