By Mary Alice Murphy

The New Mexico Central Arizona Entity met in a virtual, mostly telephonic, meeting on Aug. 4, 2020. Once a quorum was established the members proceeded with the agenda.

After confusion on whether the minutes listed on the agenda had been approved, and with some corrections to past approved minutes, the agenda for the day's meeting and the minutes for the June 30, 2020 special meeting and the July 7, 2020 regular meeting were approved with corrections.

Fairly early on, Entity Chair Darr Shannon expressed her frustration, not only with the way the meeting was going, with people interrupting and talking on top of one another, because most were calling in and had no way to ask to be recognized to speak, but also about herself being overwhelmed with trying to be chair and handle her fuel business. And things were not improved by some woman caller laughing hysterically at almost every comment from anyone.

No one spoke up for public comment.

Under old business, the topic listed discussion of the joint-powers agreement. Executive Director Anthony Gutierrez said he asked that it be put on the agenda because it has been an agenda item for the ISC as well. "In the JPA, it allows us to potentially fund other water utilization projects. We will be going into the dispute resolution process, and I thought perhaps we could talk about the JPA simultaneously." He posted on the screen the portion of the JPA he referred to.

"I expect some progress on an agreeable solution on the dispute resolution, but I am not confident we can reach a record of decision for the New Mexico Unit," Gutierrez continued. "I think we may be able to work on the JPA. The Gila Conservation Coalition sent a letter to the ISC saying we weren't technically experienced enough or whatever. As far as I'm concerned it was all bogus. Regardless, it was a push requesting the removal of the CAP Entity even though we are the successor to the Southwest New Mexico Water Planning Group in the statute, the Arizona Water Settlements Act. I would like to get some direction from the CAP members on what to discuss with the ISC staff at the same time as we are doing the dispute resolution. Last time it took us a couple of months to change the JPA. Of course, we know our opponents are sending information to the ISC. With the discussion on the dispute resolution on Aug. 28, I feel following that will come a notice to terminate, so I would like some direction from the board. Our board members could potentially offer projects the same as anyone not on the board."

Ty Bays, representing the Grant Soil and Water Conservation District, asked for clarification on amending the JPA.

Gutierrez said the amendment would come because of the priorities that were set in the JPA. "There are some inconsistencies in what people are writing to the ISC. We had approved a draft amending the JPA to include some non-unit projects. I think the ISC wanted us to prioritize the unit in the original JPA, so that we could focus on just the unit. There was language throughout the document prioritizing the New Mexico Unit, prioritizing utilizing the AWSA water and prioritizing reaching a record of decision prior to any other type of water projects being moved forward. So, with that I would assume we would need to re-prioritize the goals of the JPA and not necessarily have to remove utilization of AWSA water, but I think re-prioritization is necessary. A lot of the language in the JPA references the record of decision and the New Mexico Unit."

Bays asked if "we should be talking to them about this at this time or wait until the dispute resolution is settled? I think we have another pressing order in front of us before we can go down this path. I'm fine with you starting the discussions, but we have to get this resolved first."

Gutierrez said: "In my opinion, I don't see the results from the dispute resolution coming out as the ISC changing their mind about funding the NEPA process. However, I think there are some things we can resolve issues. And that's to leave in the record that essentially, we will develop AWSA water in the future. So, we don't put everything on hold for this particular meeting, we could potentially at least develop the criteria for evaluation of future water projects."

He gave some history, saying that not all members were part of the discussion during the first evaluation of non-unit projects prior to the establishment of the CAP Entity as the successor. "It took quite a long time and I think there were some issues with how it was done and things that were eliminated. What can happen after the JPA is amended is what we can start discussing."

Vance Lee, representing Hidalgo County, reminded the members: "To amend the JPA, each of us will have to go to our individual entities that we represent and get them to approve a clean version of the new amendment."

Gutierrez agreed. "But the push from our opponents is to get rid of the CAP Entity and replace it with some sort of regional group to include all kinds of special interests, and we've been down this path before. We had a stakeholders' group for five years under the Richardson administration and over those five years there was zero consensus to move forward on the New Mexico Unit or any other projects. So, the ISC stepped in and implemented a process for the applications to come in and to review and evaluate the applications for alternate water projects. It took a relatively long time, and I think we could streamline that because each entity potentially has had applications for other types of funding. I don't want to go back to anything like the stakeholders' group with 30 people around the table and nobody could come to consensus on anything, not one thing. I don't think it would benefit anyone to get back to that point. That's why I'm bringing it up. We can potentially revise the JPA and get other entities to join in. I think that's the most beneficial thing we can do at this time. That's my opinion."

He said they continued to work on the dispute resolution issue, too. "We provided the ISC with our concerns, with some issues we feel need to be resolved. We'll talk about them on the 28th."

NM CAP Entity Attorney Pete Domenici said he believes the preference for him, Howard Hutchinson, representing the San Francisco Soil and Water Conservation District, and Gutierrez had been not to push the dispute resolution out to Aug. 28, but that's where it is. "It does give more ammunition to groups opposing us, saying we were on notice when the ISC voted not to fund the additional NEPA work, and we should be looking at a new role for ourselves. And look, they'll say, they're on Aug. 28 or our September meeting and they haven't done anything. I think the idea of working on what we want to be in the future needs to start. Sort of an offset to the slow dispute resolution process. I don't think it's the fault of anyone, but it's hard to get all the right people there. It's certainly not the fault of the three representatives from the CAP Entity. I think there would be benefit for us to start discussing with the ISC staff what the CAP Entity plans to be."

Hutchinson said he agreed with Bays: "I think it's premature to have any discussion about amending the joint powers agreement. If we're going to do any other agreements with the ISC, the Bureau of Reclamation or anyone else, there has to be some kind of assurance that the other parties will live up to the agreement. The reason we are in the position we are in right now is because the Interstate Stream Commission and the Bureau of Reclamation did not live up to the agreements they executed with us. I think it's premature to contemplate any amending of the joint-powers agreement. It's something we might want to bring up as part of the dispute resolution, because the joint-powers agreement is part of what we are in dispute over. I think we already have direction to do that, and I think we, as each board member, need to be thinking about how we want to amend the joint-powers agreement. I have some very concrete thoughts I'm not going to bring up now, but I think there are some agreements that can be changed. But I think it's premature."

Lee said: "I agree with both Howard and Ty on it being premature. I think Howard made some very good points and I think it's the direction we should head."

Joe Runyan, representing the Gila Farm Irrigation Association, said the reality is as "Anthony and Pete pointed out we don't have an EIS for projects. Realistically our role has changed. We can't proceed with projects. I have no idea where we're headed. I'm focused on irrigation and the application of water. All these ideas of municipalities watering peach trees in Silver City. We have no idea what the ISC is thinking about usage of the money left. I think it would be prudent to start those conversations. I don't think it will hurt us. Right now, I have no idea where we're going. I just know our project is not approved."

The next item was discussion of the fiscal year 2022 preliminary budget.

Gutierrez posted it on the screen. "We have to approve it prior to September 1. I put a barebones budget together with a total of $253,684.89. It includes my wages, the attorney fees and the audit costs and also has some for other contractual services."

Lee asked what the other contractual services were.

"We may need other professional services," Gutierrez said. "It may be advertising or something like that to move forward, perhaps related to the JPA. It's difficult to put a budget together not knowing what we're going to be doing. I put extra money in the professional services for unexpected expenses."

The budget was approved, with one nay from Hutchinson, with no explanation why.

Gutierrez said he had nothing else for the executive director report.

During the members' Roundtable discussion, Bays talked about a guest column in the Daily Press on the opinion page. Gutierrez posted it on the screen. "I understand Rudy Martinez was promoting it, although he didn't sign it," Bays continued. "Hurley, Bayard, a county commissioner, Silver City and Santa Clara signed on to this letter for local control of the New Mexico CAP Entity money so they could do projects for Grant County only. I don't know what they were thinking, maybe money for Hurley's water system. It's ironic that two members of our board were represented in the signatures, Santa Clara Mayor Richard Bauch and Commissioner Billy Billings, who did not sign it himself. It was signed by Commissioner Harry Browne. I'm not sure it's good policy, but I wonder if we should write a letter to set the record straight. The lay public reads it and thinks these bozos didn't get a project done, even though it wasn't our fault. Every one of the entities had a chance to join and didn't. In fact, Silver City adamantly opposed it and now wants to join. I think they didn't like the rules and now see an opportunity. I throw it out as a consideration whether we should write a letter of correction."

John Sweetser, representing Luna County, said the commissioner was probably not speaking for the commission but for himself. "I would pay no attention to that. Legally the commission is in favor of being part of the CAP Entity. Perhaps Mr. Billings can speak to it. I wouldn't pay attention to it. It's just politics."

Gutierrez said in the letter they talk about several things, working together on water issues. "When I was in Grant County, as a planner, there is always competition for water and for money in the area. While I I supported the regional water plan, it shows clearly the issues with just continuing to drill wells to solve the water problems. That's exactly what they are talking about—drilling wells. It may be in the Gila Basin where they want to drill wells. They have $33 million in projects in the letter. They don't say anything in there about potential irrigators getting some ditch improvements, and nothing about the other three counties; they say nothing about Catron County, nothing about Luna County, nothing about Hidalgo County, which are all part of the CAP Entity. They have more than half the money spent in just this one county. That's why I pushed a discussion on the joint-powers agreement. It's imperative we show the regional aspect with the counties also having similar projects. I think including the small groups, such as the irrigation associations and the soil and water conservation districts is very, very important. It is totally and completely bogus that the Gila diversion project is legally holding the money hostage. It's just not true. We worked with the ISC to make the New Mexico Unit the priority. It had nothing to do with holding anything hostage. This letter's proposals have absolutely nothing to do with having anything regional."

Lee said he appreciated Gutierrez's comments. "I would like to emphasize that Silver City and the Mining District are just a small portion of the four-county region. I don't know how much clout that article will have, but what is says will not encompass the region."

Billy Billings, representing Grant County, said he agrees with Bays that it might be in the CAP Entity's interest to write a letter of correction. "I've talked to some of these mayors and I think they need to be held accountable, because they are talking one way to one group and another way to another group, at least two of them are. To Mr. Browne, he doesn't represent the Commission on the CAP Entity, and that could change at some point, but right now, I'm the representative of Grant County on the CAP Entity. It does seem a little odd. But the public doesn't pick up on these things readily. This was a message to the public, and I think one thing we've done a poor job of is getting our message out to the public in an understandable way, so they understand what we're doing. I have friends on both sides of any political aisle who still think we are proposing some sort of a Hooker or Conner dam on the Gila River that would dam it up or we're going to divert the river, not just small on-farm storage ponds or diversions like we've had for hundreds of years. I think a public relations campaign by the NM Cap Entity is overdue. Anything we can explain very simply to the public what we're about, what we're doing is always in order. I do think the Silver City Daily Press will publish our letter. I could be wrong."

He moved on to a different subject. "You (to chair Shannon) are expressing the frustration of your situation. Perhaps you can work with the executive director to separate the job of chair and secretary. Because perhaps we have put too much on you. We members need to look at the minutes ahead of time so we are prepared with corrections. I suggest one of us could be secretary. I realize you're overwhelmed (to Shannon) ."

"And I have one more item," Billings said. "It's a question for you and the executive director, about why at least part of us can't meet in person and the rest call in. As we learned from the person who was having a mental health day (the caller who obviously did not know how to mute herself) and if she's still on, she needs help, and I hope she gets some help. I was just in a meeting with the lieutenant governor on Thursday. There were seven or nine of us there, and we were six feet apart. Why can't we take precautions like that? I'm taking my cue from the lieutenant governor. There must have been nothing wrong with the meeting or he wouldn't have taken part in it. Why can't we meet like that as a group? I think the meeting would go better. I don't want to drop it. I would like to hear some more discussion."

Shannon asked when the next meeting would be. "I hate to say this, but I am resigning as of today. I am overwhelmed. I will stay on the board and represent Hidalgo Soil and Water Conservation District, but I cannot continue as chair."

Billings said he was sorry to hear that, "but I do appreciate what you've done. We need to separate the chair and the secretary duties."

Shannon said she gets to her office at 5:30 or 6 a.m. and stays until 5:30 or 6 p.m. and goes home exhausted. "Someone else needs to take over as chair and secretary."

Gutierrez said he appreciates her work. "I know all the time you've put into this position. It takes a lot to be chair of this board."

"I've been chair for five years," Shannon said. "I need to resign."

Gutierrez said he didn't know any public buildings that were open. "It's my homework to find a place for a meeting. I will do the minutes of this meeting this time."

Lee said: "I'm vice chair. I don't mind running the meetings. And I appreciate that Anthony will do the minutes. I would rather that happen than you resign, Madame Chair. I appreciate what you've done. We can leave you as the designated chair and plan on me running the meetings."

Van "Bucky" Allred, representing Catron County, apologized and said: "I'm the secretary, but I can't do the minutes. Maybe we could hire someone to do the minutes. I would personally say to you guys to decide not to let people act like idiots laughing in the background. We can meet somewhere. Wear a damn mask if you want to. We can spread out and some of us can call in."

Bays said he would rather not accept Shannon's resignation but would agree to let Lee lead the meetings. "It's been very disruptive to have this type of meeting. We need to have in-person meetings. Let the attorney, the ISC representatives and the Bureau of Reclamation call in. We can wear masks and be six feet apart. Other government officials are meeting. There is no reason why we can't. I think we are an essential business. I ask Gutierrez to find us a place to meet."

Shannon insisted she wanted to resign as chair but stay on the board.

Billings said he wanted to echo other's board members' appreciation of what Shannon has done as chair. "All of us need to say thank you and accept your resignation. Mr. Domenici knows whether we can meet. Maybe we cannot meet at the Grant County Administration Center, because it's still closed."

Domenici thanked Shannon for all her work. "I will get together with Anthony and try to find a place to meet."

"I just don't want to be chair anymore," Shannon emphasized again.

Lee said: "Anthony and Pete will work on a place to meet. Anthony will take care of the minutes for this meeting. So, on the agenda, we will need the meeting rules, will discuss accepting the chair's resignation and determine a replacement for the position."

Shannon thanked everyone for their appreciation and what they had said. "Sept. 1 will be our next meeting, Location to be determined."

The meeting adjourned.