By Mary Alice Murphy

The June 1, 2020 regular meeting of the New Mexico Central Arizona Project Entity took place virtually on the GoToMeeting platform.

Ten of the members formed the quorum, with Executive Director Anthony Gutierrez and attorney Pete Domenici also on the phone. 

No one had public comment, although eight others who identified themselves were on the phone, along with several who did not identify themselves for a total of 25 participants.

After beginning protocols, such as the Pledge of Allegiance, approval of agenda and past minutes, Gutierrez said he sent a draft comments document to the members. "I did one myself; Pete did one; and one more or less legal document was done by Lorraine Hollingsworth of Pete's office."

"My comments were centered on the preferred alternative," Gutierrez said. He complained that the document's narrative and the tables do not always match. "It is also very confusing and laborious to navigate the document, because of the different sections and attachments. The narrative is one place and the tables relating to that narrative in another place or section. One question I had was why, if the maximum capacity of a ditch is 35 cubic feet per second, is a diversion only allowed to divert 20 cfs?"

He also noted that throughout the document the economic costs nearly always exceeded the benefit, although the Principles, Requirements and Guidelines (P, R, and Gs) state that economic costs should not be confused with financial costs.

Gutierrez said that the document also only dealt with flood irrigation, when the preferred alternative in Virden already uses other forms of irrigation. He pointed out a table, ES-1, that does not reflect the same numbers as in the narrative. "The narrative has been shortened, so you have to go searching for justification of its statements."

The document uses only pecans as a valuable crop, although in other alternatives, alfalfa and grazing are what is being used in the Gila. "What they have in the document for the Gila Valley does not reflect what is going on in Virden. Neither does the document reflect livestock grazing on irrigated land, but only talks about buying feed. The document is based on a nationwide analysis and doesn't reflect what goes on in the area we are analyzing.

"They did a good job of potential impacts," Gutierrez conceded. "However, water in the western U.S. has become a more valuable, significant and necessary resource. The demand for water never goes down."

He said he felt the document has been undermined by political considerations, rather than addressing the water needs of the first potential users, those in agriculture. "I felt the nationwide analysis does not reflect any time on the ground."

Domenici said in the P, R and Gs, "it is not clear whether they are using scenario 1, where we pay for the diversion costs or scenario 2, where we will get other funding. The use of the water is extremely generic. It didn't have a single transaction on the Gila or San Francisco rivers, but rather used data from other locations in New Mexico and Arizona. I referred them to the business plan that has example transactions. My comments are focusing on the fact that their economic analysis doesn't seem to be region or location specific."

He also spoke to Hollingsworth's comments. "She put together questions asking why there is the arbitrary deadline for the entity acquiring funding."

"We will consolidate what Anthony, Lorraine and I came up with in one document," Domenici said. 

Gutierrez said he also received comments from Allen Campbell, representing Gila Hotsprings Irrigation District, that should be in the conclusion statement about an exception to having other public funding.

"The San Francisco Soil and Water Conservation District also put in comments and also showed where the document does not reflect the area," Gutierrez said.

Howard Hutchinson, representing the SFSWCD, said he wondered why the document focused only on alternative D. "I've participated in more EIS documents than I can remember or count. It should be addressing all the proposed actions."

Gutierrez said his comments focused on Alternative D, because that is what the board chose as its preferred alternative.

"That is a little disappointing," Hutchinson said. "I've done a bit more work looking through the document. I can get into a lot more detail on the economic analysis. I sent my comments to all my board members (SFSWCD). This is the worst EIS I've ever seen. The analyses, particularly the baseline analysis, has been done in error. I'm disappointed, especially with a company with their level of expertise. Without an adequate baseline, which includes a specific description of the environment in which the proposed action is taking place, they cannot do a proper analysis. And I'm disappointed that not all the alternatives were analyzed. This entire document fails. This draft needs to be totally withdrawn and every alternative analyzed in place. You cannot do a general analysis with the varied geography and geology. It's not as if these issues have not been pointed out to the joint leads. I have been pointing out severe inconsistencies and errors since the very first preliminary documents came out, even prior to the notice of intent to produce the document. It blows my mind that people can ignore inconsistencies and errors. I have never seen this in any other EIS. It makes me upset about the time and expense spent on such a horrible document."

He added that it depends on the Catron County Commission, but "I think the San Francisco Soil and Water Conservation District and Catron County will submit our comments together."

Hutchinson said when the alternatives were first presented before the NEPA process began, the San Francisco Soil and Water Conservation District and Catron County objected to Alternative B, because it was not "as we put forward. That's why we proposed Alternative E, which is a Catron County project. All the projects in Alternatives C and D were invented by the joint leads. They pulled them out of thin air. E is now their complete fabrication. Everything so blurs the San Francisco and Gila areas that there is no way they can be analyzed. I hope our overarching statement says that the EIS needs to be withdrawn and redone."

Campbell said he has downloaded all the documents. "The first issue I have is the Achilles heel of the entire work, which is the cover letter. It is a political pandering to the environmental community and people opposed to the project, as a way for them to kill the whole project. This document is a political decision, not a scientific one."

On livestock, "we are unique," Campbell continued. "The value of the crop can only be compared with feeding livestock on pasture versus bringing in hay or other food. Almost every livestock operation is different, some are grazing on irrigated land, some are feeding their livestock with hay, some are a combination. When you figure out all this it gives you the value of the pasture that has so much greater savings than hauling in hay. I run a recreation business next to my fields. If I sold my water rights and land to go into a subdivision, our ability to run a recreation business would go away. No one wants to recreate next to a subdivision. The value of the water has to be looked at with a multiplier of 200 percent. It has a $200,000 value as a business giving tax receipts to the county for 10 acres."

He noted the value of water varies so greatly, "you cannot just pick a figure. You have to look at the value added and the spin off."

Ty Bays, representing the Grant Soil and Water Conservation District, said he was concerned about what everyone has said. "I want to emphasize the letter. They say they don't want to prejudge the record of decision, but there is obviously prejudging by the Bureau of Reclamation, whose local office is located in Arizona. Arizona doesn't want us to develop this water. Our U.S. senators have gotten in thick with the multi-million-dollar environmental business. I suggest to the joint leads that they start over. There is no question this will lead to an unfavorable decision."

Vance Lee, representing Hidalgo County, asked if it would be appropriate to forward the comments to the Secretary of the Interior and maybe even the President's office.

Campbell agreed and Bays added that the group should consider asking for an investigation into what has gone on with this process. "Everything else is being investigated. I see collusion and corruption going on."

A motion was made to create a letter to send to the Secretary of the Interior and the President with the concerns that had been brought up. It was seconded.

Hutchinson asked that the San Francisco SWCD and Catron County comments be included as an attachment, with the intent to send all the finalized comments to the secretary and the president. 

With the withdrawal of the first motion and second, a second attempt to clarify continued to muddle things. 

Domenici cautioned that if the present document were to have to be redone, "there will be serious dollars attached. I agree with Ty that this document is on a trajectory to a no action decision. Keep in mind that the ISC may not even agree to pay the rest of the costs of the EIS. It is not realistic that the CAP Entity might want to spend another $2 million for another EIS."

A new motion asked that the entity's comments, including the San Francisco SWCD and Catron County's comments on the EIS be sent, not only to the joint leads, but also to the President, the Secretary of the Interior and any other appropriate agency, with a letter asking that the decision not be a political one. It was seconded and approved.

Gutierrez said: "We want to voice our dissatisfaction with this document, but I'm uncomfortable with redoing the EIS."

Campbell said: "We think the EIS is horrible. I think the methodology stinks."

Lee noted that the letter should point out where, in the cover letter and the document, it is contrary to the terms of the agreement. 

The following agenda item addressed an amendment to the scope of work for Stantec Engineers. "We are nearing the end of the fiscal year, and we will not have the permitting to be able to do the geotechnical drilling, so we would like to replace that with letting Stantec provide NEPA support when needed. It would not be weighing in, but rather clarifying things they did. This would move the process past the comment period. The Bureau of Reclamation has to finish the process. We may not like what's in the EIS, but there's a cost to finishing it. The EIS and the engineers may need to assist in the completion process."

Hutchinson noted that he voted against Virden as the preferred alternative. "We do not have the authority to name the preferred alternative. Only the joint leads have that authority. I understand it was just a recommendation. I think if there is other information to be given to the joint leads, it should be for all projects, not just alternative D. I'm not sure the engineers are qualified to do this work. I continue to be opposed to making it just the Virden area. All the alternatives should be analyzed and considered."

The amendment to the scope of work was approved, with Hutchinson voting nay.

Gutierrez in the executive director report and member roundtable said he had been investigating other ways to fund project. "But without the NEPA process completed and the record of decision being complete, we can't do anything. There is money out there to pay for portions and components of a project."

Hutchinson noted the entity needs to look at budgeting going forward and how much "we may need for legal, executive director, engineering services. I request we put it on the next agenda for an executive session. By then, the ISC will have determined the funding and completion of the EIS, and with the special legislative session coming up, we will know more."

Lee said he didn't know what the restrictions on meeting would be, but "I would prefer to meet in person, even if we have to spread out."

To a question from Bays, Gutierrez said the ISC has approved the entity's funding for the next fiscal year. "There may be cuts in the state's general fund. I don't know if that will have any effect on us. We should be able to get to the record of decision and then be able to discuss non-diversion alternatives, as we have always wanted to."

The next regular meeting is set for July 7, 2020 at 10 a.m., venue to be determined. The meeting was adjourned.