REGION 6 WATER PLAN

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

 

 

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION

 

In 1996, the Northwest New Mexico Council of Governments (NWNMCOG, or COG) entered into an agreement with the Interstate Stream Commission (ISC) to revise the 40 Year Water Plan for Water Planning Region 6.  This revision was mandated for two reasons: the boundaries of the region were changed to include only Cibola County and that part of McKinley County not in the San Juan Basin; and the ISC had developed a water planning template to which the plan completed in 1994 did not adhere.

 

The State’s goal in developing regional water plans has been to enable the State of New Mexico to defend its water from appropriation by neighboring states.  In order to accomplish this, the State must show that New Mexico has a need for its water, and therefore can not provide it to other states.  The COG has seen the revision of the 1994 plan as a means for Water Planning Region 6 to identify regional concerns and determine local solutions to these concerns.  From a practical standpoint, the COG also felt that substantial improvement could be made to the 1994 plan by expanding opportunities for public involvement and by fully identifying potential alternatives.

 

The water plan revision has been guided by a  technical committee comprised of representatives and observers from the Office of the State Engineer, the New Mexico Environment Department, the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, the Gallup-McKinley Chamber of Commerce, McKinley County, Cibola County, Navajo Nation Department of Water Resources, the Pueblos of Acoma, Laguna, and Zuni, the City of Gallup, the City of Grants, and the Village of Milan.  The committee has directed the revision process and has provided technical input on issues of water supply, quality, demand, and legal issues.  The water plan revision has been staffed by the Regional Planner and Associate Planner for the COG, and chaired by the COG Executive Director.

 

Public participation opportunities have included four focus groups, five public meetings prior to the release of the draft plan, opportunity to comment on the draft, and five public meetings subsequent to the release of the draft but prior to the development of the final report.  Review and comment has also been sought from over twenty federal and state agencies in the region, as well as local watershed management groups and soil and water conservation districts.

 

As stated above, Water Planning Region 6 is comprised of all of Cibola County and that portion of  McKinley County not in the San Juan Basin (see map).  Surface water basins include the Rio Puerco, the Rio San Jose, and the Rio Salado,  which ultimately discharge to the Rio Grande; the Puerco River, the Zuni River, and Largo Creek, which drain into the Little Colorado River; and the North Plains Closed Basin.

 

Office of the State Engineer (OSE) administrative ground water basins in the study area include the Bluewater, Rio Grande, and Gallup declared underground water basins.  The Gallup Basin includes an area known as the Gallup Extension, which was only recently declared an administrative basin (in March of 1994).  For the purposes of the plan, the Gallup Extension is discussed independent of the Gallup Basin, since it was only recently incorporated into the Gallup Basin.  This allows some additional, location-specific information to be provided.

 

The cultures and economies of  northwest New Mexico are diverse, creating a diversity of water use within the region.  Long before European arrival in the Southwest, tribes in the area relied on water supplies for household use and crop irrigation.  Following European arrival, development within the region has caused an increase in water use for agricultural, municipal, industrial, mining and recreational purposes.

 

Towns and cities in the region typically depend on ground water resources for their livelihood and economic well-being.  Furthermore, these supplies support the region’s tourist economy.  There are also additional community wells which supply water to the rural populations in Cibola and McKinley Counties, and numerous households not affiliated with any municipal or rural water users association -- users served by private wells.

 

The region has relied on its water resources for mining, power generation, and other industrial uses.  In uranium mining operations, ground water is typically pumped out of ore-bearing formations so that the ore can be mined.  In the power generation industry, water is required for cooling.

 

LEGAL ISSUES

 

While the 40-Year Water Plan is a planning document rather than a legal one, it is clear that issues of water rights, management and administration of water, water quality requirements and other environmental issues can have a strong impact on water availability and the development of water management alternatives for the region.

 

Water Rights

 

Water rights issues in the region have focused on the Rio San Jose general stream adjudication, referred to as the Kerr-McGee adjudication.  The United States, on behalf of the Navajo Nation and the Pueblos of Acoma and Laguna, and each of these tribes on their own behalf, filed water right claims in 1989. 

 

Both Acoma and Laguna have reservations for which rights can be quantified under the Winters doctrine.  However, the vast majority of their water rights are attached to their grant lands, i.e., lands the Spanish and Mexican governments recognized as belonging to the Pueblos.  The State of New Mexico Court of Appeals, citing State ex rel. State Engineer v. Aamodt, determined that the Winters doctrine does not apply to the grant lands of the two Pueblos.

 

The claims of the United States alone, which include annual diversions of surface and groundwater for irrigation, “Ak-Chin” uses, stock watering, and domestic and community uses, are as follows: (1) 26,525 acre-feet with an aboriginal or time immemorial priority date for the Pueblo of Acoma; (2) 31,080 acre-feet with an aboriginal or time immemorial priority date for the Pueblo of Laguna; and (3) 4,465 acre-feet with an aboriginal or time immemorial priority date for the Navajo Nation’s lands within the basin.  The Navajo Nation has also submitted its own claims for 111,483.3 acre-feet per year for domestic water, irrigation, stockpond, livestock well, municipal, commercial, industrial, and lake evaporative uses (Pollack, 1987).

 

The effects of the Rio Grande Compact on the Rio San Jose must also be considered.  If development on the Rio San Jose substantially decreases the flows, if any, into the Rio Grande, this could hinder the ability of the State to meet its delivery obligations.  However, the Compact repeats the explicit lack of the State authority over the water rights of the Pueblos including those on the Rio San Jose.  The region will not be able to look to the Pueblos to provide water to meet these delivery obligations.

 

There is no current adjudication process in New Mexico for the water rights of the Pueblo of Zuni and Ramah Navajo Reservation.  These reservations are within the Zuni River watershed, which, with the Puerco River, Largo Creek, and other surface water bodies, flow into the Little Colorado River and then to the Colorado River Basin.  However, the Little Colorado River is being adjudicated in the Arizona courts. 

 

Water Management

 

Various governing bodies exercise jurisdiction over water use, water conservation and water development.  Municipalities and counties are entitled by state law to appropriate sufficient water to meet their needs for a forty-year planning horizon, while retaining rights over time rather than being required to put them all to immediate beneficial use.

 

Tribal water systems are typically managed by the tribal government, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) or the Indian Health Service (IHS).  Tribal governments are increasingly involved in community water system construction, operation, maintenance and management, even in cases where the system was constructed by other entities such as the BIA or IHS.

 

Substantial controversy has surrounded the possible development of three in-situ leach uranium mines in McKinley County.   Much of the battle has been over jurisdictional issues -- whether the land proposed for the mine is under state or tribal jurisdiction.  The Navajo Nation has challenged the authority of the Office of the State Engineer to transfer water rights for the site to HRI (Chris Shuey, pers. comm., 1-21-98).  There are also substantial concerns about the effects of the mine on water quality.

 

Water Quality

 

Federal water quality standards are often a concern for small community water systems.  Participants at the public meeting in Prewitt noted that water quality testing is very expensive for small, rural water users associations.  All water quality standards and programs have the potential to affect the available water supply.

 

Other Environmental Issues

 

Although the Endangered Species Act does not currently pose a strong constraint to water use within the region, there is the potential for cases similar to the Colorado squawfish case (in the San Juan River) in the future.  Such a case could affect water allocation and use.  The San Juan River case does affect the proposed Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project, one option for supplying water to this region.

 

WATER SUPPLY AND QUALITY

 

Surface Water Supply

 

The surface water in Region 6 is extremely limited and inconsistent in duration and quantity of flows (Table ES-1).  What surface water is available is largely used for agricultural production and stock watering.  These surface water supplies are essential to agricultural users.  Surface water quantity depends upon climate patterns and changes, as well as the adjudication of surface water supplies.  Surface water is also affected by groundwater withdrawals.  Springs and streams may dry up if the water table drops significantly.

 

Groundwater Supply

 

The quantity and accessibility of groundwater will largely determine water availability in the future.  Estimates of groundwater in storage are categorized as water with 1,000 mg/l or less of total dissolved solids (TDS), and water with 1,000 mg/l or more TDS.  TDS of 1,000 mg/l is a secondary water quality standard for drinking water, and a general indicator of water quality (Table ES-2).

 

The estimates listed also show the total volume of water in storage, and the volume of water in storage which is recoverable (Table ES-2).  Regarding the total volume in storage, Shomaker and Associates state, “There is no possibility of extracting even a tiny fraction of this water for use, even if cost were not a consideration.  To extract even a small percentage of this water would lead to serious consequences in the form of land surface subsidence.”  Shomaker describes “recoverable” as the amount of water which could physically be removed from the aquifer.  This definition of recoverable does not address the costs involved in removing this volume of water from the aquifer, which would be prohibitive.

 

Above and beyond the concern about land-surface subsidence, there are several reasons why neither all the water in storage nor all the “recoverable” water in storage can be withdrawn:

 

1.         Most of the aquifers in Region 6 have relatively low hydraulic conductivity, resulting in a steep cone of depression around the well from which the water is being extracted.  This means that as the water is being pumped from the well, it is not pulling enough water from other parts of the aquifer over to the pump and well location.  As a result, the water level drops as the well is pumped, to the point that the water level is below the level of the pump, and the well “goes dry.”  There is still water in the aquifer, but not in the area of the well.

 

2.         Except for the Gallup Sandstone, and the San Andres Limestone -Glorieta Sandstone aquifers, well yields are low in the aquifers of Region 6.  For example, few wells in the Gallup Sandstone produce more that a few hundred gallons per minute (gpm).

 

3.         Cost to obtain even a fraction of the water in storage is prohibitive.  This is the overriding constraint in water supply.  The total volume of water and of recoverable water may be vast, but the required well spacing, drawdowns, and the recovery time may make water development impractical.  Issues such as land status with reference to well locations and  water rights also will affect how much of this water can be recovered.

 

4.         Withdrawals from an aquifer may cause water of a lesser quality to migrate towards the pumping center, thus altering the quality of the water pumped.

 

It is also important to note that these estimates assume relatively pristine conditions in the aquifers; that is, the amount of withdrawals from the aquifers as of the study date has not been calculated.  For this reason, these estimates of water in storage must be considered to be somewhat over-estimated.

 

TABLE ES - 1

 

GAGED AND MODELED SURFACE WATER BASINS (Ortiz and Lange, 1996; Leedshill-Herkenhoff, 1994)
Basin	Location and Station Number	Mean Discharge, afy/cfs	50%  (cfs)	90%  (cfs) ** = 75% (cfs)
Puerco River	Puerco River at Gallup 0939550 (discontinued)	6,806/9.4	2.8	0**
Zuni River	Rio Nutria near Ramah 09386900	4,900/6.9	.2	.1**
“”	Zuni River above Blackrock 09386950	8,570/11.4	.8	.1**
Rio Puerco	Arroyo Chico 08340500 (discontinued)	15,200/21	0	0**
Rio San Jose	Bluewater Creek above Bluewater Dam 08341300	*8,249/11.3	.75	.09
“”	Cottonwood Creek near Thoreau 08341365	*4,956.7/6.79	0.0	0.0
“”	Bluewater Creek near Bluewater NM 0834200 (discontinued)	*3,650/5.0	1.7	.8
“”	Bluewater Creek below Bluewater Dam    08341500	*9,639/13.2	1.5	.48
“”	Rio San Jose at Grants 08343000 (discontinued)	2,100/2.9	0	0**
“”	Rio San Jose near Grants 08343500	4,690/6.5	5.3	4.7**
“”	Rio San Jose at Correo 08351500 (discontinued)	7,900/11	0	0**
MODELED BASINS (SWRRB)
Basin	Location	Mean Discharge afy	75% Firm Yield afy	90% Firm Yield afy
Rio San Jose	San Jose Canyon	233	138	27
Largo Creek		3,600	760	250
North Plains		5,200	930	0
Rio Salado		1,100	200	0

*Calculated at CFS X 2 X 365 days

 

TABLE ES - 2

 

ESTIMATES OF TOTAL AND RECOVERABLE WATER IN STORAGE IN WATER PLANNING REGION 6 (TDS less than 1,000 mg/l and  greater than 1,000 mg/l)
	Volume, acre-feet TDS less than 1000 mg/l		Volume, acre feet TDS greater than 1000 mg/l
	Total	Recoverable	Total	Recoverable
alluvium	850,000	425,000	small	small
Menefee Formation	12,125,000	30,250	8,620,000	19,590
Point Lookout Sandstone	6,750,000	13,500	6,345,000	12,690
Crevasse Canyon Formation	78,370,000	290,660	18,400,000	36,800
Gallup Sandstone	36,420,000	182,100	6,900,000	62,100
Dakota Sandstone	13,220,000	109,080	13,600,000	136,000
Westwater Canyon Member	15,380,000	123,040	13,600,000	108,000
Cow Springs-Zuni-Bluff	156,620,000	1,296,440	small	small
Entrada Sandstone	1,050,000	9,450	22,960,000	156,840
Chinle Formation (Sonsela)	small	small	43,760,000	203,600
San Andres-Glorieta	37,075,000	349,125	44,550,000	239,500
TOTALS	357,860,000	2,828,645	178,735,000	975,120

 

Groundwater Recharge in Region 6

 

In the region, groundwater recharge from precipitation is minimal.  Precipitation in this arid climate is limited and is rapidly lost through evaporation, transpiration and sublimation.  To recharge the aquifer, the precipitation must fall on aquifer outcrops and move downgradient to reach the saturated level of the aquifer (Leedshill-Herkenhoff, 1994).  In most of Region 6, the bedrock sandstone and limestone aqui­fers contain water under confined conditions, which means there is no recharge to the aquifer.  In and very near the outcrop area of each aquifer the aquifers are unconfined.  Recharge to these aquifers is very small as compared with the total volume of water in storage, and recharge is balanced by natural discharge. In practical terms the water is withdrawn from storage; for that reason, the water in these deep aquifers is largely a non‑renewable resource (Shomaker, 1998).

 

Unconfined aquifers can be recharged from precipitation on outcrops, and from surface water sources.  An aquifer in close hydraulic connection with a stream may result in a renewable supply of water.  There are three principal examples of such surface water/groundwater interactions in Region 6: (1) the San Andres‑Glorieta aquifer and  the Rio San Jose in the Blue­water and Rio Grande Basins in Cibola County, (2) the basaltic lava flows and alluvium and the Rio San Jose in Cibola County, and (3) alluvium and the Zuni River and the Rio Nutria and Rio Pescado in McKinley County.

 

In the Grants public meeting, participants questioned the assertion that recharge in Water Planning Region 6 is minimal.  They stated that there must be recharge, or their wells would be dry after years of pumping large volumes of water for mine dewatering.  This illustrates the difficulty in distinguishing water which may be recharging an aquifer verses water which is migrating to a pumping center.  Recharge can be thought of as bringing new water into the hydrogeologic system, as opposed to transferring water from one location or one aquifer to another.  Given the concerns expressed by the public, as well as the need for more accurate data regarding recharge in Water Planning Region 6, groundwater recharge is a recommended area for further study. 

 

WATER QUALITY

 

The quality of the water available in the region will also influence the total amount of water available for various purposes.  Some water sources may provide potable water, while others are appropriate for industrial or other commercial uses. Throughout the public meeting process, concern was expressed about the impacts of increased population growth and the increase in septic system use in both counties.  Many water quality problems in the region are caused not by humans, but by existing natural conditions.  Threats to water quality are listed below.

 

Threats to Surface Water Quality                                Threats to Groundwater Quality

 

Poor Livestock Grazing Practices                                Industrial Wastewater

Streambed Sedimentation                                           Municipal Wastewater

Damage to Riparian Areas                                          Underground Storage Tanks

Hydromodification                                                        Accidental Spills

Heavy Metals                                                               Irrigation Return Flows

Radioactive Elements                                      Septic Tanks, Cesspools

Salinization                                                                  Uranium Mining and Milling Effluent

Petroleum Product Refining

Mixing with Water of Inferior Quality

 

PRACTICAL AND LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

 

There are numerous issues which affect the actual available water supply in Water Planning Region 6.  Practical considerations include the quality of water needed for various uses and the rate at which water can be withdrawn.  Both of these constraints will impact the amount of physically recoverable water which will be available for a given use.  The other major constraint on water supply in Water Planning Region 6 is legal considerations.  Three pueblos and the Navajo Nation have reservation lands within the boundaries of the region.  All of these entities have tribal claims to water in the region which have not yet been adjudicated.  Federal environmental laws may also impact the region, as may interstate compacts and international treaties.

 

 

Practical Considerations

 

The total and recoverable water in storage data provided by Shomaker and Associates indicates estimates of water in storage with total dissolved solids (TDS) less than 1000 mg/l and greater than 1000 mg/l.  Water Quality data noted on the following chart is indicated by specific conductance.  1,000 mg/ TDS is approximately 1,300 µmhos (the measure for specific conductance).  TDS is a secondary criteria for water quality.  This means that water with or 1,300 µmhos (1000 mg/l or less TDS) may or may not be suitable as a drinking water.  Water of a TDS much greater than 1,300 µmhos or 1000 mg/l might be suitable as a drinking water supply, but would require higher infrastructure and treatment costs in order to be a public water supply.

 

Another determinant in the efficiency and cost effectiveness of a particular aquifer as a municipal or public water supply source is the rate at which water can be withdrawn from the aquifer.  The faster water can be withdrawn from an aquifer, the larger the population which can be served by that well at any one time. Estimated well yields under 100 gpm generally would not be viewed as practical for a new municipal water supply due to the costs associated with developing a well relative to the modest yield the well would produce (Danny Barrows, pers. comm. 3-20-98).

 

Table ES-3 lists the primary groundwater aquifers and the alluvium by basin in Region 6, the gallons per minute (gpm) which they generally are able to produce, (based upon well data provided in the 1994 Leedshill-Herkenhoff 40 Year Water Plan), and the specific conductance of the aquifers based upon tests at various locations.

 

It can be seen from the information provided in Table ES-3 that the ranges of specific conductance vary greatly, as do some of the ranges for well yields.  Obviously, this makes general statements about the suitability of each aquifer for specific purposes difficult, if not impossible.  It does point to the need for specific and local knowledge in analyzing any water source as a potential supply source. 

 

Legal Considerations

 

The primary legal consideration which will affect water supply in Water Planning Region 6 is  the un-adjudicated claims of the Pueblos of Zuni, Acoma, and Laguna, as well as the tribal claims of the Navajo Nation.  Tribal and Pueblo rights are likely to be senior priority rights, and are also likely to exceed existing surface flows and current ground water inflows.

 

Water quality regulations, and the expense of meeting the standards and testing requirements inherent in these regulations, place a constraint on water supplies.  Also, because the Pueblos of Acoma and Laguna are downstream from virtually all of the water users in the Rio San Jose, the adoption of water quality standards by either or both of the Pueblos will have profound effects on the upstream water users in the basin.

 

The Endangered Species Act has been a powerful determinant of water use and the distribution of water resources in areas outside of Region 6.  Such considerations should not be ignored in Region 6, as endangered species do exist in Cibola and McKinley Counties, and could affect water supply availability, and/or water development projects.

TABLE ES - 3

 

SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE AND WELL YIELDS OF PRIMARY SOURCES OF GROUNDWATER IN REGION 6 (Leedshill Herkenhoff, 1994)
	Unspecified Basin		Bluewater Basin		Rio Grande Basin		Gallup Basin		Gallup Extension
	sp.cond µmhos	gpm	sp.cond µmhos	gpm	sp.cond µmhos	gpm	sp.cond  µmhos	gpm	sp.cond µmhos	gpm
Alluvium			600-2,500	several hundred		10 - several hundred		10 - 100	300-4,500	few to 10
Menefee Formation							800-3,100	12 gpm
Point Lookout Sandstone	greater than 1,500; up to 59,000						690-1,369	1 - 75
Crevasse Canyon	less than 2,000						less than 2,000	less than 10
Gallup Sandstone			260 - 6,000	few to several hundred	410 - 3,130	30 (median of 32 wells)	457 - 3,100	few to several hundred
Dakota Sandstone	less than 2,000 - 10000						2,000 - 10,000	10 gpm
Morrison Formation			380 - 2,900	several to 500	300 - 6,000	6 - 85	400 - 2,200	several to 500
Cow Springs - Bluff Sandstone			less than 2,000	1 to less than 50			2,000 near outcrops	less than  50
Entrada Sandstone	less than 1,500 - 10,000			few			under 1,500 to 10,000	few
Chinle Formation (Sonsela Sandstone)				20 - 30		20 - 30		20 - 30	300 - 3,000	5 - 125
San Andres/Glorieta	1,100 - 3,500		700 - 5,000	10 to several thousand			800 - 3,500	at great depth	500 - 1,600	25 - 150

 

WATER DEMAND

 

Demand for water is estimated through the year 2040 based on permitted water rights, claims to water, and projections of water use based on current water use and estimated population growth.

 

Water rights are one representation of the potential demand on the region’s water.  If all available rights to water were used, a certain amount of water would be required.  Permitted rights are those which have obtained a permit for withdrawal of surface or ground water from the Office of the State Engineer.  The total amount of permitted ground water rights in the Bluewater and Gallup Basins in 74,659 acre-feet/year.

 

Claims to water rights are another representation of potential demand on the region’s water.  The claims of the United States for tribes and Pueblos in the Rio San Jose Basin total 62,070 acre-feet/year.  In addition, the Navajo Nation has claimed 111,483.3 acre-feet/year.

 

Future water demand can also be projected based on trends in water use.  Demand for agricultural,  commercial, industrial, mining, power, reservoir evaporation, and in-stream flow uses were projected through 2040 at 1995 levels (Table ES-4).  Demand for public water systems and domestic self-supplied wells was estimated using population projections (Tables ES-5 and ES-6).  These demands were combined to develop an estimate for total water demand (Tables ES-7 and ES-8).

 

The first set of projections was calculated by BBER, using historical trends and current demographic data to derive annual growth rates (Alcantara, 1996).  The second set of projections was calculated using community-derived population projections, which tend to be higher than BBER projections.

 

RECONCILING SUPPLY AND DEMAND

 

Surface Water

 

As noted in the “Water Resource Assessment” section, surface water in Region 6 is extremely limited.  Climatic conditions such as low precipitation rates and high evaporation rates lead to low surface water availability.  If consistency and reliability of flows are considered, the supply is constrained even further, given that streams in the region are intermittent or ephemeral.  Regional storage capacities have also been reduced by siltation.   The drought which occurred in New Mexico and much of the west in 1995 and 1996 clearly illustrates the vulnerability of the region to climatological conditions.

 

Ground Water: Future Requirements versus Available Supply

 

The total amount of ground water that would be used each year if all permitted rights in the Gallup and Bluewater Basins were to be exercised is 74,659 acre-feet.  The total amount of recoverable ground water in all of Region 6 is 3,803,765 acre-feet (2,828,645 acre-feet with TDS <1,000 mg/l; 975,120 acre-feet with TDS >1,000 mg/l; see “Water Resource Assessment” section).  At the rate of 74,659 acre-feet/year, if all the recoverable water could be obtained, it would last roughly fifty-one years.

                                                                                                          (Text continues on page ES-13)

 

TABLE ES - 4

 

GROUND AND SURFACE WATER WITHDRAWALS IN WATER PLANNING REGION 6 BY CATEGORY OF USE, 1990 AND 1995, in ac-ft/yr
	Cibola County			McKinley County	(portion in Region 6)		Region 6 Total
Category of Use	1990	1995	Percent change	1990	1995	Percent change	1990	1995	Percent change
Public Water Supply	2,854.10	2,840.01	0%	4,007.16	5,380.74	34.3%	6,861.26	8,220.75	19.8%
Domestic (self-supplied)	842.85	968.76	14.9%	1,624.12	1,886.08	16.1%	2,466.97	2,854.84	15.7%
Irrigated Agriculture	1,659	5,415	226   %	740	3,194	331  %	2,399	8,609	259  %
Surface Water	305	3,082	910  %	740	3,194	331  %	1,045	6,276	500  %
Ground Water	1,354	2,333	72  %	0.00	0.00	---	1,354	2,333	72  %
Livestock (self-supplied)	261.55	250.38	-4.3%	344.53	334.43	-2.9%	606.08	584.81	-3.5%
Surface water	50.36	49.31	-2.1%	66.84	66.21	-0.9%	117.20	115.52	-1.4%
Ground Water	211.19	201.07	-4.8%	277.69	268.22	-3.4%	488.88	469.29	-4.0%
Commercial	53.78	30.83	-42.7%	24.98	87.9	251%	78.76	118.73	50.7%
Industrial	9.93	58.06	485  %	1,028.51	1,059.17	3.0%	1,038.44	1,117.23	7.6%
Power	2,512.92	3,076.38	22.4%	265.30	55.49	-79.1%	2,778.22	3,131.87	12.7%
Subtotal	8,194	12,639	54  %	8,035	11,998	49  %	16,229	24,637	52  %
Mining	3,859.32	318.53	-91.7%	9,985.58	3,241.96	-67.5%	13,844.90	3,560.49	-74.3%
Subtotal	12,053	12,958	8   %	18,021	15,240	-15   %	30,074	28,197	-6   %
Reservoir Evaporation	1,355	1,355	0.0%	8,919	8,919	0.00%	10,274	10,274	0.0%
In-stream Flow	0.00	0.00	---	0.00	0.00	---	0.00	0.00	---
Total	13,408	14,313	7   %	26,940	24,159	-10  %	40,348	38,471	-5   %

 

TABLE ES - 5

 

POPULATION PROJECTIONS from Bureau of Business and Economic Research (Alcantara, 1996)
Location	2000	2005	2010	2015	2020	2025	2030	2035	2040
Cibola County	25,634	26,161	26,509	26,905	27,211	27,349	27,294	27,188	26,978
McKinley County	72,172	76,864	81,673	86,687	91,671	96,334	100,729	105,448	109,962
McKinley County -- portion in Region 6	57,783	60,826	63,847	66,907	69,817	72,353	74,562	76,879	78,912
Region 6	83,417	86,987	90,356	93,812	97,029	99,702	101,856	104,067	105,890

 

TABLE ES - 6

 

POPULATION PROJECTIONS Community-derived Figures
Location	2000	2005	2010	2015	2020	2025	2030	2035	2040
Navajo Reservation -- portion in Region 6, Cibola Co. (Ramah Ch.) (1)	1,326	1,499	1,694	1,914	2,163	2,445	2,764	3,125	3,531
City of Gallup(2)	26,811	31,540	33,828	36,511	39,300	42,048	44,817	49,048	53,676
Pueblo of Zuni (Zuni Reservation) (3)	10,500/ 11,200	11,400/ 12,400	13,400/ 13,900	14,500/ 15,400	15,700/ 17,200	17,000/18,800	18,400/21,000	19,900/23,400	21,600/26,100
Navajo Reservation -- portion in Region 6, McKinley County (1)	17,651	19,951	22,550	25,489	28,810	32,564	36,807	41,604	47,025
McKinley County in Region 6, not including Gallup, Zuni, and Navajo Chapters (4)	8,567	9,017	9,462	9,915	10,343	10,715	11,040	11,381	11,679
McKinley County -- portion in Region 6 (5)	64,229	72,908	79,740	87,315	95,653	104,127	113,664	125,433	138,480
Region 6 (6)	89,863	99,069	106,249	114,220	122,864	131,476	140,958	152,621	165,458

(1) Projections are based on a 2.48% annual growth rate, as used by Northwest Economic Associates (1993), with calculations based on 1997 population estimates for chapters in the region.

(2) Shomaker, J.W. (1991).  City growth rates vary from 1.32% to 2.36% from 1970 to 2030, with an average annul rate of 1.82%.  Information in this report is based on Mimbres, Inc., 1984, City of Gallup Master Plan, Growth Management Program.  This assumes a stable population base, in which the economy neither encourage people to move in or out of Gallup.  Calculations after 2030 were projected for this plan, using the average annual growth rate of 1.82%.

(3)Molzen-Corbin & Associates (1992).  Low growth projections assume growth at 1.61% per year; high growth projections assume growth at 2.2% per year.  Calculations are rounded at every five-year mark.  Calculations after 2020 were projected for this report.

(4) Calculated using 1990 population of 7,393, and growth rates for McKinley County in Region 6 as described in Alcantara (1996); see Appendix B.

(5) City of Gallup + Pueblo of Zuni (tribal high estimate) + Navajo Nation in Region 6, McKinley County only  (based on tribal projections) + other portions of McKinley County.

(6) Community-derived population projections for McKinley County, portion in Region 6, (see (5) for calculations) + BBER population projections for Cibola County (Alcantara, 1996).

 

TABLE ES - 7

 

PROJECTED TOTAL WATER DEMAND using BBER population projections for public water system  and domestic self-supplied uses in ac-ft/yr
Co.	2000	2005	2010	2015	2020	2025	2030	2035	2040
Cibola	11,359	11,440	11,493	11,554	11,601	11,622	11,613	11,597	11,565
McKinley	26,967	27,335	27,700	28,069	28,421	28,728	28,995	29,275	29,520
Region 6	38,326	38,774	39,192	39,623	40,022	40,349	40,608	40,872	41,085

 

TABLE ES - 8

 

PROJECTED TOTAL WATER DEMAND using community-derived population projections for public water system  and domestic self-supplied uses in ac-ft/yr
Co.	2000	2005	2010	2015	2020	2025	2030	2035	2040
Cibola	11,359	11,440	11,493	11,554	11,601	11,622	11,613	11,597	11,565
McKinley	29,135	30,424	31,432	32,553	33,791	35,055	36,483	38,251	40,217
Region 6	40,494	41,864	42,925	44,106	45,392	46,676	48,097	49,848	51,782

 

 

Claims made by the United States for the Pueblos of Acoma and Laguna and the Navajo Nation in the Rio San Jose Basin are for both surface and ground water, at 62,070 acre-feet per year, or 2,544,870 over a forty-one-year span (2000 through 2040 inclusive).  If all surface water supplies in Cibola County that were used in 1995 (4,486 acre-feet) are assumed to be the total surface water supplies available, and these are added to the total recoverable ground water supplies available in Cibola County (1,547,290; 1,378,390 acre-feet with TDS <1,000 mg/l plus 168,900 acre-feet with TDS >1,000 mg/l), the total is 1,551,776 acre-feet.  Therefore, the total available is less than the amount claimed. 

 

The total amount of ground water that would be used from the years 2000 through 2040 in Region 6, based on community-derived population projections, is 1,164,825 acre-feet.  Based on BBER projections, this figure is 945,953 acre-feet.  The total recoverable amount is, as noted above, 3,803,765 acre-feet.  To meet this need, 31% (community-derived) or 25% (BBER-derived) of the recoverable water would have to be practically recoverable.  If it were all obtained, water available past 2040 would certainly be extremely limited.

 

Constraints on Water Supply: The City of Gallup

 

Groundwater supplies in the region appear to be extensive, but this appearance is misleading.  The practical and financial aspects of retrieving all this water are enormous.  The City of Gallup is an example of effect of these constraints.  From 1971 to 1997, the City of Gallup has withdrawn water for municipal use from the Yah-Ta-Hey area. Currently, 7 wells are located in this well field.  Over this 27 year period, 44,536 ac-ft of water has been produced.  Total drawdown in terms of non-pumping levels at the older production wells is 700 to 1,000 feet (Shomaker, 1998). The newer wells had to be sunk deeper than the older wells in order to obtain water.  The cost of simply drilling and installing 7 wells in another location, were one available,  would be seven million dollars. Only wells in the Gallup Sandstone or the San Andres-Glorieta aquifer would be capable of the production rates of the Yah-Ta-Hey wells (Shomaker, 1998).

 

The constraints encountered by the City of Gallup - increasing demand, jurisdictional and legal considerations in developing well fields in other locations, infrastructure costs of meeting demand, operations costs, ever increasing unit costs of water, and a non-renewable water supply -- are not limited to the City of Gallup.  All municipal and community systems in the region utilize groundwater sources to provide water to their residents and customers. As the largest community in the region, the City of Gallup is experiencing these problems now.  Other communities will surely face similar difficulties.

 

Supply and Demand for Large Water Users: The Bluewater Basin

 

In the Bluewater Basin, the major water uses -- mining, power, and municipal systems -- withdraw water from the San Andres-Glorieta Aquifer (Tables ES-9 and ES-10).  These large users (defined as those using over 100 ac-ft/yr)  typically have well yields of several hundred gallons per minute (gpm).   The San Andres-Glorieta aquifer generally provides large well yields, and also provides water with relatively low total dissolved solids, especially in Cibola County.

 

The major users indicated in the example should be the primary, if not the only users of this aquifer, in this basin.  Thus, the demands on the aquifer in the Bluewater Basin can be quantified using population-based demand data for public water systems, and the 1995 usage figures for the large water users.

 

TABLE ES - 9

 

MAJOR WATER USERS IN THE SAN ANDRES-GLORIETA AQUIFER, BLUEWATER AND RIO GRANDE BASINS
Water User	Withdrawals, 1995, (acre-feet per year)
Lee Ranch Coal Mine	179.20
ARCO - Anaconda	268.42
Homestake Mining Company	1,862.75
Quivera Mining Company	1,000.00
Plains Electric	3,131.87
Milan Municipal Water System*	577.14
Grants Municipal Water System*	2,518.00

 

TABLE ES - 10

 

WATER DEMAND ON THE SAN ANDRES GLORIETA AQUIFER, BLUEWATER AND RIO GRANDE BASINS, IN REGION 6
Year	Major Users (except Public Water Systems), ac-ft/yr	Public Water Systems*,  ac-ft/yr	Demand for Year Indicated Major Users, ac-ft/yr	Cumulative Demand Through Year Indicated (acre-feet)
2000	6,442	2,932	9,374	9,734
2005	6,442	2,992	9,434	47,110
2010	6,442	3,032	9,474	97,525
2015	6,442	3,077	9,519	142,155
2020	6,442	3,112	9,554	189,941
2025	6,442	3,128	9,570	237,785
2030	6,442	3,122	9,564	285,593
2035	6,442	3,110	9,552	333,329
2040	6,442	3,086	9,528	371,441
Total Cumulative Demand to the Year 2040				371,441

* Includes the City of Grants, Village of Milan, San Rafael, and Bluewater Acres.

 

The estimate for the amount of water which could be recovered from the San Andres Glorieta aquifer in the Rio Grande and Bluewater Basin, without land surface subsidence, and without considering the cost and other constraints in obtaining this quantity of water is 309,125 acre-feet.  The cumulative demand for water from the San  Andres Glorieta Aquifer in the Bluewater Basin by the year 2040 is estimated to be 371,441 acre-feet.  Without accounting for recharge to the San Andres-Glorieta aquifer in the Bluewater Basin, cumulative water demand from the current major water users in the Basin and aquifer will exceed recoverable supply in the year 2033.

 

WATER PLAN ALTERNATIVES

 

The development and implementation of alternatives and solutions to water supply and management concerns is the most critical component of the water planning process.  Estimates of the amount and quality of water available in the region and of  the future demand for water in the region indicate that in some parts of the region, demand will exceed supply.  Alternatives propose ideas for preventing and/or slowing the occurrence of this situation.  In keeping with the template in the Regional Water Planning Handbook, management,  water conservation, water quality, and water development alternatives are presented.

 

Management

 

Management is a category which should incorporate all other categories of alternatives -- conservation, water quality, and water development.  It should be seen as the means by which supply and demand are reconciled.

 

Management, by its definition, requires that someone, some entity or organization, manage. There was a perception that some sort of authority was needed to implement alternatives and solutions; however, there was tremendous concern at the level of control to be exerted, and the level of government which would exert this control.  There were general concerns about property rights, and being told how one could and could not use one’s water. 

 

In all the public meetings held to date, there has been discussion of water in relation to its use, to land use, and to growth and increased demand for water.  It has been common to view water and water resource management as separate from other development issues.   While there currently is no consensus as to appropriate alternatives for managing land use, growth and water use, there appears to be consensus that change is occurring rapidly in the region, and that all these issues need to be addressed.

 

Conservation

 

For the purposes of this document, water conservation refers to practices that produce a decrease in demand for a specific water use.  This decrease in demand may be a result of decreased consumptive use, loss, or waste.  It may be caused by improved water use efficiency or reuse of water. 

 

There was generally strong public support for conservation strategies.  Urban citizens felt the need to conserve water in order to continue to grow, while rural citizens felt the need to conserve water to preserve their way of life (Thoreau focus groups 6-16).  Participants at many public meetings and focus groups expressed concern over non-conservationist practices.  However, there were also strong concerns about equity in conservation strategies.

 

Quality

 

Water quality management prevents the degradation of surface and ground water quality from both point-source pollution (stationary sources discharging into a water body) and non-point source pollution (such as agricultural runoff).  Water quality management may also include treatment of water that does not meet water quality standards for a particular use.  In both cases, the effect is an improved water supply.  However, it is important to note that the water may only be useful for limited purposes (e.g., livestock watering but not domestic drinking use).

 

There was general support for measures to prevent degradation of water quality.  Public participation indicated support for a government role in protection of water supplies and enforcement of regulations (Ramah public meeting).  However, there were some concerns about who would pay for water quality regulations and programs (Gallup public meeting).

 

Development

 

For the purposes of this document, water development refers to an activity undertaken to obtain water that has not previously been used to meet a specific demand.   While “development” most often refers to large scale infrastructure development, many participants in public meetings and focus groups noted the need for small scale infrastructure development as well.  Both topics are addressed.

 

Inter-basin transfers using pipelines were regularly mentioned at public meetings and focus group meetings (Gallup, Vanderwagen, public meetings).   Proposed projects include the Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project (NGWSP), which would transfer surface water from the San Juan River (Gallup, Vanderwagen public meetings) to meet the needs of the City of Gallup and several Navajo communities (Bureau of Reclamation 1986).  Although the water would come from outside the basins discussed in this plan, it would play an important role in water supply for the region.

 

Improving storage is another development option, for both agricultural and small water system uses (Laguna, Vanderwagen public meetings, Thoreau focus group 9-29).  Because rainfall and runoff in the area are seasonal, it is helpful to have a small dam and catchment system to capture surface water when it is available and store it until it is needed.  Projects that improve water quality by decreasing erosion and sedimentation also improve storage.

 

Cibola and McKinley counties need not only improved infrastructure to provide for their large-scale water needs, but need small scale infrastructure to assure that communities and households receive that water.  Many participants at public meetings noted that local communities need assistance in developing their water resources (Vanderwagen public meeting).  Storage can help mitigate supply problems.

 

CONCLUSION

 

As the revision of this document has proceeded, it has become apparent that a major topic which remains to be fully addressed is alternatives and solutions to water supply and management issues.  Although quantifying supply and demand is very important, in order for the 40 Year Water Plan to be effective and utilized, it must provide complete recommendations.  Public meetings have provided substantial input on potential alternatives and solutions, but these have yet to be fully developed, evaluated, prioritized, and implemented.

 

The recommendation of the Technical Committee at the September 11, 1997 meeting was that the Council of Governments pursue additional funding to develop alternatives and solutions to water supply, management, and planning issues in the Region.  The Council of Government obtained funding and recently signed a contract with the Interstate Stream Commission for the second phase of the Region 6 Water Planning Process.  This phase will also include substantial public involvement.