Page 3
The New Normal
While it’s fair to say that the lawsuit has caused some political panic, two critical words are still missing from most public discussions about water use along the Rio Grande: climate change. And yet, climatic shifts in the southwestern United States are already affecting the amount of surface water available to municipalities, states, and irrigators.
Currently, New Mexico is warmer than it was a decade ago. Since the 1960s, the growing season has lengthened. Taken together, 2011 and 2012 were the warmest and driest two-year stretch since record-keeping began in New Mexico in the 19th century. And last summer, 53 miles of the Rio Grande south of Albuquerque dried.
And the situation is projected to get worse.
As part of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s 2011 SECURE Water Act Report—an effort by the agency to assess climate change risks in major western water basins and how those risks may affect water operations—the agency evaluated climate change impacts and projections for the Rio Grande Basin.
Changes in the basin’s climate and hydrology are projected to include: a 5-6 degree Fahrenheit temperature increase during the 21st century, continued variability in precipitation with a 2.3 to 2.5 percent decrease in annual precipitation by 2050, and a 7.3 to 14.4 percent decrease in mean annual runoff by 2050. In addition, precipitation falling in the form of rain at lower elevations (as opposed to snow at higher elevations) will increase wintertime runoff and decrease runoff during the summer and irrigation season. The agency has also identified a number of potential impacts as a result of those changes, including:
- Decreases in spring and early summer runoff may reduce water supplies available to meet irrigation demands and increase wintertime flood control challenges.
- Warmer conditions might result in increased stress on fish such as the silvery minnow, increased water demands for instream flows for ecosystems, and increased invasive species infestations.
- The New Mexico upper Rio Grande Basin is heavily reliant on groundwater for municipal and rural uses. Warmer conditions might increase evaporation and decrease runoff, which will likely result in less natural groundwater recharge, resulting in even lower groundwater levels.
Even taken alone, each of these impacts will place additional demands on New Mexico’s ability to deliver water downstream to Texas. Along with unforeseen conditions and impacts, together, they will challenge even the most adept, powerful, and innovative water managers.
Now, if the Supreme Court accepts the 2013 Texas v. New Mexico case, New Mexico can expect at least a decade of expensive legal battles, uncertainty and perhaps, major economic and social changes.
Resources:
Water Litigation in the Lower Rio Grande WATER MATTERS! (2013).
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation climate risk assessment information
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation map: “Climate Change Impacts and Changes to Precipitation in the West”
EBID Water Supply Outlook, February 13, 2013,
Legal References
New Mexico v. EBID, et al., No. 96-CV-888, 3rd Jud. Distr. Ct., Doña Ana County (1996), (New Mexico water rights adjudication of the lower Rio Grande).
New Mexico v. U.S., et al., No. 1:11-cv-00691-JB-WDS (Aug. 8, 2011) (New Mexico sues the U.S. over the use of the 2008 Operating Agreement and a release of New Mexico’s Compact credit water).
New Mexico, CV No. 22O141 ORG, (U.S. Jan. 8, 2013), (Texas sues New Mexico on Compact violations and includes Colorado because it is a party to the Rio Grande Compact).
Motion for Leave to File Complaint,
Complaint
Brief in Support of Motion for Leave to File Complaint
Act of Feb. 25, 1905, 33 Stat. 814. (Rio Grande Project Act)
Rio Grande Compact of 1938, Act of May 31, 1939, art. III, art. IV, ch. 155, 53 Stat. 783.
Reclamation, Rio Grande Project Operations, 2008 Operating Agreement.
U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl..2; 28 U.S.C. § 1251(a). When there is a dispute between states the U.S. Supreme Court is the only court that can hear the case.
Texas v. NM, 462 U.S. 554, 567 (1983) The U.S. Supreme Court hears cases in which one state seeks to enforce its compact or have its rights under the compact decided.
Responses to “Compact Complications”