Some history:

In the 1950s and '60s, the U.S. Supreme Court settled some water disputes concerning the usage of Colorado River water in the cases of Arizona v. California. 

As a result of the cases, users of water lost many of their water rights from the Gila River, into which the San Francisco River drains, and which ultimately drains into the Colorado River in Arizona. 

In1968, the Colorado River Basin Project Act gave New Mexico a chance to divert and store water from the Gila River. Over the years, a major dam, the Hooker Dam, was proposed for the Upper Gila near the Mogollon Box, but environmental activists managed to stop that one. The proposed Conner Dam and Mangas Diversion met similar fates.

In 2004, Congress approved, and President George W. Bush signed into law the Arizona Water Settlements Act. 

The AWSA allowed for the diversion and storage of an average annual 10,000 acre-feet of water on the Gila River and 4,000 acre-feet on the San Francisco and allocated federal funding of up to $128 million from the Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund toward fulfilling those objectives in the four-county region of southwest New Mexico, encompassing Catron, Grant, Hidalgo and Luna counties. 

A dedicated group of folks, including irrigators along the rivers and other water use proponents have tried for the past 16 years to develop plans for the New Mexico Unit to store water for drought years.

However, an equally committed, outspoken and well-funded group of folks have consistently opposed every effort proposed and spread disinformation and often sheer falsehoods to try to block every proposal and plan put forth.

[Example of falsehood: The Gila River is the last free-flowing river in New Mexico. Learn the facts in the paragraphs below.]

Most people, including irrigators and environmentalists, through the years, have opposed a major dam on the Gila River, which already has at least 11 legal diversions along its length from its headwaters to its flow into Arizona. 

In fact, a major diversion dam already exists on the Gila River. If you've ever been to Lake Roberts, you have driven right past the dam and its components that divert the water from the river to fill Lake Roberts. You drive over the canal that carries the water to the river. Notice it next time you go fishing there.

Many of the agricultural users of the surface water are unable each year to receive enough water to fulfill their total water rights. With a stable water supply through storage, more productive crops could be planted, creating economic growth in the Gila and San Francisco basins.

Arizona continues to reap the benefits from millions of gallons of surface water that have flowed into its canals and agricultural businesses, as efforts continue to stymie the use of the water in the state, New Mexico, from which the Gila River originates. 

About $15 million dollars from the New Mexico Unit Fund, which was the vehicle created to hold the approximately $6 million to $9 million received each year from the LCRBDF, from 2011 to the last installment in 2020, were spent on studies to support various proposals. 

About $72 million remains in the fund, and entities, governmental agencies and legislators all over New Mexico are lusting after the funds, although the money is federal money allocated to the southwest four-county region of the state, with the state supposedly the safekeeper of the funds.

The AWSA stipulated that the Southwest New Mexico Water Planning Group be created to plan for diverting and storing the water. The SWNMWPG was succeeded by the Gila-San Francisco Water Commission, which in 2015 morphed into the New Mexico Central Arizona Water Project Entity. 

Many of the same dedicated people have taken part in these discussions since the inception of the AWSA and several from well before the AWSA.

Under the GSFWC, plans developed, with the help of the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission, to allocate some of the New Mexico Unit Fund to non-diversion projects. Several were chosen and awarded grants. Only a few of them have been completed.

The State of New Mexico, for the most part, being opposed to anything that might provide water to irrigators, has continued to block proposals. 

[Editor's Note: But, of course, they have plenty of other projects to utilize the funding!]

Gov. Bill Richardson required the SWNMWPG to include all "stakeholders" in a five-year process that included proponents and opponents of any water development. The process reached zero consensus. 

The Gila-San Francisco Water Commission was formed from the remnants of the water planning group. The GSFWC endeavored to continue to work with the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission to develop water from the Gila and San Francisco basins.

The NM CAP Entity has taken as its mission to develop the water for beneficial use, beginning with agricultural use, which is where most of the water rights were lost in the 1960s. In its joint-powers agreement with the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission, the priority was development of a New Mexico Unit—a diversion and storage of water. 

Because the money is federal, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation has continued its involvement in the development of the AWSA water. Reclamation, too, has agreements with the NM CAP Entity.

The latest agreement, with the ISC and Reclamation, was to perform a NEPA (National Environment Policy Act) process that ostensibly would lead to an EIS (Environmental Impact Statement), which would culminate in a record of decision (ROD) from the U.S. Secretary of the Interior whether the proposed project could proceed.

The NM CAP Entity worked on projects, including a new diversion on the Gila River and potential storage in canyons. Also, under study were the potential for aquifer recharge storage, as well as on-farm ponds for storage of AWSA water. As each proposal was developed, each was shot down for various reasons. 

Each time, the CAP Entity endeavored to simplify proposals so they would cost less and have less environmental impact. The final recommended proposal was storage in the Virden Valley in Hidalgo County through existing diversions. 

Because of all the impediments constantly placed in the way of any water development, not only by environmental groups, but also by New Mexico legislators, the ISC and Reclamation, the NEPA process could not be completed before the Dec. 31, 2019 deadline for a ROD. 

The CAP Entity unsuccessfully asked for an extension, which is allowed in the AWSA. But the constant bombardment of false information and the obstinacy of the state of New Mexico against allowing diversion and storage, the Secretary of the Interior, although saying he was supportive of water development, did not grant the extension due to lack of state support of the efforts.

At that point, the NEPA process continued, albeit with major inaccuracies in the draft EIS, in the hopes of getting to a final EIS.

In June 2020, the ISC, not living up to its agreement with Reclamation and the CAP Entity, made the politically motivated decision to pull funding from completion of the NEPA.

Now, the CAP Entity faces a new threat, from the very same opponents, who are pushing termination of the entity itself. 

The AWSA water continues to be available to the area if a method can be developed to enable its use through payment of exchange costs with the Arizona Central Arizona Project in order to fulfill its exchange water to the Gila River Indian Community. [I guess they have to comply with their agreements, unlike some other agencies.] 

But the opponents to use of this water, quite likely funded by individuals, agencies, entities and municipalities in Arizona and California, will continue their bombardment of false information.

Thus, the states to the west and downhill from New Mexico can keep using the millions of gallons of water flowing into THEIR economic growth, taking that financial benefit from residents of the southwest corner of New Mexico.

The little guy may not win every battle, no matter how determined and feisty he may be. But he doesn't give up. 

—Mary Alice Murphy

Editor of Grant County Beat, who has been covering this issue since the signing of the AWSA in 2004