New Mexico Mercury

Editor's note: This article was written by Laura Paskus for the June edition of the Utton Center's Environmental Flows Bulletin. 

Earlier this year, State Sen. John Arthur Smith, D-Deming, proposed a capital bill to the New Mexico legislature—and highlighted tensions over water in the southern part of the state.

In his bill, Smith requested $100 million to build a pipeline from the Gila-San Francisco River Basin to Doña Ana County.  According to a February story in the Las Cruces Sun-News, Smith considered the proposal a “message bill.”  That message was directed at Grant, Luna, Hidalgo, and Catron counties, which he says haven’t planned quickly enough for how to use 14,000 acre feet of water that the state might purchase under the Arizona Water Settlements Act (AWSA). (For background on the act visit the December issue of EFB.) 

Environmental activists opposed Smith’s bill. So did many others, including Las Cruces Mayor Pro Tem Sharon Thomas, two Las Cruces city councilors, and two Doña Ana county commissioners. In their joint letter to the Senate Finance Committee, they point out that the $100 million would only be a “down payment” on the pipeline. The project, they estimate, would cost at least $400 million. On top of that, users would still have to pay for the water itself. Current cost estimates for anyone—cities or farmers—interested in buying that water range from $72 to $122 per acre foot. In the coming years, that price is expected to rise.

The state does have a planning process for how it might use that water, or, alternatively, use a lesser amount of federal funding for nondiversionary water projects. Over the past two years, a panel has been evaluating project proposals—some of which are focused on development, others on conservation. Next spring, the panel should receive engineering, cost, and cost-benefit analyses, then make its preliminary decision in August 2014. The state’s final decision will come in November, just before the federal government’s December 31, 2014 deadline to procure between $66 and $128 million in funding.

Allyson Siwik, executive director of the Gila Resources Information Project, notes that although Smith’s bill failed to pass, it did indeed send a message. By raising the possibility of a water transfer, it heightened fears among city and local officials in the four counties that, if they don’t develop the water themselves, it will be shipped to a city like Las Cruces. “It did what he intended: it ended up scaring people,” she says. “A lot of people started saying, ‘Why should we, in southwestern New Mexico, bear the ill effects of rampant growth on the Rio Grande?’”

Under the provisions of the AWSA, the state doesn’t have to build dams, divert and develop the water; it can instead implement conservation projects. But many local officials are deaf to protecting the Gila, says Siwik. That’s due in part to rhetoric by state officials, who say development projects would only take “excess” water from the river. “But there’s no such thing as excess water,” says Siwik. “All the flood flows have a purpose; they’re all important to the river, and they all do different things.”

Note: In the next issue of EFB, we’ll be focusing on the Interstate Stream Commission and its role in the decision-making process. 

For more information on the AWSA, visit:

The Interstate Stream Commission’s (ISC) website:
http://nmawsa.org/

The Gila Resources Information Project’s (GRIP) website:
http://gilaresources.info/

To view the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s recent technical support presentation to the ISC:
http://nmawsa.org/meetings/reclamation-presentation-04-15-13

(Feature image: Whitwater Canyon in the Gila National Forest.  Creative Commons via Flickr by USFS.)