I.
INTRODUCTION
The
City of Gallup is situated in the high desert region at the southern edge of
the Colorado Plateau. With a population
of 20,000 and a trade region population over 100,000, this bustling commercial
hub has all but tapped out the available groundwater of the area. Water has been withdrawn from the City’s
groundwater aquifers (“mined”) at an increasing irate during the past 100
years, with very little return to the aquifers (“recharge”) from precipitation
and seepage.
City
of Gallup professionals and consulting hydrogeologists have analyzed current
and historical data regarding Gallup’s water production and demand
patterns. These studies have estimated
the volume of water required to meet residential, commercial and public space
water uses – known as “demand”; how much water is pumped from the City’s wells
to meet this demand – known as “production”; and how water demand and
production vary over time in relation to weather factors such as temperature
and precipitation.
The
professionals have used these analyses of current and historical water use to
project into the future what the potential demands for water might be, and
whether there will be enough water (“supply”) to meet these demands. The fundamental conclusion has been
this: if water demand patterns continue
along the lines of current and historical trends, and if additional water
supply is not added to the equation – above and beyond currently
accessible groundwater aquifers – the City water system will begin facing actual
water shortages during peak-demand months as early as the year 2010.
Unfortunately,
Gallup is not alone in this scenario.
The issue of “supply versus demand” is very real throughout the
Western states, and even more so in the Southwest and in New Mexico. According to New Mexico’s Office of the
State Engineer, drought is not only New Mexico’s “chronic condition,” the
Southwest “is due for a drought on the order of a 1950s drought … Even the few
dry years that have occurred in 1996, 2000 and 2002 have seriously taxed our
ability to meet fundamental demand.” (Framework
for Public Input to a State Water Plan, New Mexico Office of the State
Engineer and the Interstate Stream Commission, December 2002).
In
Gallup’s water region (“Region 6” as identified by the New Mexico Interstate
Stream Commission, i.e., McKinley and Cibola Counties south of the San Juan
Basin), as stated in the Region 6 Water Plan report dated March 1998,
Gallup is encountering a number of serious constraints: “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 non-renewable water supply.” The
report goes on to note that these constraints are not limited to 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.” Additionally, water
planners have begun to discern a process of desertification taking place in
many places in the region, evidenced by loss of plant life (“from grasslands to
sand dunes”) and increased “dust bowl” phenomena – a shift, essentially, from
what geographers have referred to as “semi-desert” to true desert status.
In
Gallup’s case, there is hope that the Navajo Nation will be successful in
obtaining substantial Federal support – as the result of a settlement of the
Nation’s water rights claims in the San Juan River Basin -- for a water project
to be developed to include construction of a water pipeline beginning west of
Farmington at a point on the San Juan River and moving southward through the eastern
reaches of the Navajo Reservation to the Navajo Capitol at Window Rock and to
the City of Gallup and its neighboring Navajo Chapters. Should this half-billion-dollar project come
to pass as currently planned, the City and its Navajo neighbors will be assured
of “sustainable water supply” for at least the next forty years.
But
new water supply will not be cheap. In
fact, any “new water” will be the most expensive water ever acquired by the
City and its residents – whether the supply comes from additional water wells
(which, according to some, would be akin to “putting more straws into the same
glass of water”) or from the surface waters of the San Juan River. Although the Federal government will
undoubtedly play a key role in financing the “Navajo/Gallup Water Supply
Project,” the City will need to pay its share for this precious resource.
In
the meantime, other measures are being considered for securing Gallup’s “water
future,” many of which may be advisable or necessary, even if the big
water pipeline is built. Gallup’s
water crisis imposes on its citizens a mandate for multi-faceted,
comprehensive water planning, preparation and management. In the statewide picture, the State of New
Mexico has called for a “paradigm shift” throughout the state in terms of how
we perceive and relate to our water supply:
from the mental habit of “water use” to a comprehensive stewardship
approach called “Active Water Resource Management.” Gallup stands to be among the first communities to rise to this
challenge, and through its Town Hall its citizens can consider a range of
possible actions and policies that can be implemented – with or without the
pipeline.
First
of all, there are conservation and drought preparation and response
practices that will be both necessary and required by federal, state and local
laws, ordinances and regulations. Such
practices, as they become institutionalized and universally followed by
Gallup’s citizens, may have a significant impact on the City’s ability to
sustain itself in future years.
Secondly,
the City may soon have access to the technology and resources to convert and
re-use the 3 million gallons-per-day of wastewater moving through the
Wastewater Treatment Plant and currently being dumped into the Rio Puerco river
bed. Innovative and visionary plans for
development of water catchments, river beds, wetlands, recreational parks and
wildlife habitat may become achievable in the not-too-distant future (see
descriptions of the “Canyon Project” and “Rio Puerco Restoration Project” later
in this document).
Thirdly,
there are potentially bold and remarkable things that can be done to restore
the region’s watersheds, potentially resulting in the recapture of surface
waters, the restoration of above-ground stream flows in the Rio Puerco and the
natural “greening” of our high desert oasis.
New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, in his campaign platform on water
entitled “H2O New Mexico,” asserts that “we must improve our
watersheds … and we must remove salt-cedars from our river valleys … Experts
say watershed restoration will provide us with the largest single new source of
water supply.”
We
stand, then, at the nexus of crisis and opportunity.
Clearly,
the time is at hand to forge a plan for the future. There will be many ideas, technologies and resources that can be
tapped by the community to create and implement such a plan. The key question will be: can we achieve the united political will
necessary to meet this challenge of our times?
It is a primary purpose of the Town Hall to answer that question.
This
background document will provide information on Gallup’s water – where it comes
from, how it is used, what its limits and possibilities are, and the extent to
which the City faces a “water crisis.”
It will survey policy and action priorities that may best secure our
water future, and it will include both technical information and an exploration
of assumptions, values and possibilities that local citizens and leaders can
reflect on in generating a consensus strategy for the future.
II.
GALLUP’S WATER RESOURCES
Water
is a critical factor shaping Gallup’s future.
In
previous generations, human demands placed on water supply did not appear to be
a problem. Prior to the developments of
the 20th century, indigenous patterns of water use were small-scale
and low-impact. Catchments and cisterns
could meet the modest needs of ranch homes and livestock. The highlands and grasslands, in their more
natural state, were effective at capturing and using the precious water falling
on the parched lands.
Railroad
and mining operations brought industrial activity and immigrants to the Gallup
area, dramatically adding to and impacting the traditional lifestyles of the
resident Native American and Hispanic populations and transforming the area’s historic
patterns toward a larger-scale and more intensive use of the area’s natural
resources. As with other resources
needed for the new development, water seemed to be available to meet our
demands. Even in the high-desert
environment, we came to expect that, with the desire, the know-how and the
resources, we could find underground sources of water and could magically cause
water to appear on the surface to meet our wants and needs.
During
the intervening years, times have changed.
The area’s population has grown, and demands on the ground water supply
have intensified. The volume of water
withdrawn from the aquifer greatly exceeds the volume replenishing it from
precipitation and seepage. In the
meantime, Mother Nature has proceeded according to her own processes and
devices – providing more water from the skies during the wetter years and less
precipitation during times of drought.
She has stored billions of gallons of precious water in aquifers both shallow
and deep – but most of it remains untouchable by human mind or hand. Even those waters that we can reach
are receding from our grasp, as the water levels in the aquifers drop away from
the instruments of our best effort and design.
This
section will explore Gallup’s water supply – where it comes from, its quality,
how much is used and available, what external factors limit access to water,
who manages it, and how we are planning to develop and manage a sustainable
water supply for future generations.
Important technical information and insights into the nature of our
water supply will be drawn from a few key research documents, including but not
limited to:
·
the background report for the May 2002 New
Mexico First Water Town Hall held in Socorro, “New Mexico’s Water:
Perceptions, Reality and Imperatives” (referred to in shorthand as the “Socorro
background report”), authored by Peggy S. Johnson and John W. Shomaker;
·
the Region 6 Water Plan and other
planning documents authored by planning staff of the Northwest New Mexico
Council of Governments;
·
Framework for Public Input to a
State Water Plan, by the New Mexico Office of the
State Engineer and the Interstate Stream Commission; and
·
a variety of regional and local studies and
reports prepared by Dr. John Shomaker (Shomaker & Associates), Leedshill-Herkenhoff,
DePauli Engineering & Surveying (formerly Sterling & Mataya), and
Southwest Water Consultants, Inc.
A.
Where does our water come from?
1.
Surface Water Supply. As explained in
the Socorro report, “surface water” refers to all water located on the surface
of the land, i.e., rivers, lakes and streams.
Most of the state’s small streams, including Gallup’s Rio Puerco, flow
intermittently. Surface water supply
originates as rain or melting snow in the state’s six major surface water
basins, of which Gallup’s basin, the Lower Colorado River Basin, is one. However, of 84 million acre-feet of water
from precipitation and river inflows into the state each year, some 97 percent
of that water is lost to evaporation and transpiration of water by plants. Only about 1 million acre-feet of usable,
renewable surface water is available each year in New Mexico – or 1½ percent of
total precipitation and inflows.
Evaporation from surface water reservoirs can exceed the amount actually
delivered to customers; e.g., annual evaporation from Elephant Butte Reservoir
in southern New Mexico, averaged over 170,000 acre-feet per year in the last 20
years.
Surface water supply is impacted by drought, and even
groundwater uses are influenced by the increase in demand during such
periods. According to the Socorro
background report, “the drought of 1953 through 1956 was the most serious in
living memory,” and since that time, drought years in 1996, 2000 and 2002 have
caught the attention of all New Mexicans.
Scientists suggest that, based on long-range reconstructions of annual
precipitation, New Mexico has been experiencing “above-normal” precipitation
over the past 200 years, but that we may be entering another low-precipitation
cycle.
As a source of usable water for Gallup, surface water is extremely
limited and inconsistent in duration and quantity of flows. The availability of surface water within
Gallup’s water region is largely dependent on climate (e.g., temperature and
precipitation) and to varying degrees on the condition of the region’s
watersheds, its riverine and riparian systems, and the drop in the water table
as a result of groundwater withdrawals.
Little Colorado Basin. Hydrologically, Gallup lies
in the Little Colorado Basin, which extends into eastern Arizona. Water uses in New Mexico from the Little
Colorado River Basin are subject to the Colorado River Compact, which
apportions the use of water from the Colorado River system to the Upper and
Lower basins. However, New Mexico’s
entitlement within the Lower Basin apportionment to the tributary waters in the
Little Colorado River Basin has not been quantified.
In addition to water use by the City of Gallup, Indian water uses
constitute a significant fraction of total water use in the basin. The Zuni River adjudication, recently
re-initiated by the US Department of Justice, is intended to adjudicate and
quantify the water rights of the Pueblo of Zuni.
The availability of surface water supply in the Little Colorado River
Basin in New Mexico is very limited.
Black Rock Reservoir (in Zuni) and a few other small reservoirs regulate
surface flow for irrigation of small amounts of land, and agriculture is
concentrated in the Zuni River drainage.
Although storage facilities exist in the basin, sufficient water in
storage is not physically available to provide water for all of the irrigated
lands, and seasonal shortages often occur.
Annual consumptive uses in the basin, including for agriculture,
municipal, industrial and domestic uses, total about 12,000 acre-feet per year
on average.
Most of the water used in and near the City of Gallup is groundwater
– pumped from the Gallup Sandstone and Dakota-Westwater aquifers. The aquifers are deep, however, and static
water levels in wells tapping the aquifers have declined several hundred feet
during the past 30 years. As affirmed
by the State in its Framework for Public Input to a State Water Plan, groundwater
use by the City of Gallup is not sustainable.
San Juan River. Gallup’s nearest potential source of
sustainable surface water is the San Juan River, originating in the Rocky
Mountains northeast of Pagosa Springs, Colorado, and passing southwesterly
through a portion of northwestern New Mexico on its way to its confluence with
the Colorado River in southeastern Utah.
Although this surface water has not been historically available to
Gallup, for over four decades hydrologists, as well as local, state and federal
leaders, have identified the San Juan River as the best source from which the
eastern Navajo Reservation and the City of Gallup could obtain a sustainable
water supply for their future generations.
Studies and reports have been prepared over the years, and in the past
decade a concerted effort has been made to finalize a plan and to obtain
Congressional authorization and financing to construct a pipeline from the San Juan River to Gallup and Window Rock, serving
over 40 rural Navajo Chapters along the way.
2.
Groundwater Supply For Gallup, as
for most of the populations of its surrounding water region, groundwater is the
current predominant source of available water supply, and its availability will
be a critical factor over the next 40 years.
As
explained in the Socorro report, “the majority of New Mexico’s fresh-water
supply lies below the land surface, where it occupies small open spaces between
grains of sand or gravel and small cracks or fractures in rock. Vast supplies of this ground water occur in
different categories of aquifers that include sand and gravel (alluvial)
aquifers, sandstone or limestone aquifers, and fractured rock aquifers.” The State’s major aquifers are depicted in
Figure 1 on the following page (adapted from Figure 4, from the Socorro Town
Hall report). Aquifers in the Gallup
Basin are predominantly sandstone and (along the north flank of the Zuni
Mountains) limestone.
FIGURE 1: Major Aquifer Types in New Mexico (from Stone, 2001)
The
Socorro report authors further explain:
Depth, quality
and formation productivity are the major physical constraints on groundwater
availability. Areas outside the
boundaries of the major aquifer types … may have ground water, but water depths
may be great, water-bearing materials may be impermeable, or poor water quality
may prohibit use. Sometimes too little
is known about the water resources to characterize the aquifer. Ground water lies within 200 feet of the
surface over a large part of the state, but not all of this water is of usable
quality.
Some
of the aquifer depths in the Gallup Basin are identified by the State as being
at “less than 200 feet” depth to ground water; however, Gallup’s aquifer levels
are dropping at alarming rates (i.e., an average of 200 feet per decade), and
much of the aquifer north and east of Gallup is high in total dissolved solids
(TDS greater than 1,000 milligrams per liter), i.e., exceeding secondary
drinking water quality standards. The
Socorro report further explains the nature of aquifers:
Ground water is
not a nonrenewable resource like a mineral deposit or a petroleum reserve; but
neither is it renewable on an annual or seasonal basis like surface water. Factors that govern “renewability” of ground
water include the permeability, complexity and connectivity of the aquifer, and
sources and rates of recharge. Ground
water resources may appear ample, but availability actually varies widely and only
a portion of the ground water stored in the subsurface can be withdrawn
economically or without adverse consequences. Prudent development of groundwater requires an understanding and
appreciation of the dynamic and complex nature of aquifers.
Under
natural conditions, aquifers are in a state of “dynamic equilibrium,” in which
recharge of the aquifer approximately equals discharge. Human activity – pumping – tends to
interrupt the flow of groundwater toward discharge points and withdraws far
greater amounts from the aquifer than can be replenished by recharge from
precipitation. Recharge rates in the
Gallup area are estimated at less than 1 percent of mean annual
precipitation.
The
Socorro background report warns: “High
ground-water use in limited aquifers with negligible recharge can cause
widespread declines in ground-water levels and a significant decrease in ground
water storage.” The report goes on to
describe a phenomenon that occurs in many places in New Mexico (including
Gallup):
In some areas of
New Mexico, decades of ground-water pumping have resulted in prolonged and
progressive depletions of ground-water in storage and declining water tables
indicative of “ground-water mining.”
… Severe declines in water
levels have sometimes unanticipated and undesirable effects, including:
·
large decreases in aquifer storage; …
·
shallow wells that go dry;
·
impairment of senior water rights;
·
increased costs of pumping and drilling
replacement wells; …
·
less water available for vegetation and
habitat as shallow water tables decline; … and
·
a pumping well intercepting contaminated or
poor quality ground water.
Gallup’s Supply. Gallup lies
within New Mexico’s Water Planning Region 6, which covers two-thirds of
McKinley County and all of Cibola County.
Geologically, the area is located in the San Juan Structural Basin,
which extends into Colorado, Arizona, Utah, and northwestern New Mexico. Water Planning Region 6 consists of four
basins within the larger structural basin, all of which are “declared
administrative basins,” roughly corresponding to geologically defined
basins: the Gallup Basin, the Bluewater
Basin, Rio Grande Basin, and the “Gallup Extension” (in the Zuni area south of
the Gallup Basin, declared in March 1994, though administratively considered
part of the Gallup Basin).
The
water-bearing nature of aquifers can be understood in terms of two
characteristics that govern well yields and the
availability of ground water, i.e.:
·
“Transmissivity” is a measure of the rate
at which water will flow through the aquifer based on the characteristics of
the formation. The higher the
transmissivity, the more quickly water will flow through the aquifer, and the
higher the gallons per minute which can be pumped from that aquifer. Specific
capacity is used to describe well yields, or the number of gallons per minute
that can be pumped per foot of drawdown in the well.
·
“Storage
coefficient” is a measure of the amount of water that a unit area of the
aquifer will yield, and it essentially describes the proportion of water to
other materials in the aquifer.
Most ground water in the area’s sandstone or limestone
bedrock aquifers is in confined aquifers, where the storage coefficients
are very low, meaning that pumping at a particular rate results in
relatively large and widespread drawdown.
In and near the outcrop areas of these aquifers the storage coefficients
are much greater. Although this
indicates potentially larger well yields at the outcrop areas, such areas are
relatively small. The storage
coefficient of the shallow alluvial aquifers is probably greater than at the
outcrops, so drawdown effects of pumping from shallow alluvial aquifers are
correspondingly smaller. The water
bearing geologic units, by basin, are listed in Table 1.
|
TABLE
1
|
|
PRIMARY
SOURCES OF GROUNDWATER IN REGION 6
(Leedshill
Herkenhoff, 1994)
|
|
|
Bluewater Basin
|
Rio Grande Basin
|
Gallup Basin
|
Gallup Extension
|
|
Alluvium
|
X
|
X
|
|
|
|
Menefee Formation
|
X
|
X
|
|
|
|
Crevasse Canyon
|
|
|
X
|
|
|
Gallup Sandstone
|
X
|
X
|
X
|
|
|
Dakota Sandstone
|
|
|
X
|
|
|
Morrison Formation
|
X
|
X
|
X
|
|
|
Cow Springs - Bluff
|
|
|
X
|
|
|
Entrada Sandstone
|
|
|
X
|
|
|
Chinle Formation (Sonsela Sandstone)
|
X
|
|
X
|
X
|
|
|
X
|
|
X
|
X
|
The Gallup Basin. The water-bearing characteristics of the Gallup Water Basin can be
summarized as follows, as excerpted from the Region 6 Water Plan report
(1998):
·
Quaternary‑age alluvium: The alluvium that fills the
valley of the Puerco River and tributary drainages derives mainly from erosion
of the clay‑rich Menefee and Crevasse Canyon and has a low permeability
in most places. Transmissivity in the
Puerco River Valley and other ephemeral stream valleys is about 1,000 ft2/day. Recharge to the valley‑fill is mostly
from storms, although some areas may be recharged from bedrock aquifers. The alluvium serves as a minor aquifer in
parts of the Gallup Basin. and generally yields small amounts of water for
stock and domestic use, with well yields ranging from about 10-100 gpm.
·
Menefee Formation: The Menefee Formation is at the surface
throughout about one‑third of the Basin, and consists of interbedded,
repetitive sequences of claystone, carbonaceous siltstone and shale, coal, and
sandstone. The sandstone beds are thick
to very thick bedded, fine to medium‑grained. The Menefee may be as thick as 1,000 feet. Transmissivities vary depending on the
thickness of the sandstone bodies penetrated, but are typically less than 50 ft2/day. This formation is not considered a large
supply sources, with well‑yields of about 12 gpm, and specific capacities
approximately 0.10 gpm/ft .
·
Crevasse Canyon Formation: The Crevasse Canyon Formation
is at the surface throughout about one‑third of the basin. The Crevasse Canyon consists of four
members: the basal Dilco Coal Member;
the Dalton Sandstone Member; the Bartlett Member; and the Gibson Coal Member.. The Dalton is located in the northernmost
portion of the Gallup Basin. Total
thickness of the Crevasse Canyon ranges from 420 to 700 feet (Stone,
1983). Transmissivity of the Crevasse
Canyon is probably less than 50 ft2/day and well‑yields are
probably less than 10 gpm. Most
members of this stratigraphic unit yield small amounts of water to domestic and
stock wells, but the Dalton Sandstone Member, in the northernmost portion of
the Gallup Basin, may potentially be a
good aquifer.
·
Gallup Sandstone: The Gallup Sandstone crops out in the Rio
Grande Basin in a southwesterly direction from the northwestern corner of
Cibola County. It consists
predominantly of sandstone, but also conglomerate, shale, carbonaceous shale,
and coal. Water occurs in both confined
and unconfined conditions in the Gallup Sandstone. Recharge to the unit is from infiltration from precipitation and
streamflow on outcrops, and vertical leakage form confining beds. Thickness
ranges from approximately 180 to 526 feet.
Transmissivity varies from 10 to 350 ft2/day in other locations within
the study area. The median well-yield
from 32 wells measured by the USGS was 30 gpm.
This formation yields small-to-large amounts of water to wells in the
Gallup area and is a major source of water for the City of Gallup.
·
Dakota Sandstone: The Dakota Sandstone outcrops around the
basin margins and is comprised of three dominant lithologies. Thickness of the Dakota Sandstone ranges
from 200 to 350 feet. Water in the
Dakota occurs in both confined and unconfined conditions. Recharge to the unit is by infiltration from
precipitation and streamflow on outcrops, and vertical leakage through
confining beds. Transmissivities are
generally less than 50 ft2/day and well‑yields are probably
around 10 gpm.
·
Morrison Formation: The Morrison Formation
outcrops to the north and east of the City of Gallup. The Morrison consists of four members: the Salt Wash, Recapture, Westwater Canyon, and the Brushy Basin. The Morrison Formation consists of non‑marine
sandstone, siltstone, mudstone, and minor limestone. Thickness of the Morrison ranges from approximately 330 to 915
feet . It is not present south of
Gallup. Of the four, the Westwater
Canyon Member probably contains most of the water available to wells. Transmissivities range from less than 50 to
400 ft2/day, and are substantially less near Gallup. Well‑yields range from several gpm to
approximately 500 gpm.
·
Cow Springs‑Bluff Sandstone: These sandstones inter-tongue
with the overlying Recapture Shale Member of the Morrison Formation and with the
underlying Summerville Formation. Cow
Springs is a fine-grained arkosic sandstone and the Bluff is a medium-grained
arkosic sandstone. Combined thickness
for the units can range up to about 550 feet.
Transmissivities range from 3 to 50 ft2/day. Well yields typically range from less than 1
to less than 50 gpm. Wells completed in
the aquifer are also completed in the overlying Morrison or the underlying
Entrada .
·
Entrada Sandstone: The Entrada consists of three
members: the lower Iyanbito Member is a
sandstone, present only in the southern portion of the basin; the middle
siltstone and the upper (fine-grained) sandstone members are generally present
throughout the basin.
Transmissivities range from less than
50 ft2/day along the southern edge of the basin to 100 ft2/day
near the center (other researchers suggest a range closer to 20-70 ft2/day). Well yields are probably only a few gpm.
·
Chinle Formation: The Triassic-age Chinle Formation consists
of reddish-brown siltstone and mudstone, as well as grayish-purpose
mudstone. The Chinle generally has low
permeability and acts as a confining unit for the underlying San
Andres-Glorieta aquifer. The Sonsela
Sandstone Bed and Shinarump Conglomerate of the Chinle Formation are local
aquifers, particularly along Interstate 40 between Bluewater and Continental
Divide. Well yields are not more than
20-30 gpm, with 5-10 gpm yields typical.
The formation is generally known not to be water-bearing.
·
San Andres‑Glorieta: Transmissivities in the San
Andres-Glorieta range from less than 50 to 450,000 ft2/day. The high transmissivities are from areas in
or near outcrops and are attributable to dissolution along fractures in the
San Andres Limestone. The San Andres‑Glorieta is present within the
Gallup Basin, but lies at great depth and has never been tapped as a water‑supply. Low permeability precludes its use as a
major supply source.
In 1976, the USGS completed groundwater
investigations of the nearby Zuni Mountains and Malpais Region, and the
Westwater Canyon aquifer near Churchrock.
The results indicated that the groundwater resources of those areas
are inadequate to meet the municipal and industrial needs of the City of Gallup. These findings have been reiterated in
numerous studies conducted since that time.
In 1998, the City collaborated with the Bureau of
Reclamation and the Pueblos of Acoma and Laguna on an investigation into
potential utilization of existing de-watering wells at the inactive Mount
Taylor Mine located near San Mateo in Cibola County, about 70 miles east of
Gallup.. In the March 1999 Technical
Appraisal document, the Bureau estimates that a 4,000 acre-feet-per-year
yield is possible for a 40-year period.
In Fall 2001, potential stakeholders project began to consider a broader
“multi-source/multi-use” concept to optimally benefit many water-use
populations in the region.
Groundwater in Storage. The Region 6 Water Plan includes John Shomaker’s estimated of total
amounts of groundwater in two sets, per drinking water standards: amounts with water quality at total
dissolved solids (TDS) under 1,000 mg/l; and amounts with water quality
at TDS over 1,000 mg/l. He
further distinguished between “recoverable” water in storage and that which is
not recoverable: “recoverable” is the
amount of water which could physically be removed from the aquifer, but
this definition does not address the costs involved in removing this
volume of water from the aquifer. The
number of wells that would be required to remove all the recoverable water from
storage is prohibitive.
·
Total Water in Storage: The estimate for total water in storage in the aquifers was derived by
taking the area in acres under which the aquifer lies, multiplying this number
by a typical thickness of the aquifer, thus obtaining the cubic area of the
aquifer. This number is then multiplied
by an assumed porosity of ten percent (10%), to obtain the estimate for the
total amount of water in storage. According
to Shomaker, “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.”
·
Recoverable Water in Storage:
Recoverable water in storage in the alluvium was estimated by
multiplying the area of the alluvium by a typical saturated thickness of 100
feet, times a specific yield of 25%, and assuming that 50% of the total could
be recovered by closely spaced wells.
The size of the aquifer is multiplied by an estimate of the amount of
water that can be successfully withdrawn from it (the specific storage
value). Imagine a box one foot wide by
one foot long and one foot high. If the
box contains only water, and one pumped water from the box, there would be one
cubic foot of water. However, if the
box contains other materials, as does an aquifer, there would not be the same
amount of water as if the box contained only water. The amount of water in storage in the alluvium is estimated to
have a specific storage value of 25%.
All other formations are assumed to have a storage value of 10-6,
a standard value which describes how much water can be obtained from confined
aquifers such as those which occur in Region 6.
Shomaker
notes that the estimates for recoverable water in storage do not refer to
dewatering the aquifers, which refers to lowering the pressure in confined
aquifers to produce water, which is the manner by which wells in deep bedrock
aquifers produce water.
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 aquifers in Region 6 have relatively low hydraulic conductivity,
resulting in a steep cone of depression around the well from which water is
being extracted: i.e., 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 than
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 number of wells required, the vast
geographic area in which wells would be located, and the cost of pipelines and
infrastructure to carry this water all limit how much water can be obtained. 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.
“Recoverable water in storage” is the amount of water that could
physically be removed from the aquifer.
The cost of recovering water -- the number of wells, the depth of
the wells, the cost of each well, conveyance systems and treatment facilities
required -- determines whether the water is, in fact, “practically
recoverable.” Examples of water
development projects and their costs already exist in the region. The City of
Gallup’s well field at Yah-Ta-Hey in another location would cost over $7
million simply to drill and equip new wells (not including additional pipeline
or treatment costs).
In summary, less than 1 percent of the
underground water resources in Gallup’s region are “physically recoverable”
(i.e., without inducing serious geological consequences), while recovery of
only a fraction of that quantity is technically, legally and/or financially
feasible. Additionally, although
many of the region’s wells have historically been recharged by “migration” of
underground waters within and between aquifers, recharge of groundwater
aquifers from precipitation – bringing new water into the
hydrogeological system – is minimal.
Thus, water in the region’s deep aquifers is essentially a non-renewable
resource.
Tables 2 through 4 summarize Region 6’s water-in-storage data.
|
TABLE 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 in acre-feet
TDS less than 1000 mg/l
|
Volume in acre feet
TDS greater than 1000 mg/l
|
|
Total
|
Recoverable
|
Total
|
Recoverable
|
|
|
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
|
2.
Gallup’s Distribution System. The City of
Gallup’s water transmission, distribution and delivery system is comprised of
approximately 753,716 feet (or 143 miles) of mainline, 2 through 18 inches in
diameter. Pipeline materials are estimated to be 25% Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC),
34% Asbestos Cement (AC), 11% Ductile Iron (DI), 7% Cast Iron (CI), and 23%
Unidentified. As of February 2003,
there are an estimated 118,000 feet of service line serving 5,916 customers, of
which 4,664 were residential, 1,148 commercial, 74 municipal and 30
miscellaneous. Other system
appurtenances include 6 pump stations, 5 Primary water storage tanks, 6
Distribution system storage tanks, 8 Pressure reducing stations, 698 Fire
Hydrants, and 1,335 Gate Valves.
A
large percentage of these facilities have reached or are nearing the limits of
their useful life. Much of the system’s distribution network is undersized
for today’s level of development and will not meet future water delivery
needs. The vast majority of all but the
PVC and the most recent DI piping in the system is in need of replacement. All of the City’s 6 distribution and 5
primary storage tanks, with the exception of two rehabilitated in 1998, are in
need of rehabilitation. About 30% of
the City’s 118,000 feet of service line needs replacement. The City’s 10-year capital improvement plan
for the water systems identified 16 improvement projects projected to cost a
total of $17.8 million; these projects
include:
·
Peña
well drilling & equipping,
·
Yah-ta-Hey
Primary water tank rehabilitation,
·
12”
waterline replacement on Maloney avenue,
·
Design
of a portion of the 16” water transmission line from the YTH well field,
·
Replacement
of the 16” YTH water line where it crosses I-40,
·
Construction
of that portion of the 16” YTH waterline as designed,
·
Pressure
reducing station at 9th St. and Coal basin Rd,
·
Replacement
of that portion of the 16” waterline from YTH which passes under the BNSF railroad
at 5th St.,
·
Annual
waterline replacement up to $750,000,
·
Rehabilitation
of Rehoboth, Trademart, Twin Buttes and Country Club Tanks, and
·
Rehabilitation
of Santa Fe Pump Station.
Of
these projects, four are completed or under construction, six others and one
additional project (relocation of 710 feet of waterline on south second
St.) are scheduled for financing
through a $4,280,000 loan package with the New Mexico Finance Authority.
Although
specific projects and cost estimates have not be developed for the City’s needs
beyond the next ten years, it would not be unreasonable to say that they are
well above the City’s current ability to finance. The question is how is the
City going to finance these projects and who should carry the burden.
D.
Non-Hydrologic Constraints on Water Use
As if
the hydrologic issues were not challenging enough, Gallup’s efforts to meet its
water supply needs are constrained by a number of legal, political and
socioeconomic factors. The question
becomes, not only “Is the water available?” but “Do we have the right to
use the water?” It is an understatement
to suggest that these non-hydrologic issues are complex and every bit as
challenging as dealing with the actual water resource itself. The discussion below, drawn largely from the
Region 6 Water Plan and substantially informed by legal counsel to the
Acoma and Laguna tribes, provides an overview of the legal issues affecting
Gallup’s water future.
1.
New Mexico water law & water rights administration. The Doctrine of Prior Appropriation. The
doctrine of prior appropriation is used to determine water rights in many
Western states. It contains two
essential principles: 1) the first user (appropriator) of the water has the
right to continue to use it, and 2) the right to that water continues as long
as the appropriator puts the water to beneficial use. The time when “use” of the water begins is determined by the time
when the water is first diverted from a surface water body or pumped from a
ground water aquifer. This doctrine
suits areas where water is in scarce supply.
If one water user is not using his or her right, that water should be
made available to others. It stands in
contrast to the “riparian doctrine,” more often used in eastern states, in
which individuals with land next to a body of water (riparian land) are
automatically entitled to unpolluted water from that waterbody. In summary:
When a user diverts water from a stream, the date of his first diversion
becomes his "priority date."
More priority dates are assigned as more people use the water source
until it is fully "appropriated" -- all of the water available is
taken -- or even until it is "over-appropriated" -- a circumstance
where people wish to use more water than is available for distribution. When there is insufficient water in a stream
to meet the demand, the person with the oldest water right is entitled to his
full amount. When he is finished, the
next person in time is allocated his amount, and so on, until the entire supply
is exhausted. Thus, persons with the
newest rights on an over-appropriated stream get no water in times of
scarcity. Water rights created under
state law can be bought and sold, and junior water users, if they are willing
and able to pay the price, may go to senior water users and buy their water
rights.
Common themes of the definition of beneficial use are application of
water to a lawful purpose which is useful to the appropriator and at the same
time is a use consistent with the general public interest in having water utilized
to its maximum. New Mexico has not
statutorily limited what constitutes a "beneficial use." The term has been construed to include
irrigation and recreational fishing as well as other traditional western uses
such as stock watering. Beneficial use refers to the amount of water actually
used; it does not refer to water diverted but not actually used.
Tribal Rights and
Federal Responsibilities to Tribes.
Indian tribes are recognized by the federal government to be separate
and distinct governments. In the 15th
and 16th centuries, debates began in Spain and raged throughout
Europe on the question of what rights indigenous people had in relation to
colonizers. The debate resolved that
the indigenous people did have certain rights, today referred to as
“aboriginal” rights.
Aboriginal rights were recognized by the British and Spanish
governments. With the adoption of the
Constitution and the recognition of the sovereign powers of the United States
federal government, relations with Indian Nations became the exclusive province
of federal law. When the United States
entered into the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo (1848), the nation committed to
recognizing and respecting those aboriginal rights of tribes in areas acquired
from Mexico.
Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (30 U.S. (5
Pet.) 1 (1831)) was one of the first cases to explicitly acknowledge the
political status of a tribe as a “distinct political society.” In relation to the United States, the court
stated that Indian tribes “may, more correctly, perhaps, be denominated
domestic dependent nations” and characterized the relationship as resembling
“that of a ward to his guardian.” This
is often referred to as the “federal trust responsibility.” Tribal rights become a type of federal
right -- a right that the federal government , as “trustee” for tribes, is
obligated to recognize and protect.
The United States has the responsibility, therefore, of protecting
tribal trust property and assisting in resource development and management for
the sole use and benefit of the tribes.
Many aspects of the trust responsibility are delegated to the Department
of the Interior, but every other federal agency has trust responsibilities to
tribes and pueblos. Tribal trust
resources include but are not limited to land, timber, water, cultural
resources and reservation fisheries.
The federal courts have insisted that the executive department conduct
its dealings with Indians by the highest fiduciary standards (the highest
standards of trusteeship). It is
because of the federal obligation that the United States asserts water rights
claims on behalf of Indian tribes.
These rights concern not only surface water, but also groundwater.
However, notwithstanding the trust doctrine, Indian tribes are sovereign
entities. The governmental powers of
Indian tribes were generally not those granted by Congress; rather, tribes
possess inherent sovereign powers that have never been taken away. As such, many tribes have employed their own
legal counsel to assert water right claims on their own behalf. The claims asserted by the Indian tribes do
not always correspond exactly to those filed by the United States on behalf of
the tribes. Sometimes the tribes do not
believe that the federal government is providing sufficient advocacy on their
behalf.
Methods of Describing Tribal Water Rights. There are two distinct methods
of describing federally recognized tribal water rights. The first method, known as the “Winters
doctrine,” generally holds that when the United States first reserves lands for
a tribe, it reserves for the exclusive use of the tribe the water “then
unappropriated” by other users for the purposes of the reservation -- the
making of a homeland for the tribe.
The second method, using “Aamodt” water rights, takes its name from the case State of New
Mexico ex rel. State Engineer v. Aamodt.
In that case, one federal district court rejected application of the
Winters doctrine to determine the quality of water held by some Pueblos for
their grant lands because the rights of the Pueblos pre-existed federal
recognition and the United States has an international treaty obligation to
protect those pre-existing rights. An
“Aamodt” water right is “aboriginal” -- it is senior to all other users. The quantity of the right has been described
as “sufficient water for all lands irrigated up until 1924, other uses
protected by specific federal legislation, and additional water sufficient to
meet all reasonably foreseeable future needs of the community.”
·
The Doctrine of Reserved Rights (“Winters Rights”). Under the doctrine of reserved
rights, all rights that are not “impliedly relinquished” are retained. In the 1908 case of Winters v. United
States (207 US 564 (1908)) the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the
doctrine of reserved rights is applicable to Indian waters. The Winters case addressed the rights
of the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation to use water from the Milk River in
Montana. The United States, on behalf
of the tribes and bands of the Fort Belknap Reservation, sued to prevent the
construction of a dam on the Milk River which would have prevented the flow of
water downstream to the reservation.
The Court found that the tribes signing the treaty to create the
reservation did not relinquish the waters associated with the reserved lands,
and set the principle that, if a tribe has not specifically relinquished the
rights to its waters, it has, by implication, retained them. Furthermore, the reserved waters must be
sufficient to enable the Indians to fulfill the goals of the reservation (207
US at 576).
Winters rights to water are not based on an application of water to
“beneficial use,” and are not subject to state laws providing for abandonment,
forfeiture or adverse possession.
Finally, the Winters doctrine itself does not specify a fixed amount of
water for a tribe, although tribes may go through the process of quantification
of those rights. It is also important
to note that Winters rights reserve for the exclusive use of the tribe the
water that was “then unappropriated” by others. Thus, a Winters right may be junior to other users whose rights
were initiated by non-Indians before the United States created a
reservation.
Although the Winters case referred to reservations created by treaty,
courts have consistently upheld and applied the Winters doctrine to cases
where an Indian reservation is created by Executive Order as well as by Act of
Congress. At least one federal court
has interpreted Winters to also apply to either federal or tribal
reservations of rights. This means that
the date of reservation may be either the date that the federal government
reserves the land, or the date the tribe reserves the land -- an aboriginal
date -- thereby allowing an aboriginal priority date for some Winters
rights. One federal court has held that
the Winters doctrine applies only to lands added to the Pueblos by presidential
or congressional acts.
The applicability of Winters rights to ground water remains in
question. Although it is logical that
tribes would also reserve rights to ground water beneath the land, and would be
able to prevent junior users from depleting ground water beneath reservations,
the Wyoming Supreme Court ruled that reserved rights did not extend to ground
water beneath the Wind River Reservation.
The U.S. Supreme Court, however, in its decision in the Cappaert
case to prohibit pumping from wells near Death Valley National Monument, which
would have lowered water tables within the Monument and endangered the rare
Devil’s pupfish, recognized the connection between surface and groundwater (426
US 128, 138 (1976)]). This case
affirmed the right of the federal government to prohibit groundwater pumping
that creates adverse effects (Checchio and Colby, 1993).
The Winters decision has been construed to mean that whenever the
United States sets aside land for specific purposes (thereby withdrawing the
land from the general public domain), there is implied, if not expressed, an
intent to reserve that amount of water required to fulfill the purpose for
which the land was set aside. In 1963,
the Supreme Court stated that the reserved rights doctrine would apply to any
enclave withdrawn from the public domain by the federal government whether for
Indians, national forests, or to preserve a unique species of wildlife. A 1973 report by the General Accounting
Office indicated that the National Park service anticipated “potentially large
nonconsumptive water requirements to protect instream flows for fish and
wildlife conservation, recreation, and esthetic values (GAO, 1973, page
10).” However, in general, Indian
rights were expected to be a more pressing issue, since “[u]nlike Federal
reservations, which are not expected to have large consumptive demands, many
Indian reservations are expected to require significant water quantities to
satisfy reservation purposes (GAO, 1973, page 18).”
·
Aboriginal Rights. The Aamodt case (State of New
Mexico ex rel. State Engineer v. Aamodt) has specifically addressed Pueblo
water rights in the Rio Pojoaque Basin.
Four pueblos, San Ildefonso, Pojoaque, Tesuque and Nambe, are located in
the Basin. The Pueblos’ lands and
waters were recognized and protected by the Spanish and Mexican governments as
“mercedes” (translated as “grants”).
The Spanish Royal Decree of October 15, 1713 explicitly recognized and
protected these grants and their continued existence into the future.
As property protected by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, most Pueblos’
lands were confirmed by Congress in 1858 upon recommendation of the
Surveyor-General. As a result of the
distinctive method by which the Pueblos’ rights were recognized, the federal
court, in Aamodt, concluded that this recognition did not “create” Winters
rights since the Pueblos’ water rights pre-existed United States action, and
were not “reserved” by the federal government.
The federal court therefore determined that these rights are not
recognized under the Winters doctrine, but are instead aboriginal
rights, senior to all other users.
Adjudication and Negotiation Processes. The exercise of water rights is often done
in the absence of legal proceedings, with users of a water body operating
within state or tribal permitting requirements (see below). However, there is also a formal process by
which ownership and extent of water rights are legally determined, known as the
adjudication process. A general stream
adjudication is a special type of lawsuit to determine the amount, type, and
priority date of every user’s respective water right to a particular water
source. This process resolves controversies
concerning titles to water rights and validity of water rights.
This process can be initiated by individual appropriators or by the
Office of the State Engineer.
Adjudications include two parallel processes: gathering technical
information regarding water use in the area, and the lawsuit that includes all
water rights owners in the area. The
lawsuit culminates in the issuance of a court decree which defines the extent
of each water right within the area.
Although Indian water rights are not subject to the doctrine of prior
appropriation, nor are they quantified according to state law, the McCarran
Amendment of 1952, as interpreted in case law, allows them to be discussed and
determined in a state court. There are
numerous other issues and legal questions affecting the quantification of
Indian rights.
Negotiation is an alternative to adjudication. The adjudication process is often long and cumbersome --
processes initiated twenty years ago are referred to as “young.” Some tribes may need their water sooner than
the adjudication process will allow, and would prefer to work out a negotiated
settlement in a smaller time frame. In
the Gallup area, the federal government has re-initiated a lawsuit on behalf of
the Pueblo of Zuni as a mechanism for forcing adjudication and quantification
of water rights in the Zuni River Basin.
This action provoked widespread concern among water users in the basin,
but it is unclear how the case will ultimately be handled.
International and Interstate Obligations
Colorado River Basin. West of the Continental Divide (in the Zuni River, Puerco River,
and Largo Creek watersheds), water flows into the Colorado Basin. Three primary measures address these obligations
in the Colorado Basin: the Mexican Water Treaty of 1944, the Colorado Compact,
the Upper Colorado Compact.
·
The Mexican Water Treaty of 1944 The
Mexican Water Treaty of 1944 (“Treaty with Mexico respecting utilization of the
waters of the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and of the Rio Grande, February 3,
1944") establishes the most permanent commitment of the waters of the
Colorado River. Article 10 of that
Treaty allots 1.5 million acre feet (MAF) per year of Colorado River water to
Mexico from any and all sources in the United States. The Treaty further provides that an additional 200,000 acre feet
per year additional water will be provided if the United States determines
there is a surplus. Article 10 also
states that in the event of "extraordinary drought" or serious
accident making it difficult to provide the 1.5 MAF per year, that amount can
be reduced in the same proportion consumptive use in the United States is
reduced.
·
The Colorado Compact The
States of Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, California, Arizona, Utah, and Wyoming
are bound by the Colorado Compact of 1922.
The Compact divides the Colorado River into upper and lower basins, with
the dividing point at Lee’s Ferry, Arizona.
The Colorado River waters are apportioned between the two basins; the
apportioned water includes the waters of the tributaries. The upper basin
cannot acquire firm water rights to more than 7.5 million acre feet (MAF) per
year and the lower basin can acquire no firm water rights in excess of 8.5 MAF
per year. The Compact does not apportion
the water of each basin to the individual states, however.
·
The Upper Colorado Compact The states of the upper
basin have apportioned the waters of the upper basin in the Upper Colorado
Basin Compact of 1948 (43 USC sec 1512 (1970)). This Compact is subordinate to the Colorado Compact of 1922 (63
Stat. 31 (1949)). The consumptive use
of water legally available to the upper basin is apportioned on the following
basis: Colorado, 51.75%; New Mexico, 11.25%; Utah, 23% and Wyoming, 14%. Arizona, having only a small part of its
area in the upper basin, is given an outright allocation of 50,000 acre feet
per year. The percentage allocations
apply only to the 7.5 MAF made available under the 1922 Compact, and do not
bind the states in the distribution of any surplus, should such surplus ever exist.
The Upper Colorado Compact disclaims any intention to impair or affect
the rights, duties and privileges of the federal government. This means that any reserved water rights,
including tribal rights, of the federal government are unaffected by the Upper
Colorado Compact.
Rio Grande Basin East of the Continental Divide (in the Rio San Jose, Rio
Puerco, and Rio Salado watersheds), the region’s water resources are in the Rio
Grande Basin. As with the Colorado
Basin, there are both international and interstate compacts governing this
river basin.
The 1906 Treaty with Mexico The
Rio Grande has been over-appropriated since at least the end of the 19th
Century. The United States was using
the entire flow of the river to the detriment of Mexico. Mexico made a claim for damages totaling $35
million against the United States and alleged that the damages were the result
of increased diversion of water in New Mexico and Colorado (McDonald and
Tysseling, 1982). In 1906 the two
nations entered into a treaty for the equitable distribution of the waters of
the Rio Grande for irrigation purposes.
In the treaty the United States became responsible for ensuring that a
certain quantity of water, 60,000 acre-feet, is delivered annually to a certain
point in the river just above Juarez.
When shortages exist, deliveries are made in proportion to the amounts
available.
The importance of the treaty is that it requires delivery of surface
water flows. This means that the Rio
Grande, both surface and groundwater, must be conjunctively managed to keep the
surface river sufficiently whole to meet this international delivery
obligation. Clearly groundwater use
that could be shown to prevent sufficient surface flows would violate the
Treaty.
The Rio Grande Compact Colorado, New Mexico and Texas are
parties to the Rio Grande Compact. This compact, executed in 1939, allocates
water among irrigation districts. When this compact was negotiated, the intent
of the framers was to “stabilize the water allocation pattern in the upper Rio
Grande as it existed in 1929 (Shupe and Folk-Williams, 1998).”
The Compact, as with the treaty, creates delivery obligations for the
upstream states of New Mexico and Colorado.
New Mexico must deliver a certain quantity of water to Elephant Butte
Reservoir for use below the Reservoir in New Mexico and in Texas. The quantity of water that must be delivered
is a specified portion of the flow at Otowi Bridge, on the Pueblo of San
Ildefonso. Water imported into the Basin, such as from the San Juan-Chama
Project, an interbasin transfer from the Colorado River Basin, is outside
Compact limits.
Although the Rio Grande Compact does not explicitly deal with
groundwater, New Mexico administers use of groundwater hydrologically related
to the surface flows so as to maintain the delivery requirements under the
Compact and the Treaty (see City of Albuquerque v. Reynolds, 71 N.M. 428 (1963)).
The Rio Grande Compact, as with the Colorado River Compact, explicitly
states that it does not affect the obligations of the United States to Mexico
under existing treaties, or to Indian tribes.
The delivery obligation cannot impair tribal rights. While federal legislation relating to the
Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District includes a description of some tribal
water rights along the main stem of the river, it does not address tribal water
rights on the tributaries.
Administration of Water Rights
The Office of the State Engineer. The New Mexico Constitution did not create
an administrative body to regulate the appropriation of water in the
state. In 1907 the territorial
legislature wrote the New Mexico Water Code (codified at NM Stat. Ann. sec.
72-1-1 et. seq. (1985 Repl. Pamph. and 1990 Supp.)), which included the
creation of the Office of the State Engineer (NM Stat. Ann. sec. 72-2-1). The State Engineer was charged with
"the supervision of waters of the state and of the measurement, appropriation,
distribution thereof . . . [a]ccording to the licenses issued by him and the
adjudications of the courts" (NM Stat. Ann. sec. 72-2-1 and sec.
72-2-9) -- with the duty of administering
all matters relating to the appropriation, transfer, and distribution of water. However, the water rights of Indian tribes
and Pueblos are not subject to regulation by the State Engineer (or any other
state agency).
The most widely known function of the Office of the State Engineer is
the processing of water rights applications.
Although no individual owns the water (NM Stat. Ann. sec. 72-1-1 (1985
Repl. Pamph.)) one may acquire a real property right (New Mexico Prods. Co.
v. New Mexico Power Co., NM 311, 77P.2d 634 (1937)) to divert surface and
ground water consistent with the procedures under state law (Snow v. Abalos,
18 NM 681 140 P. 1044 (1914)).
These are the rights referred to above in the discussion of prior
appropriation. They have priority
dates, and must be put to beneficial use.
They are formally established through an adjudication process. However, regardless of whether an
adjudication has taken place, water users under state jurisdiction must comply
with State Engineer procedures for using water rights, which include licenses
and permits.
If one wishes to appropriate water, he must apply to the State Engineer
(NM Stat. Ann. sec. 72-12-3) who may grant a permit after determining that
unappropriated water exists and that the proposed appropriation will not impair
the existing water rights of others NM Stat. Ann. sec. 72-12-3(E)). While the potential appropriator has the
burden of proving the absence of impairment, the State Engineer must make his
own independent investigation (City of Roswell v. Berry, 80 NM 110, 452
P.2d 179 (1969)).
There are statutory limits on this role; all water rights that were in
existence before 1907 (when New Mexico’s Water Code was established), known as
“vested rights,” are valid historical rights.
The right holder should, however, file a declaration of the right with
the State Engineer; the State Engineer or other parties may request proof
regarding the validity of the rights described in the declaration. The Office
of the State Engineer also does not require permits to construct tanks or ponds
for watering stock, so long as the tank or pond does not have a capacity of
greater than ten acre-feet.
The Office of the State Engineer is responsible for all surface water
appropriations within the state (excluding those under tribal jurisdiction),
but is not responsible for all ground water appropriations. In order to establish authority for ground
water, the State Engineer must “declare” a ground water basin with specific
boundaries. In McKinley and Cibola
counties, the Rio Grande, Bluewater, and Gallup Basins, and the portion of the
Gallup Basin known as the Gallup Extension, are declared basins. The Gallup Extension was declared recently,
in 1994.
As with surface water rights, those that were present prior to the
authority of the State Engineer, in this case, before the basin was declared,
are vested rights. These should also be
filed with the Office of the State Engineer.
Furthermore, the Office of the State Engineer is unable to turn down
applications for permits for water use for domestic purposes and non-commercial
gardens of less than an acre, if water is available.
Water rights are typically associated with the land on which they are
used (NM Stat. Ann. sec. 72-5-23 (1985 Repl. Pamph.)). However, rights -- including irrigation
rights -- can be severed from the land and transferred to another purpose. As with new appropriations, an application
must be made to the State Engineer, who can accept or deny the
application. The application indicates
the point of diversion, the place of use, the quantity of the right, and, where
they exist, the file number and license number of the right. The State Engineer must publish the proposed
changes and, before allowing such a transfer, determine that no foreseeable
detriment exists to other present right holders (NM Stat. Ann. secs. 72-5-22,
75-5-23, and 72-5-25).
Anyone objecting to a proposed transfer can file a formal protest with
the State Engineer. Protests must be
based on a claim that the transfer will impair existing rights, will be
contrary to the conservation of water, or will be detrimental to the public
welfare. Where no protest is filed and
the State Engineer finds the transfer compatible with state law, the transfer
application will be approved. Where
there is a protest, the State Engineer holds a formal, due process hearing on
the issues set out in the protest and decides the case (NM Stat. Ann. sec.
72-12-3 (1985 Repl. Pamph.)).
The requirement that water transfers be consistent with the public
welfare became state law in 1985. The
example of Sleeper v. Ensenada Land and Water Association illustrates
some of the issues surrounding the definition of “public welfare.” This case directly pitted the economic
values associated with a new ski development against the cultural values of a
northern New Mexico community (No. RA 84-53(c), slip. op. (NM Dist. Ct., Apr.
16, 1985) (”Sleeper I”); rev’d 107 NM 494, 760 P.2d 787 (Ct. App. 1968) (”Sleeper
II”); cert. quashed, 107 NM 413, 759 P.2d (1988)).
Tierra Grande Corporation began developing a subdivision in conjunction
with a large ski resort development near Ensenada, New Mexico, a small farming
community in the north central part of the state, in the late 1970's. In 1982, the applicants applied for transfer
of the surface water rights. The
Ensenada Association protested, alleging that the transfer would impair existing
rights and would be contrary to the public interest. Relying upon hydrologic studies and a finding that the transfer
would not impair existing rights, the hearing officer recommended that the
State Engineer approve the transfer application. When the State Engineer acted on this recommendation, the
Ensenada Association appealed his decision at the district court level.
At the district court hearing, Ensenada Association argued that the
transfer would be contrary to the public interest because it would result in
the permanent loss of agricultural land and, inasmuch as ditch maintenance
expenses after the transfer would be borne by fewer people than before, would
increase the financial obligations of individual Association members. The applicants contended that economic
development resulting from the proposed resort project would be in the public
interest because it would stimulate the local economy (Sleeper I, slip op. at
5-6).
Addressing the conflict between economic and cultural values inherent in
the dispute, the Court mentioned that developments such as the resort community
in question contribute step-by-step to the destruction of the local
culture. Reversing the State Engineer,
the Court stated that developments such as the resort community in question
contribute step-by-step to the destruction of the local culture, and that
"to transfer water rights devoted for more than a century to agricultural
purposes, in order to construct a playground for those who can pay, is a poor
trade, indeed (Sleeper 1, slip op. at 5-6).”
On appeal, the New Mexico Court of Appeals held that the statute in
effect at the time of the application precluded the State Engineer from
considering broad public interest factors in the transfer of surface
water. Because, in a strict
hydrological sense, the transfer did not harm existing rights, the New Mexico
Court of Appeals reserved the State District Court (Sleeper II, 107 NM at 496,
500, 760 P. 2d at 791-93).
Water can be transferred from basin to basin, subject to interstate
compacts and federal law (NM Stat. Ann. sec. 72-5-23 (1985 Repl. Pamph.)). Under these systems, the transferor must be
certain that within-basin consumptive use after the transfer would not be
greater than before the transfer.
Simply put, an out-of-basin transfer cannot make the basin worse off
than it was before.
By statute, an owner forfeits his water right if he fails to apply water
to beneficial use for a period of four years and he continues not to use the
water for one year after notice of proposed forfeiture is given him by the
State Engineer (NM Stat. Ann. sec. 72-5-28, 72-118). New Mexico courts traditionally have not favored forfeiture of
water rights. Where a court can find a
reason or legitimate excuse for the nonuse, the original holder's rights
generally will be upheld (see, e.g., Chaves v. Gutierrez, 54 NM 76, 213
P.2d 597 (1950); New Mexico Prods. Co. v. New Mexico Power Co., 42 NM
311, 77 P.2d 634 (1937)).
Section 72-4-13 of the New Mexico Water Code mandates that the State
Engineer also make hydrographic surveys, beginning on those stream systems most
used for irrigation, in order for the waters of the state to be
adjudicated. He also is directed
"[to obtain and record] all available data for the determination,
development and adjudication" of the State's water supply (NM Stat. Ann.
sec. 72-4-13). The State Engineer was
also delegated the authority to "adopt regulations and codes to implement
and enforce any provision of any law administered by him . . . to aid him in the accomplishment of his
duties . . . . (NM Stat. Ann. sec. 72-2-8).”
Furthermore, the State Engineer has the power to appoint water masters,
to apportion water consistent with priorities, and to install headgates and
meters for measuring the quantity of water being used (NM Stat. Ann. secs.
72-3-2- 72-5-20).
Other State and Local Agencies. The State Engineer is not alone in governing
the allocation of water rights. Over
the years, the legislature has spawned numerous other entities with overlapping
jurisdiction. For example, the
Interstate Stream Commission, created in 1935, is given the authority to
investigate, develop and conserve the waters of New Mexico both intra- and
inter-state (NM Stat. Ann. sec. 72-14-3 (1985 Repl. Pamph.)). In 1995, its powers were expanded to include
planning for a comprehensive state-wide water program. At the local level numerous entities such as
conservancy districts share the State Engineer's jurisdiction (see, e.g., NM
Stat. Ann. secs. 73-2-1, 72-2-22 to 64, sec. 73-1-1-, and 73-14-1 to 88). These are described below. Where transfers are within irrigation or conservancy
districts, and are on lands served by the district works, and downstream users
are not affected, the State Engineer does not get involved (Ellis and DuMars,
1978).
Tribal Administration of Waters. Tribal water rights are not defined or
regulated by state law. These rights
are not subject to loss by forfeiture or abandonment (State of New Mexico v.
Aamodt, 537 F.2d 1102 (10th Cir.
1976) cert. denied 429 U.S. 1121
(1977)). The State Engineer has no
jurisdiction over tribal water rights or the use of water on tribal lands
(Id.). As sovereign nations, tribes are
able to develop their own systems of water law, water resource management, and
water development.
Tribes also have the option of being treated as states under a variety
of laws administered by the Environmental Protection Agency. This is discussed under the section on
“environmental laws.”
·
The Navajo Nation The Navajo Water Code,
22 NTC, Sections 1107, et seq., 1984 (revised in 1995), creates a comprehensive
system for all water within the territorial jurisdiction of the Navajo
Nation. It states:
In order to provide for a permanent homeland for the Navajo People; to
protect the health, the welfare and the economic security of the citizens of
the Navajo Nation; to develop, manage, and preserve the water resources of the
Navajo Nation; to secure a just and equitable distribution of the use of water
within the Navajo Nation through a uniform and coherent system of regulation;
and to provide for the exercise of the inherent sovereign powers of
self-government by the Navajo Nation, the Navajo Nation hereby asserts its
sovereign authority over all actions taken within the territorial jurisdiction
of the Navajo Nation which affect the use of water within the Navajo Nation. (Title 22 NTC Ch. 7, Sec. 1101)
Waters within Navajo jurisdiction include: (1) the water reserved to the
Navajo Nation by the federal government, (2) water acquired through prior
appropriation, contract or similar means, (3) water in hydrologic systems
located exclusively within the lands of the Navajo Tribe, and (4) ground water
located beneath the lands held in trust by the United States of America.
As with appropriations under state jurisdiction, permits are required
for all new uses of Navajo water or changes in Navajo water use. Applications for permits must include the
following information: the purposes for which the water will be used, the
quantity of water which will be used, a description of the points and methods
of diversion, withdrawal, or impoundment, a description of the method of water
application, and an estimate of return flow (Title 22 NTC Ch. 7, Sec. 1604).
The Navajo Nation Water Code also provides for loss of permitted water
rights through non-use without sufficient cause for a period of five consecutive
years. “Sufficient causes” for non-use
include, among others, the following: drought or other unavailability of water,
service in the armed forces, incarceration, application of laws restricting
water use, and “other causes of nonuse beyond the control of the holder or
holders of the right claimed (Title 22 NTC Ch. 7, Sec. 1902).”
The Water Code is enforced by the Navajo Division of Water Resources
(Title 22 NTC Ch. 7, Sec. 1402). The
Division’s duties include administration of water use permits (Sec. 1404), gathering information necessary
to administer the water code (Sec.
1401), and serving in an advisory function to the Resources Committee (Sec. 1403).
·
Pueblos of Acoma and Laguna The Pueblos of Acoma and Laguna
have stated that the fact that their traditional system remains undefined in
the written law does not mean there is no water use regulation at the
Pueblos. They note that there is
instead an on-going system that uses sustainability as a primary concern; i.e.,
sustainability of amount, quality, and in some cases, sustainability of a
source (for example, limiting groundwater use to protect a spring or in stream
flow uses) (Acoma and Laguna joint statement, see Appendix III-A).
Tribal 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.
The Federal government has reactivated the
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.
The Little Colorado River within Arizona is being adjudicated in the
Arizona courts.
2.
Economic and social factors. Hydrology and Legality
having been established as key factors in Gallup’s water management challenge,
it is possible that social and economic factors would compete as an overriding
consideration affecting planning, development and management of the City’s
water resources.
Economics,
culture, demographics and politics clearly influence the way in which water is
used – how intensively it is pumped and used, for what purposes, where it is
used, and how it is conserved, wasted, managed and paid for. Some of these broad dynamics were outlined
in the Introduction section above.
It
can also be said that cultural and economic patterns and experiences from the
past may continue to inform the present … and future. As acknowledged by Gallup’s new Mayor Bob Rosebrough and others
in the City’s civic limelight, there
are patterns of interaction, misunderstandings, intercultural hurts and
misgivings that continue to weigh heavy on the hearts of some of Gallup’s
Navajo and Zuni neighbors – as these issues continue to be expressed in
repeated meetings and forums throughout the area. These “inherited linkages” to deep-seated relationship problems
among the region’s populations have the potential – if unchecked – to undermine
current efforts to provide opportunities for prosperity to all of Gallup’s
citizens and neighbors. The challenge
articulated by the new City administration is to continue the more recent
trends toward mutual understanding and cooperation and to accelerate the
movement of these relations forward to new patterns of trust, collaboration and
partnership.
Not
surprisingly, water – the most precious of earthly resources – lies at the
heart of this challenge, and also at the heart of the current opportunity to
forge a plan that best meets the needs of Gallup and the surrounding region.
In
the economic arena, Gallup has struggled to find a coherent economic
development strategy, in part due to the uncertainty surrounding its future
water supply. The interaction of local
water planning and economic development came to a head in Spring 2002 with City
studies funded in part by the US Department of Agriculture, in which DePauli Engineering
& Surveying and the Northwest New Mexico Council of Governments partnered
in preparing a technical report on Gallup’s water transmission and storage
facilities as related to (a) the anticipated new water supplies from the
proposed Navajo/Gallup Water Supply Project, and (b) the economic growth plans
of the City.
The
COG’s addendum on the economic connection reports as follows:
The
Gallup Growth Management Master Plan projects “maximum” acreage for
commercial and industrial usage to grow only 40 percent over the next 40 years
(the planning horizon for the Navajo/Gallup Water Supply Project and the City’s
40-Year Water Plan), i.e., from about 1,800 acres to about 2,500 acres. However, overall commercial and industrial
development – along with proportionate water demand – is projected to increase
in approximately the same rate as residential and other development over the
next 40 years, i.e., an average of about 1.82 percent per year. For the Navajo Nation, the growth rate is
2.48%. Projections against the above
estimates have not been done, but a factor (1.82% per annum for Gallup; 8.72%
for Navajo communities, accounting for accelerated development based on new
access to water supply) applied against these baseline numbers provides an
approximation of water demand for each of these development sectors, totaling
about 4,450 acre-feet per year, summarized as follows:
|
Development
Corridor
|
Estimated Water Demand
Business, at Year 2040
(gallons per day)
|
|
Historic/Revitalization Areas
|
601,035
|
|
Balanced Use Expansion Nodes
|
624,151
|
|
Commercial Centers
|
412,135
|
|
Infill Expansion
|
|
Industrial Complex
|
489,694
|
|
Other Water Use
|
270,918
|
|
Navajo/Extraterritorial Industrial
Development
|
1,574,269
|
|
TOTAL
|
3,972,202
[~ 4,453 AF/year]
|
The Gallup Master
Plan’s “Industrial Development Keys” include the following:
The
Land Development Standards recommendations call for establishing a
qualitative distinction among the City’s heavier manufacturing and open land
uses and categories of industrial use that may attract employers desiring a
cleaner image. Commerce Park
developments, for example, could locate in the West Gallup/Airport Gateway
vicinity or larger campus developments in the City’s Southern Sector.
Thus, commercial/industrial versus
residential water usage may exceed the average “36:64” ratio in lands
prioritized for industrial and commercial development, while ratios in other
parts of Gallup and the outlying communities may be lower.
Two areas targeted as primary development areas of
the Navajo Nation will be serviced by the Gallup water system: Manuelito and Churchrock. Manuelito is the second of seven sites
indicated in the Navajo Nation I-40 Corridor Project study targeted for development. Each of the sites was selected for its
potential in the area of industrial, commercial, or tourism. The Navajo Nation’s plans for Manuelito
center around a major theme promoting Gallup as the gateway community to the
Navajo Nation. Manuelito Chapter has
been designated as the site to house a major tourist facility that includes
somewhat of a “dude ranch” theme. Based
on current tourism figures, the Navajo Nation anticipates several hundred
thousand tourists per year that will stop at this facility for needs ranging
from weekly stays to purchase of a meal to use of a restroom. Current development plans target
groundbreaking at Manuelito in the year 2003.
Another targeted
area for large scale development is the Churchrock Industrial Park, directly
east of Gallup. The Industrial Park has
been experiencing slow growth over the past several years but has now been
targeted for major development. Two
industrial recruiters are working on bringing industry to the Park, along with
the new emphasis from the Navajo Nation.
The Churchrock Chapter that borders the industrial park has phased
housing development plans to construct 200 units over the next 5 years in
anticipation of supporting families that relocate to work at the Park. Additionally, the Northwest New Mexico
Community Development Corporation (NWNMCDC) is working with the Navajo Nation,
McKinley County, and the City of Gallup to design joint partnership efforts
concentrating on industry development at Churchrock Industrial Park. The location of the park to the City of
Gallup is ideal for industrial growth.
[Work is
being done] with the Churchrock Chapter and Red Rock Park to develop up to 26
small business enterprises. Several of
these businesses will be in the food service industry and will require a
substantial level of water usage, while others are based on the artisan trade,
which often requires an even higher level of water use.
Additional
industry and tourism growth is taking place at Red Rock Park, within the City
of Gallup. Along with the above
Churchrock Chapter efforts, there is an expansive vision of development for Red
Rock Park over the next decade. Up to
75 new camping/RV sites are designated, 50 with water/electric hook ups. The horse stables which can house up to 50
livestock, are being reopened and stocked year round. Lodging facilities are being repaired and will soon open to the
public. Red Rock Park is also a
potential site for a major county-wide tourist initiative in adventure sports.
The
general business growth within the City of Gallup and the immediately
surrounding county and Navajo areas mandates additional business growth to
sustain the population. These
industries include laundromats; child care; senior care; recreational areas;
construction (building along with access roads); food service; and transportation. Each of these service industries will be
encouraged to become established within the targeted development sites
mentioned above.
The DePauli Transmission
and Storage Facilities study provides for an adequate and efficient system
for transmitting and delivering water supply to the bordering Navajo
communities per the requirements of the Technical Memorandum and Bureau of
Reclamation engineering plans of the Navajo/Gallup Water Supply Project.
These reports, then, suggest possible scenarios for development
that imply an increasing future demand for water, thus helping to justify the
City’s need to upgrade and expand its existing system, as well as its overall
need for supplemental water supply to be provided from the San Juan River
through the Navajo/Gallup Water Supply Project. The newly appointed Gallup Development Commission will help guide
the City’s strategy for new economic
development, tourism and quality of life and thus will be an important
stakeholder in all matters related to Gallup’s future water supply.
B.
Water planning
Planning is the call of
the hour – the watchword, the standard and the mandate for ensuring Gallup’s
water future. The State of New Mexico,
in its Framework for Public Input to a State Water Plan (December 2002),
provides a clear goal for water planning efforts throughout the State:
first
… to develop a better understanding of our water supply and the administrative
and legal framework in which our water resource decisions are made;
second
… to develop policy that respects limits created by water availability and
guides new water projects that are based on meeting demand within those limits;
third
– to lay out the commitments we choose to make, the steps we must take to
protect our water, and our priorities for action.
The
State further calls for “new thinking about how New Mexico can make significant
changes in our approach to water management.
The Framework document refers to the State’s adjudication backlog
as “a symptom of the State’s failure to focus on the building blocks of Active
Water Management. It goes on to say:
New
Mexico must now act to complete the conversion to active management of New
Mexico’s water resources. We need to
establish functional limits on the use of finite water resources, especially in
areas where demand far outstrips supply or where failure to limit uses may
create liability for the State and bad outcomes for water users. … Active Water
Resource Management is the name we have given to the comprehensive, assertive
approach that is needed to protect and enhance New Mexico’s water supply.
As concerns the City of Gallup’s
water future, it is important to be aware of and to participate in all levels
of water resource planning, i.e., at the local, regional, and state levels.
1.
Local Planning. Gallup has not been lax in
planning for long-term water supply, production and use. In January 1992, Gallup consulting
hydrogeologist John Shomaker, with support from Leedshill-Herkenhoff, Inc.,
Sterling & Mataya, and local
attorney Jay Mason, prepared the Water Supply Studies and Forty-Year Water
Supply Master Plan. In March 1998,
Sterling & Mataya teamed up with Shomaker to produce the Well Production
Planning Report: City of Gallup, New Mexico. In August 2000, Southwest Water Consultants, Inc. prepared the Water
Development Plan Update: City of Gallup
Water System. These general plans
have been enhanced in the past year by three technical studies by DePauli
Engineering & Surveying on: build-out of the City’s Transmission &
Storage Facilities in connection with the Navajo/Gallup Water Supply Project (2
reports); and analysis of the City’s Business and Residential water use. The DePauli reports were further augmented
by an Addendum document prepared by the Northwest New Mexico Council of
Governments (April 2002) describing the linkage between the City’s future water
system plans and economic development.
Gallup’s local plans are closely
interconnected with those of its neighboring communities, most predominantly
the Navajo Nation. The Navajo Nation’s
Department of Water Resources has produced two key documents in the past couple
of years representing excellent planning work related to providing long-term
water supply to the Navajo people: Water Resource Development Strategy for
the Navajo Nation (July 2000); and Technical Memorandum: The Navajo/Gallup Water Supply Project
(March 2001).
Signs of a powerful new partnership
between the City of Gallup and the Navajo Nation have been clearly evident in
recent years. Most prominently:
·
For over 10 years, the City and the Navajo
Nation have collaborated closely on development of the Navajo/Gallup Water
Supply Project, supported by an inter-agency steering committee chaired by the
Northwest New Mexico Council of Governments – a process that has navigated
daunting and complex challenges at every level of project planning and
development;
·
The City, the Navajo Nation, the Indian
Health Service and the Navajo Tribal Utility Authority recently entered into a
formal agreement to provide municipal water supply to Navajo neighbors living
outside the city limits along Boardman Avenue (State Road 564); and
·
The City has collaborated with the Navajo
Nation, Indian Health Service, Navajo Tribal Utility Authority and the Council
of Governments in developing a multi-project master application to the State
Water Trust Fund for a “Gallup Regional System” component of the Navajo/Gallup
Water Supply Project, designed to develop and utilize Gallup’s water
distribution system as a means of conveying water to neighboring Navajo
communities.
·
Although
the City has been responsible and forward-looking in its approach to planning
for its water supply, the challenges of the times will require that such
planning rise to entirely new level, to include extensive public participation
(as “kicked off” by the May 2003 Gallup Town Hall on Water), crafting and
implementation of a comprehensive “Active Water Resource Management” plan,
identification of priorities for action and funding and informed and effective
advocacy at all levels of water planning and policy-making – local, regional,
state and interstate. The Region 6
Water Plan and State Water Plan processes (as described below) will greatly
reinforce and benefit from this new level of planning and management.
2.
Regional Planning. Gallup is part of New
Mexico’s Water Planning Region 6, and the City has fully participated in the
regional planning effort for the past 10 years.
The purpose of the Region 6 Water Plan is to chart
a 40-year course for securing, sustaining and managing precious water resources
in State Water Planning Region 6, while contributing to formulation and
implementation of the State Water Plan.
Its mission is to ensure an ongoing water supply to meet current and
future individual and community water needs at a reasonable cost, appropriate
quality and within legal and social constraints and cultural guidelines.
Water Planning Region 6 is comprised of all of
Cibola County and that portion of McKinley County not in the San Juan
Basin. Surface water basins
include: the Rio Puerco, the Rio San Jose and the Rio Salado (which drain into
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. Administrative groundwater basins
include: the Bluewater, the Rio Grande and the Gallup declared underground
water basins (including the Gallup Extension declared in 1994).
The Plan is intended to benefit all
of the populations of Region 6, encompassing McKinley and Cibola Counties south
of the San Juan Basin, and to serve the water interests of the State of New
Mexico. The formal constituencies of
the Plan include units of local and tribal government, organized water use
entities, and state and federal agencies, i.e.:
o
The
municipalities: The City of Gallup; The City of Grants;
The Village of Milan
o
The
counties: McKinley County; Cibola County
o
The soil
and water conservation districts: McKinley Soil & Water Conservation District; Lava Soil &
Water Conservation District
o
The
flood control districts: Rio San Jose Flood Control District
o
The
water and sanitation districts: Bluewater Water
& Sanitation District; Gamerco Water & Sanitation District; San Rafael
Water & Sanitation District; Thoreau Water & Sanitation District;
Yah-ta-Hey Water & Sanitation District
o
The mutual domestic water user associations: Bluewater
Acres DWUA; Bluewater Lake MDWCA; Coal Basin MDWA; San Mateo MDWCA; Whispering
Cedars MDWUA; White Cliffs MDWUA
o
The
irrigation groups and districts: Bluewater Toltec
Irrigation District; San Mateo Irrigation District; San Rafael Irrigation
Group; Murray Acres Irrigation Group; Bibo Irrigation District; San Fidel
Irrigation District
o
The
Indian tribes and nations: The Navajo Nation; The Pueblo of Acoma;
The Pueblo of Laguna; The Pueblo of Zuni
o
The land
grants: Cubero Land Grant; Cebolleta Land
Grant; Moquino Water System; Bibo Water Supply System; Seboyeta Water System
o
Other
local groups and districts: Sagebrush Water Cooperative;
o
The
State of New Mexico: Interstate Stream Commission;
Office of the State Engineer; Environment Department; New Mexico Finance
Authority; Soil & Water Conservation Commission; State Legislature;
Bluewater State Park; Forestry Service-Coal Mine Campground; Gallup Port of
Entry;
o
Federal
agencies: El Morro National Monument; El
Malpais National Monument; Bureau of Land Management; Natural Resources
Conservation Service
o
Corporate,
public service, land development and industrial water users: Lee Ranch Coal Mine; ARCO/Anaconda Mine; Homestake Mine; Quivira Mine; Plains
Electric; public and private schools in the region; Mount Taylor Millworks; subdivisions and industrial parks; small
and medium-sized businesses.
The Region
6 Water Plan is currently articulated in a series of documents:
40-Year
Regional Water Plan, New Mexico State Planning & Development District 1, San Juan, McKinley and San Juan Counties,
prepared for the Northwest New Mexico Council of Governments by
Leedshill-Herkenhoff, John Shomaker and Charles DuMars, March 1994
Region
6 Water Plan: The 40-Year Regional Water Plan for Cibola County and the portion
of McKinley County not in the San Juan Basin, prepared
by Mary Murnane, Sharon Hausam and Jeff Kiely of the Northwest New Mexico
Council of Governments, March 1998
Region
6 Water Plan: Phase II—Evaluation of
Alternatives and Presentation of Strategies, by
Sharon Hausam on behalf of Northwest New Mexico Council of Governments, July
2001
Handbook
for Local Water Planning & Implementation – Water Planning Region 6,
by Sharon Hausam on behalf of Northwest New Mexico Council of Governments, July
2001
Region
6 Water Plan: Plan Summary,
prepared by Jeff Kiely of Northwest New Mexico Council of Governments, April
2003
As
planning coordinator for the Regional Plan, the Council of Governments is
currently preparing its executive summary, action recommendations and final
presentation for obtaining official acceptance of the Plan this year from the
New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission.
3.
State Planning. The goal of creating a State
Water Plan has been foremost in the minds of water planners, engineers, and
public officials for years. However,
focused commitment to this goal has been achieved primarily in the past year
and has been empowered by Governor Richardson’s directive that a State Water
Plan be produced in the early years of his administration. Among the first steps will be the
completion of Regional Water Plans in each of the State’s 16 planning regions,
targeted to be complete this year.
The document Framework for Public Input to a State
Water Plan (December 2002) clearly sets the stage for this statewide
effort.
The overall
purpose of the State Water Plan will be to create the blueprint for statewide
Active Water Resource Management (AWRM).
A sustained, continuous effort (including adequate funding) will be
necessary to resolve the complex technical water issues. … An overarching State
Water Plan will enable New Mexico to finally transition from a laissez-faire
approach to active and effective management of its water resources. Going forward with a State Water Plan will
allow New Mexico to justify in-state water needs, comprehensively and
accurately evaluate water resources and defend against water claims raised by
out-of-state interests. The confidence
provided by an overarching State Water Plan will provide the security that
promotes productive development and investment, not only in water projects but
in the general State economy as well.
To sustain
progress, and avoid constant and costly short-term fixes, we must proactively
focus on permanent solutions to our water resources issues. Priorities and solutions identified in the
State Water Plan must be based upon:
·
A comprehensive assessment of statewide
surface and groundwater resources;
·
Sound policies to move us forward;
·
Consensual and collaborative decisions on
how we choose to use available supply to meet various statewide demands; and
·
Priorities for available funds and human
resources in the eight areas of Active Water Resource Management:
1.
Quantification of water rights
– hydrographic surveys, adjudications, abstracts and administrative permits;
2.
Measurement and metering of water
– water supplies and water uses;
3.
Water planning
– integrated statewide, regional and local planning including water
conservation;
4.
Compliance
– with interstate compacts, federal environmental laws and regulations, and
legally mandated federal project operations;
5.
Analysis and integration of data,
plans and policies – decision support systems, public
information access, public communications and involvement;
6.
Water distribution
– active administration of the storage, conveyance and withdrawals of wet water
supplies;
7.
Water transfers, markets and water
banks – creation, coordination and regulation;
8.
Water development
– projects to store, convey and develop water resources to meet our needs;
watershed improvements; weather modification.
The
City of Gallup – working in full partnership with its citizens and neighbors –
is ideally positioned to lead the way in fostering local planning and
management in full harmony with this ambitious State strategy.
III. WATER
MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES, PROBLEMS
AND ALTERNATIVES
As the
statewide Water Town Hall in Socorro learned, the complexities surrounding New
Mexico’s water issues for New Mexico are among the most challenging in the
Western states – and Gallup is near the front of the curve on those very
complexities. A summary of the key New
Mexico issues would include:
·
Limited surface water – surface water is renewable, but flows are
variable and not much surface water is stored naturally.
·
“Saturated appropriations”
– almost all surface water is already appropriated, with rights-owners having
the right to divert as much or more than the average annual flows of most
streams.
·
Evaporative losses
– the State relies heavily on reservoirs to store surface water in order to
prolong and redistribute its availability; but this results in significant loss
of water to evaporation.
·
Ground-water mining
– the State has a great deal of groundwater, but it is not a renewable supply;
it can be used in short time or an extended time, but not indefinitely; and in
the Gallup area (as noted in above sections), most ground-water supplies are
simply not available (or practically recoverable).
·
Effects of ground-water pumping
– due to the relatively slow pace at which effects become manifest in
hydrogeologic systems, the full impacts of ground-water pumping on streams may
not be evident for decades or longer.
·
Concern for quality
– there is increasing concern over the quality of both surface and ground
water, which can hinder new water development.
·
Growing demand for diminishing
supply – new water needs continue to arise for
endangered species, aesthetic and other environmental purposes, urban and
industrial growth in the State (include Native American uses) and growth
outside the State that would depend on already overextended supplies.
·
Water rights allocation
– water resource administration and management needs to consider the allocation
of water to existing rights, and in dealing with new projects, also consider
reallocation of existing rights and priorities; in New Mexico a water right is
a property right and must be protected.
A.
Water issues confronting New Mexico and Gallup
In
Framework for Public Input to a State Water Plan (December 2002 –
referred to, in shorthand, as “State Plan Framework” or “Framework”), the New
Mexico Office of the State Engineer and the Interstate Stream Commission
underscore the “key fact about our water”:
New
Mexico’s water supply is limited.
Demand, needs, and rights to use water exceed the water supply available
in most years. Many of New Mexico’s
difficult water dilemmas arise from these facts.
During drought conditions, the
imbalance becomes acute. After decades
of promoting water use, New Mexico lacks both the physical facilities and the
administrative infrastructure to ensure available water is delivered on the
basis of water rights priorities to senior water-rights holders. The other side of the coin is that in most
places we lack the means to limit water uses by junior water rights holder
whose demands cannot be met from the available supply. Nor have water users been adequately
informed about the serious nature of problems sparked by unauthorized use. …
This problem of demand exceeding
supply affects virtually all water planning regions. Those that do not experience water shortages themselves are often
viewed as a potential source of water by thirsty neighboring regions.
The
unusually wet decades of the 1980s and 1990s have allowed hard decisions to be
deferred despite large increases in population and water demand. The Southwest is due for a drought on the
order of a 1950s drought. Even the few
dry years that have occurred in 1996, 2000 and 2002 have seriously taxed our
ability to meet fundamental demand.
Governor
Richardson’s campaign document, now being used to guide actions of his administration,
H20 New Mexico: Bill Richardson’s Plan for Water Security
paints the State’s water picture in even stiffer terms:
With fires
burning, cities and farms imposing strict water use limits and court rulings
which may force us to deny water to entire communities in the southern part of
the state, New Mexico faces a water crisis. However, it is a crisis borne – in part – from a lack of
leadership, long-time inaction and poor management.
The drought has
brought long-simmering problems to the front burner and the time for aggressive
and creative solutions – both short term and long term – is now.
The
State Plan Framework document summarizes the State’s major water issues as
follows:
Total withdrawal
of water from streams and aquifers in 1995 was more than 4.4 million acre-feet
(ac-ft; acre-foot is the equivalent of about 326,000 gallons). About 2.8 million ac-ft was consumed, and
the remaining 1.6 million ac-ft flowed back to rivers and streams. Some current water supply is causing
essentially permanent depletion of stored groundwater. Groundwater historically and current pumped
from some stream-connected aquifers will exert an increasing depletion of
streamflow for years to come. Major
changes are occurring.
Many issues are
common to many river basins and broad regions of the state, including:
§
New Mexico is unprepared to see that its
total water uses do not exceed its total legal entitlements from its various
sources of supply.
§
More than 90 percent of New Mexico
residents depend on groundwater for their drinking water supply, not to mention
the many areas that use groundwater for agricultural and industrial
purposes. In many areas, groundwater is
not replenished on time scales that have human meaning.
§
More effective water management,
conservation, discontinuance of existing uses of water so that new uses can
proceed, and new supply development are the primary means we have for meeting
new demands. Current funding is
inadequate.
§
Rainfall is highly variable and droughts
recur. Areas that depend only on
surface water supplies are especially vulnerable and must plan for dry
years. Conjunctive management of
interconnected groundwater and surface water rights becomes particularly
challenging in times of surface water shortage. This is because of the continuing and uncontrollable diminishment
of surface water flows caused by historic groundwater pumping.
§
Environmental needs for water have the
force of federal law and are the subject of much litigation. Legitimate environmental water needs have
not been quantified and were not taken
into account when New Mexico’s water supplies were fully allocated to other
uses. Nonetheless, these legitimate
needs must be accommodated but in compliance with state laws and water
resources administration.
Water demand keeps
increasing – both within New Mexico and beyond our borders. Interstate and international issues are of
urgent concern in many areas, owing to interstate compact obligations,
unregulated groundwater pumping just across the state line, efforts to export
water, or water quality desires.
Starting in 1998, federal agencies and judges have imposed demands for
water to comply with federal law. These
demands did not previously exist and have resulted in major changes in the
operation of federal water supply reservoirs upon which New Mexico water uses
depend.
With
regard to issues affecting Gallup and its basin, the State Plan Framework
document suggests the following:
Water
Development: The Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project would
divert water from the San Juan River for delivery and use in Gallup and
surrounding communities within the Little Colorado River Basin. The Project is being planned by the Bureau
of Reclamation to provide a renewable supply of 7,500 ac-ft of water per year
to the City of Gallup to both replace existing groundwater uses and meet
projected future water demands. An
additional 6,500 ac-ft of water per year would be delivered for use by Navajo
communities near Gallup. Community
water distribution systems operated by the Indian Health Service, the Navajo
Tribal Utility Authority and Gallup need to be upgraded to accommodate delivery
of the Project water. Federal funding
and local cost shares likely will be needed to fund the Project. The financial feasibility for the Project
has yet to be established. Project
issues relating to compact administration, federal environmental law compliance
and a possible Navajo Nation water rights settlement in the San Juan River
Basin [… are all currently being worked on].
Federal
Environmental Laws: Riparian habitat in the
Little Colorado River Basin provides some habitat for the Southwestern willow
flycatcher, which is listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA). One area that the Southwestern
willow flycatcher may seasonally occupy is along the Zuni River.
With
regard to Gallup’s potential interaction with and dependency upon the San Juan
River Basin, Gallup’s fate is closely joined with that of its Navajo
Reservation neighbors. The State and
the Federal government have recognized that a majority of rural Navajo
residents have inadequate domestic water supplies, and this need is a primary
basis for the intense planning work accomplished in recent years on the
Navajo/Gallup Water Supply Project (NGWSP).
The environmental, legal, jurisdictional, political and financial issues
confronting that project, however, have been – and continue to be – far-ranging
and complex, although significant strides have been taken in recent years to
greatly increase the possibility of the project’s successful authorization and
construction in the near future.
Among
the issues of highest sensitivity and importance for the NGWSP – and therefore
for Gallup’s water future – is the relationship of the City of Gallup (as a
political entity, a population, an economic center and a culture) with its
Navajo neighbors. This relationship has
many dimensions, some of them apparently contradictory, and the present
opportunity for the City is to act in a manner that both heals and diminishes
the effects and memories of past (and current) conflict and mistrust, while at
the same time building new bridges of understanding, mutual respect and
partnership.
B.
Water Management Alternatives
Mature planning processes involve a clear
identification of needs, problems and goals, followed by an analysis of options
and alternatives for meeting them. The
Town Hall will be calling up all of its participants to help generate and
evaluate a broad range of alternative approaches, practices and policies that
may secure Gallup’s water future. A few
alternatives will be surveyed here to assist with this exploration.
1. Water
Re-Use, Aquifer Storage and Recovery. Water re-use
may take three forms:
§
direct re-use, the
return of highly treated wastewater into the potable drinking water system;
§
indirect re-use, the
return of highly treated wastewater into the potable water supply; and
§
non-potable re-use, the
return of treated wastewater for non-domestic purposes, such as industrial
manufacturing and irrigation of non-food crops and landscaping.
“Aquifer
storage and recovery” is one option for indirect re-use, in which water is
reinjected into aquifers, where it is stored.
By this means, evaporation losses and the need for storage structures
are decreased. Aquifer storage may
also be a means for storing large-scale project water. The water is then available for use when
other sources are not available. The
City of Gallup is considering this option, as such water could come from the
proposed Navajo/Gallup Water Supply Project.
Indirect
re-use of water has the potential to help meet long-term water demands in
Region 6. However, the public is often
squeamish about drinking treated wastewater.
Water re-use can also be prohibitively expensive.
John
Shomaker & Associates, Inc., provided a brief analysis of the feasibility
of aquifer storage and recovery for the City of Gallup. He noted that the source aquifers for Gallup
are confined and have very low hydraulic conductivities and storage coefficients. Because of the low conductivity, groundwater
movement is relatively slow. Injected
water would stay within reach of a recovery well for a longer than typical
period, and the rise in water levels would take a long time to dissipate. Therefore, longer recovery periods than
usual (one season) might be feasible.
He also noted, however, that aquifer storage is sensitive to the quality
and chemical characteristics of the water, and further studies would be
required.
2.
Water Conservation. The State defines
“water conservation” as “any action or technology that reduces the amount of
water withdrawn from water supply sources, reduces consumptive use, reduces the
loss or waste of water, improves the efficiency of water use, increases
recycling and reuse of water, or prevents the pollution of water.” Given Gallup’s high-desert climate (less
than 13 inches of annual rainfall), its rapidly depleting aquifers, increasing
demands on its water supply by regional population pressures and tourist
traffic, and the potentially high costs for new water supply, the citizens of
Gallup may be well advised to forge a community water conservation program utilizing “best practices” and
emerging technology being applied in various places in the world.
The
New Mexico Office of the State Engineer has produced two excellent guidebooks
for water conservation: “A Water
Conservation Guide for Commercial, Institutional and Industrial Users” (1999)
and “A Water Conservation Guide for Public Utilities” (2001). The reader is referred to those sources for
in-depth presentations on a wide variety of conservation measures that can be
ordained and implemented in the interest of conserving precious water
supply. For the present background
document, a few excerpts from the “Public Utility” guide will be shared to
provide context for citizen discussion of the many options available.
Even
in the best of years, water is a limited resource in New Mexico. Local rainfall varies throughout the state,
but the statewide average throughout New Mexico is less than 13 inches of
annual precipitation. … Because of the arid climate, water conservation is
vital to the health and welfare of every community in New Mexico.
Unfortunately, competition for the
state’s limited water resources is growing.
New Mexico’s population growth is increasing the demands on the state’s
already-scarce water supplies. For the
first time, water demands in some of the state’s urban areas [read: Gallup] are approaching available
supplies. The state’s agricultural
users want to retain their water resources in order to protect their
livelihoods. Recreational users need
adequate streamflows to meet their needs and protect the interests of the
recreation industry.
Environmental factors and concerns
also have an impact upon municipal water supplies. Citizens are concerned about protecting riparian areas and the
aquatic habitats of rivers and streams.
The Endangered Species Act requires that adequate water supply must
remain in rivers to protect endangered fish.
Another concern is water pollution, which has contaminated water wells
in several municipalities in New Mexico.
The water in these polluted wells is not available for drinking
purposes, which further reduces the available water supply.
The state also appears to be in a
long-term drought cycle that began in 1996, making statewide water supplies
even more precious than before. As a
result, some municipalities have enacted mandatory water-use restrictions. Other communities have ventured into the
water rights marketplace to purchase water from agricultural users in order to
meet urban water demands.
Because the costs of water
development and treatment continue to rise, many communities are faced with
expensive water and wastewater treatment facility expansions to meet growing
water demands. Fortunately, water conservation
can delay, and in some cases actually eliminate, the need for these costly
infrastructure expansions. The simple
fact is this: conservation is
almost always the least-costly water supply alternative.
…Reducing water demand may add years
to the life of aquifers that are being mined, reduce the cost of water and
wastewater treatment, save energy, postpone or eliminate the expansion of water
treatment and distribution systems, and decreases the volume of wastewater
discharged into rivers and streams.
For its part, the City of Gallup has
been praised for its efforts in conservation, and the community may also
benefit from further measures to achieve water savings in Gallup’s high desert
environment. The City’s current Water
Utility Conservation Program was highlighted in the State’s “Water Conservation
Guide for Public Utilities” (see excerpt in the Appendix), which can be
summarized as follows:
Ø
Gallup has a relatively low rate of water
consumption (154 gallons per capita per day, or gpcd), and its residential
indoor consumption of 64.5 gpcd is close to the State’s benchmark of 55.8 gpcd
for “highly efficient households.” In
most communities, residential customers account for over 50% of water use, but
Gallup residents consume only 35% of municipal water. Gallup Water Superintendent Lance Allgood credits Gallup’s
high-desert climate as a factor in Gallup’s low water use, since many residents
do not even attempt to grow lawns.
Ø
Many of Gallup’s conservation efforts,
including its water ordinance, were precipitated by a series of water
shortages. From 1950 to 1980, Gallup’s
population doubled in size and its water consumption increased almost
sixfold. In the 1970s, the shortages
were so severe the city drilled emergency wells and nearly ran out of water
during the peak summer months. Gallup
passed conservation and water waste ordinances in 1983. The mandatory year-round ordinance prohibits
watering that results in ponding or wasted flow; washing of hard-surfaced
areas; the use of non-recirculating water in fountains and ponds, new car wash
systems, and industrial laundry systems; and the use of water for construction
activities. Under emergency conditions,
the City Manager may limit irrigation times, prohibit irrigation, impose a
water rate surcharge, and declare a temporary moratorium on any new development
including lawn installations.
Ø
Conservation has been helped by Gallup
Joint Utility’s “inclining rate structure” (increasing cost per unit of water
as volume of use increases), in effect since the early 1990s – possibly the
most effective means of conserving. For
example, water production fell nearly 9 percent in 1999 when a significant rate
increase was instituted at mid-year.
Rate increases are most effective when coupled with public education, so
the City sends out conservation information to its customers just before the
summer peak usage season, provides pamphlets on xeriscaping, irrigation and
indoor conservation, and makes presentations at schools.
Ø
In 1983, Gallup participated in a public education
program funded by ACTION and the US Department of Energy, which distributed
thousands of water conservation kits.
The project cost was $1.000 per 1,000 gallons saved, and it helped drop
consumption from 160 gpcd to 150 gpcd.
Ø
The City has attempted to control
commercial use, which accounts for 62 percent of demand. The conservation ordinance bans single-pass
cooling systems in new or retrofitted establishments. There is no mandate on linen and towel washing in hotels, largely
due to lack of manpower for enforcement.
Ø
Water concerns have prevented
high-water-use industries from locating in Gallup due to limited water supply
and the expense of treating water to industry standards.
Ø
Gallup reuses sewage effluent to
irrigate the City golf course and two sports facilities, saving an estimated
264 million gallons over three years, and delivers 1.7 million gallons of
non-potable water per year to irrigation systems on medians and landscapes in
25 locations.
Ø
Future goals and plans
include significant development of water reuse strategies – including an
aquifer storage and recovery program.
The technology is available, but there are regulatory and public
education hurdles to overcome (e.g., perceptions around drinking treated
wastewater). Funding is also needed for
implementation, but most funding as been for developing conservation plans. Other goals include:
o
improving the municipal wastewater system
by increasing treatment and hydraulic capacity (costs estimated as high as $30
million);
o
improving residential irrigation
conservation, such as through seasonal rate increases and enforcement of
existing ordinances;
o
promoting conservation by emphasizing that
it reduces the money required for wastewater treatment, and implementing a more
formal and comprehensive program.
Other conservation practices
recommended by the Office of the State Engineer as having significant potential
achieving positive results include:
§
In-school education programs to instill the
“conservation ethic” in young minds;
§
Improved metering of all water uses;
§
Improved recordkeeping and water audits
(water demand analysis);
§
Leak detection and repair programs;
§
Pressure reduction;
§
Indoor plumbing fixture and appliance
audits and retrofits;
§
Xeriscaping and Landscape Design
Ordinances;
§
Landscape Irrigation audits;
§
Training landscape maintenance personnel;
§
Irrigation Management Information System
(IMIS);
§
Irrigation with Reclaimed Wastewater;
§
Water Waste Ordinances;
§
Emergency Action Plan for Drought
Management
Even
so … consultations by technical experts and advisors in the Region 6 water
planning process have suggested that, especially in light of Gallup’s
relatively low per capita water usage (particularly in the residential
category), “conservation is not enough” when it comes to meeting Gallup’s water
supply needs. Although enlightened and
effective conservation policies and practices may go far in reducing
unnecessary demand on the water system and achieving important “water savings,”
such efforts by themselves may only delay the inevitable, i.e., the depletion
of the ground-water aquifers historically accessed to supply the water needs of
the City. Additional alternatives –
“beyond conservation” – are suggested in the following section.
C.
New visions, new technologies, new alternatives
There
are many “possible futures” for Gallup’s relationship with the “water of
life.” This section will showcase three
bold initiatives, each approaching the challenge from a different angle, but
all of them serving a complementary whole in terms of engaging the energies of
City leadership and area citizens in a shared commitment to a prosperous and
water-enriched future.
1.
Navajo/Gallup Water Supply Project
The Navajo/Gallup Water Supply Project has evolved over four decades as
a major infrastructure initiative to identify and secure a sustainable 40-year
water supply for the parched lands of the eastern reaches of the Navajo
Reservation, the City of Gallup, and the southwestern portion of the Jicarilla
Apache Reservation. The Project is the
region’s best solution to the challenge of providing municipal and industrial
water supply:
(a)
to rural Navajo
communities that to this day are largely dependent on water-hauling and/or
short-term groundwater systems with limited long-term supply
The Project is particularly responsive to the development needs of the
Navajo Nation, and of Gallup as its neighboring trade center. The lack of infrastructure, of economic
development and of means of livelihood are closely connected. Throughout the arid Southwest, and
especially on the Navajo Nation, a reliable water supply is essential for
stimulating and sustaining economic development. The Navajo Nation has identified economic growth centers
throughout the Reservation, which represent relatively large population bases
with the potential to benefit from an “economy-of-scale” infrastructure
development such as NGWSP. While creation of adequate water infrastructure does
not guarantee sustained economic growth nor the narrowing of socioeconomic
disparities between the Navajo people and the rest of the US, such development
is a necessary prerequisite. The
addition of this significant piece into the Navajo Nation’s infrastructural
puzzle will generate extraordinary new development and will hasten the “closing
of the economic gap” for the Navajo people.
(b)
to the City of
Gallup and its neighbors, who face the prospect of critical water shortages
within 10 to 15 years as a result of the loss of accessible groundwater from a
century of groundwater “mining”
As a regional trade center, the City of Gallup supports a municipal
population of about 23,000 but also serves as an economic hub for a trade area
of about 100,000 people. The City
relies solely on a groundwater supply that continues to be progressively mined
with little recharge into the source aquifers.
Current hydrologic projections by the City predict severe shortages in
the groundwater supply within 10 years, which would have severe social and
economic impacts on the City and on the neighboring Navajo communities.
(c)
to the
southwestern portion of the Jicarilla Apache Nation for future housing and
economic development.
The Jicarilla Apache Water Settlement Act awarded 25,500 acre-feet of
San Juan Basin water rights to the Nation, not all of which is included in the
“environmental baseline” determined for endangered fish species. Under this settlement, Jicarilla has
authority to conditionally market its water rights, which might include leasing
water to Gallup as part of a three-party agreement that would also include the
Navajo Nation. At the same time,
Jicarilla needs an actual supply of “wet water” to begin development of the
southwestern portion of its reservation, currently estimated at 1,200
acre-feet. Jicarilla’s cooperative
participation in the Project may help achieve a mutually beneficial water
solution for all three project entities.
Under the guidance of a local Steering Committee chaired since 1991 by
the Northwest New Mexico Council of Governments, and in collaboration with the
US Bureau of Reclamation, Project planning has progressed to the point that
prospects are imminent for identifying water sources, settling tribal water
rights claims, finalizing the project plan, providing for project financing,
publishing the final Environmental Impact Statement, and achieving
Congressional authorization for construction of the project.
A substantial Technical Memorandum was distributed
by the Navajo Nation in 2001 to key local, tribal, state and federal players as
a means of consolidating information needed for the Project’s primary participants
– the Navajo Nation, the City of Gallup, and the Jicarilla Apache Nation -- to
define their commitments to the Project.
Based on such commitments, tremendous progress has been achieved, e.g.:
Ø the participants finalized a Project Definition
that articulated the “preferred alternative” for providing long-term water
supply to the service area and defined the key project features and the
operation of those features;
Ø the Bureau of Reclamation has completed
appraisal-level engineering designs and estimates for the project, with
construction costs estimated at $440 million, as well as substantial
environmental analysis as required by the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA);
Ø the State of New Mexico completed a revised water
depletion schedule under the Colorado River Compact, which includes depletions
for the Navajo/Gallup Water Supply Project, within the State’s Upper Basin
Compact allocation. The parties have
proposed depletion guarantees limits that would ensure protection of the
endangered species of fish in the San Juan River;
Ø the State of New Mexico and the Navajo Nation have
achieved significant progress toward agreements with other Colorado River
Compact states to transfer water from the Upper to the Lower Basin for the
NGWSP project;
Ø the State of New Mexico and the Navajo Nation have
made substantial progress toward finalizing a settlement of Navajo Nation water
rights claims in the San Juan River Basin;
Ø a “Final Environmental Impact Statement” and
“Definite Plan Report” will be completed by the US Bureau of Reclamation in
2003 that will adequately describe the Project for possible Congressional
authorization in FY 2004;
Ø the City of Gallup completed a USDA-funded study of
its water distribution system in anticipation of the new water supply from the
pipeline and with provisions for conveying water through its system to the
adjacent Navajo Chapter communities;
Ø the project received an appropriation of $1.6
million from the 2002 & 2003 sessions of the State Legislature, to be used
to develop the “Gallup regional water system.”
This system will interface with water infrastructure projects being
carried out by the Indian Health Service;
Ø a binding agreement is being forged between the
participants, as requested by the New Mexico Congressional Delegation,
regarding implementation and financing of the Project; and
Ø legislative language is being drafted for
Congressional authorization to construct the project, with construction
anticipated to begin by FY 2006.
The Technical Memo and the Bureau of Reclamation
reports draw on studies of the Project conducted from the 1970’s to the 1990’s
by the US Bureau of Reclamation, as well as on additional work by the Navajo
Department of Water Resources, the City of Gallup, and the Northwest New Mexico
Council of Governments. Federal
planning funds totaling nearly $2 million have been appropriated and utilized
over the past decade, matched by local and Federal cash and in-kind
contributions of over $500,000. A new
planning appropriation of $300,000 is in the administration’s FY 2004
budget.
The project’s selected pipeline alignment provides for a western
component that takes San Juan River water from the Public Service Company
of New Mexico diversion structure in Kirtland (downstream from Farmington to
its west) and conveys it westward to Shiprock and State Highway 666, thence
southward to Yah-ta-Hey junction north of Gallup, with laterals to Window Rock
and other communities in the eastern Navajo Nation, as well as an eastern
component that includes a pipeline extending southward from the Cutter
Reservoir to the Counselor area of the eastern Navajo Reservation, with access
at TeePee Junction by the Jicarilla Apache Nation. In summary, the project will divert about 36,000 acre-feet of
water annually from the San Juan River for municipal and industrial use within
a service area defined by the following:
Ø
43 Chapters of
the Navajo Nation in its Northern, Eastern & Ft. Defiance Agencies,
including service to the Window Rock area and to Chapters contiguous to the
City of Gallup;
Ø
the southwestern
portion of the Jicarilla Apache Nation; and
Ø
the City of
Gallup proper.
2.
The Canyon Project”:
Opportunity from Diversity
As an extension of the Water Re-use strategy
described above, the “Canyon Project” has been proposed as an idea with
potential to enhance and secure the future water supply for Gallup. This project, as outlined by Water
Superintendent Lance Allgood, would provide a secondary use for the treated
wastewater stream, thus producing net “water savings” of up to one-third of the
City’s projected annual water demand at the 40-year horizon.
The
Canyon Project would divert and lift
all or a portion of the current effluent from the City’s Wastewater Treatment
Plant to a discharge point about 2¼ miles north of that facility. The water would be released at the head of a
scenic canyon, where it would flow through a series of ponds, streams and
wetlands, culminating in a large lake near the mouth of the canyon. The lake
would store water for several water reuse projects.
Although
high evaporation and transpiration losses would occur throughout the project,
such loss would be from water that would otherwise simply flow down the Rio
Puerco unused.
At
present the average daily discharge from the Wastewater Treatment Plant is
about three million gallons per day (3 MGD).
Except for about 0.65 MGD, the City currently discharges all of this
treated wastewater into the Rio Puerco.
During the growing season and intermittently during the remainder of the
year, this .65 MGD is utilized at the City’s Golf Course, the Sports Complex
and the Soccer Fields located near the Plant.
This use is widely variable and dependent on weather patterns and
natural precipitation.
The
Canyon Project would provide an estimated one billion gallons of storage
in the course of a year, thus making
water available for secondary uses throughout the year. Beyond simple storage, the project would
also provide many diverse opportunities and benefits.
The
City is contracting with the US Bureau of Reclamation to conduct an
appraisal-level study of a Reverse Osmosis (RO) filtering system to remove
salts from the effluent stream, making it much more useful for irrigation. The
RO process will also treat the water to a standard that is “all but drinkable,”
with almost no limitations on its application.
One
concept for The Canyon Project, with maximum efficiency in mind, is to locate
all or the largest portion of the City’s sports and recreation facilities
within the project’s boundaries. This
arrangement would enable the City to utilize reclaimed water for the irrigation
of these facilities, freeing about .5 MGD of the City’s drinking water for
other uses during peak use periods.
This is much more economically feasible than piping and pumping
reclaimed water to the City’s recreation facilities at their present locations.
Such
focused use of water would not imply that the City’s neighborhoods would
lose their parks; rather, that there would be fewer irrigated fields in such
neighborhood parks, and some currently irrigated spaces could be converted into
dry basketball, tennis courts and playgrounds.
This downsizing of the parks would also create an opportunity for the
sale of the resulting surplus City property to prospective developers. As such property is within the City limits
and is generally served by City utilities, resale of the City properties would
provide the opportunity for development without expansion of the land base,
i.e., a concept that is in line with the City’s Growth Management Plan.
Another
benefit of the Canyon Project would be the constructive reuse of high-nutrient
sludge. The City is currently disposing
of the solids (sludge) generated as a part of the wastewater treatment process
by simply tilling it into the soil – with no real benefit. By adding a step to the treatment process,
the City could bring the sludge to a level of treatment where it could be used
as a fertilizer and soil conditioner without limitation. Sludge of this quality
would have a significant beneficial application within the theme of the Canyon
Project. Whatever sludge is not used
may well be a marketable product, thus helping to finance the additional
treatment process.
In
terms of environmental enhancement and “working with nature,” the project would
create a much more diverse wildlife habitat than presently exists. This would benefit not only the resident
wildlife population of mule deer, fox, coyote, bear, cougar, bobcat, squirrels,
and rabbits, but also many migratory birds that pass through the area on an
annual basis.
One
only has to look to the City’s much smaller project at its public Golf Course
to see the possibilities of enhanced wetlands for attracting both resident and
migratory wildlife species. Since its
completion in 1995, the recirculation stream and storage pond at the Golf
Course has attracted many migratory bird species, such as mallard, pintail,
common coot, green wing and cinnamon teal, wood duck, heron, egret, common
snipe, redwing black birds, dippers, ibis, plovers, pipers, and songbirds. Following in the footsteps of these species
have been local predators such as fox, coyote and raptors, which have begun to
make regular appearances at the Golf Course.
A nature-based water re-use facility as large and diverse as the Canyon
Project could expect to attract a large majority of migratory birds common to
the area’s flyway. Many people travel
great distances to view these species at other locations within the state. Gallup might well be added to their list if
this project were to occur. It would
also provide local residents and neighbors – who just can’t find the time to
get away to other distant locations – a place where they could go to view the
splendor of nature.
Some
in our community have talked of creating a hands-on museum for our youth. What better place would there be than within
the Canyon Project area? This idea might be expanded to include a
“sustainability museum” showcasing emerging technology and approaches to
sustaining our environment. The plans of the Gallup Campus of the University of
New Mexico for a botanical garden is complementary to this idea.
The Canyon Project also provides many
educational opportunities, in that it would create a “living classroom.” Many of our country’s emerging environmental
and water reuse technologies could be put to use and tested as a part of the
project. This opens the door to an emerging environmental technology curriculum
in our schools, as well as to possible full-blown undergraduate and graduate
college programs.
A
local plan to restore a portion of the riparian habitat along the Rio Puerco
lies within the Canyon Project boundaries and would fit well into the
project. The Project area is a perfect
venue for – and doorway to – the “Adventure Gallup” project, which is a
far-ranging community initiative to attract local residents and visitors into a
series of biking and hiking trails, as well as other outdoor adventure
activities, in the surrounding hills and valleys. The Canyon Project would also
incorporate riverwalks and wildlife viewing platforms. The combination of these
projects has a huge potential for attracting many travelers who may otherwise
just pass by Gallup. The restoration
project is described in the next section, referring to the maps included in the
next two pages.
Finally,
as technology develops and public opinion changes, water from this project
would be available for final treatment and return to the drinking water supply.
If
even a portion of these visions were realized, the Canyon Project would create
opportunities for commercial development, such as: an Indian Village and marketplace; Curio/Gift shops; restaurants;
motels; daycare centers; guide services; and other economic and eco-tourism
activities. Ultimately the project could become a destination resort for the “environmentally
conscious.”
In
summary, the Canyon Project’s potential benefits include:
§
Reduced demand on the City’s drinking water
supply through indirect reuse (for example, offsetting the use of drinking
water currently used for irrigated lawns);
§
Provision of a living classroom for both
high school and college programs;
§
A destination venue for eco-tourism;
§
New economic development opportunities;
§
Expanded and enriched recreation venues;
§
Diversified
and enhanced wildlife habitat
§
A
model of sustainability through reuse.
3.
Rio
Puerco Restoration Project
The
Rio Puerco Restoration Project is a planned restoration of the first one-mile
reach of the Rio Puerco of the West immediately downstream (west) of the
Gallup, New Mexico Municipal Water Treatment Facility. The area in question is
located approximately 5 miles west of Gallup in T 14 N., R 18 W, Section 23.
The project is to be carried out by Connections, Inc., a local 501 (c) (3)
not-for-profit community service organization, with the sponsorship of the
McKinley County Soil and Water Conservation Board.
The
project area entails land south and north of the Rio Puerco of the West,
parcels owned, respectively, by the City of Gallup and Gamerco Associates, both
of which have given permission for the project. The “river” here mimics a perennial stream due to the release
into the riverbed of approximately 3 million gallons of treated effluent from
the adjacent Water Treatment Facility. This effluent is of sufficient quantity
to allow and facilitate restoration of a narrow but significant bosque.
The
Rio Puerco Restoration Project is an extension of a major local economic
development and quality of life enhancement program called “Adventure Gallup,”
a large-scale effort to develop adventure tourism in the Gallup area through
the development of an extensive network of trails and rock climbing venues in
the rough country surrounding Gallup. Both the City of Gallup and McKinley
County are sponsors of Adventure Gallup. Specifically, Gamerco Associates, the
largest private landowner in the area, has agreed to allow these developments
on multiple sections of its lands bordering the Rio Puerco west of Gallup.
The
Rio Puerco Restoration Project will adjoin the Adventure Gallup lands and
constitute a “soft” addition emphasizing land and water stewardship, education
for citizens of all ages, and a valuable and inspiring example of ecological
restoration. It is hoped that eventually the restored river will be the
centerpiece of a nature refuge and environmental education center along the
lines of the La Semilla Park, the New Mexico State Land Office/ Allan Savory
Center for Holistic Management partnership to be created adjoining the new Mesa
del Sol development in SE Albuquerque. Extension of this project is also
preliminarily adopted by the Little Colorado River MOM as a major portion of
its projected major basin-wide initiative through US EPA.
Scope: The project will entail 4 major foci:
- Moving the
effluent from the current “ditch”, a deeply incised and linear artificial
channel created years ago, into the original river bed, which is
immediately adjacent to the north. This bed retains most of its structural
integrity and considerable natural meander. The move will entail
approximately a 200 foot extension of the effluent pipe so that effluent
can move past the “ditch” into the original river bed. It will also entail
minor damming earthworks to block off the original bed from various
“leakage” points into the “ditch.” This portion of the work re-establishes
the original reach of the river.
- Eradication
of salt cedar and other invasive species along both the ditch and the
adjacent stream bed. This will be accomplished using aerial (helicopter)
application of Arsenal herbicide, by far the most effective method, and
the one currently adopted by the State of New Mexico for its Rio Pecos and
Rio Grande salt cedar eradication projects. Arsenal will not hurt animals
and has had a 97% effectiveness on salt cedar to date. Die-off occurs over
one growing season, following which the dead salt cedars are mechanically
removed from the stream course.
- Pole
plantings of willows, cottonwoods, and other native species along the
stream channel. The poles are obtainable from Bosque Del Apache, the Plant
Materials Center, and various other sources. Plantings will be
accomplished by local volunteers and some paid assistants. Monitoring and
ecosystem planning will be integral to this phase and will be accomplished
by knowledgeable Connections, Inc. employees, area volunteers, NRCS, and
local college classes.
- Planning for
the eventual Nature Preserve Environmental Education Center. This will be
accomplished by Connections, Inc. in conjunction with the Allan Savory
Center for Holistic Management and the Center for Sustainable Environments
at Northern Arizona University.
Duration: Connections, Inc. is ready to move on the
Rio Puerco Restoration Project as soon as funding is available. With adequate
funding the project as outlined above could be well along within 2 years. The
Santa Fe River Preserve, a somewhat similar restoration project in Santa Fe,
achieved significant riparian regeneration within 2 years.
The Rio
Puerco Restoration Project fits extremely well with the “Adventure Gallup and
Beyond” economic development project which is central to current and future
local planning, and is, as well, a natural lead in to the “Canyon Project,”
described elsewhere in this report. (See accompanying map). It would entail
beatification of the south side of the Adventure Gallup area to which it would
be connected via one or more aesthetically pleasing foot bridges. It would
entail the construction of walking paths on both sides of the river, an area
for both strolling and the discovery of new riparian life along what has always
been the River of Life in our area.
Work
on the Rio Puerco Restoration Project would be accomplished through multiple
sources. Partnerships are already being formed among the following, all useful
for overall success:
- McKinley
County Soil and Water Conservation District.
- Natural
Resources Conservation Service
- Connections, Inc.
- McKinley County
- City of Gallup
- Northwest New Mexico Council of
Governments
- Little Colorado River Resource
Conservation and Development Project
- Plateau
Sciences Society
Together,
this partnership provides a powerful combination of knowledge and resources to
bring the Rio Puerco back to health and beauty. Together with the “Canyon
Project” and “Adventure Gallup and Beyond,” it would be a model for low-impact
sustainable development for the arid Southwest.
Economically
speaking, the larger project could also generate funds for its enhancement by
becoming an example of conscious living. If properly described and marketed, it
would attract eco-tourists, a growing and lucrative market, to come to Gallup
not only as observers, but as participants in the growing of the
ever-developing eco-city of the future. Increasing thousands currently engage
in similar endeavors in the Costa Rican rainforest, Nature Conservancy habitat
restorations worldwide, and various “citizen archaeology” programs. Often these
eco-tourists “adopt” a certain area, return often, and give large amounts of
money to enhancement efforts extending over many years. Adoption of a
sustainable future arid lands sustainability project based on Rio Puerco
Restoration and the interconnected Adventure Gallup/Canyon Project would appeal
to many visionary investors, and Gallup could become a model for such
development in arid lands internationally, where arid lands make up roughly 30%
of all lands.
The
Rio Puerco Restoration Project also entails one other gift for Gallup. That is
its value as a metaphor of hope, hope that together we can bring back Mother
Earth and find sustainable development as we focus on all of us together as
living systems. We can succeed economically as we demonstrate our joy in new
and sustainable development.
IV.
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
A.
Designing a Desired Future
The
Gallup Town Hall on Water is designed to evoke ideas: new insights and analyses into Gallup’s
“water crisis”; discussion of new
possibilities in how we collect, use, re-use, conserve and share water; presentation of new technologies, products
and projects with the potential to achieve water savings and/or augment the
City’s supply of water; recommendations on strategies, political actions, financing
and policies for consideration and implementation by the City and by its
ever-growing circle of citizen-advisors.
The
Mayor’s task force would encourage all Town Hall participants:
·
first, to participate in the Town Hall with
an open mind – being available to the information, perspectives and
ideas shared throughout the event;
·
second, to approach the “water crisis”
issue in the spirit of “opportunity” – looking for constructive ways out
of the dilemma and toward a
water-secure future;
·
third, to be visionary in
considering the community’s possible futures – seeking mental pictures and
models of “ideal” conditions to which the community can aspire, given our
inherent geographic limitations but our infinite capacity to adapt, create and
move forward;
·
fourth, to be proactive, innovative and
creative in providing ideas and suggestions, since this approach provides
the most fertile opportunity for discovering breakthrough strategies and
effective paths of action; and
·
fifth, to be prepared to be part of the
solution as the City moves forward to implement the ideas and
recommendations of the Town Hall.
B.
Critical questions
And
so, we – the citizens, friends and neighbors of Gallup, New Mexico – gather to
consider the challenges before us. In
the Town Hall workshops, a series of critical questions will be asked. These may be asked in a variety of ways by
the workshop facilitators, but they will eventually concern the following core
issues:
1.
WATER SUPPLY OPTIONS
– What are our feasible water supply options?
What are the constraints and opportunities that affect our choices: hydrological? technical?
financial? legal? political?
2.
WATER CONSERVATION
– What does “conservation” mean under our circumstances? What benefits can be gained from a
comprehensive and innovative conservation program? What are the limits of these gains? How can we use – and re-use – our water supply in a way that
protects and extends our water future?
What happens if we don’t get the Navajo/Gallup project water – or less
than we thought; or later than we thought; or more expensively than we thought?
3.
VISION
– Given the limitations and costs of water supply for Gallup … what should
Gallup look like in the future? What
kinds of economic development make sense?
What new technology might we tap?
What will constitute our quality of life? What’s going to be the “Gallup Model” of a sustainable town in
the Western states?
4.
RECOMMENDATIONS
– So … how do we get There from Here? Who pays – and how? What commitments need to be made – by the
City government? by the citizens? What education is needed – of ourselves, of
others? What does a coherent system and
policy look like? How do we get to the
“front of the curve” in terms of water management technology? What should the Gallup Model of an “Active
Water Resource Management” system look like?
What’s missing from the dialogue?
What are our next steps?
Forward, then … to Gallup’s water
future!
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Sample Listing of Suggested References
City
of Gallup References
Well
Production Planning Report: City of
Gallup, New Mexico by Sterling & Mataya, &
Shomaker.
Water
Supply Studies and Forty-Year Water Supply Master Plan: City of Gallup
by Shomaker, Leedshill-Herkenhoff, Sterling & Mataya, & Mason (January,
1991).
Water
Development Plan Update: City of Gallup
Water System by Southwest Water Consultants (August,
2000).
City
of Gallup Transmission and Storage Facilities by
DePauli Engineering and Surveying (December, 2000).
City
of Gallup, New Mexico: Wastewater
Collection/Recycling Model Project Interim Report
by DePauli Engineering and Surveying (November, 2001).
Business
and Residential Water Use: City of Gallup, New Mexico
by DePauli Engineering and Surveying (January, 2002).
Addendum
to the Navajo/Gallup Water Supply Project Report “City of Gallup Transmission
and Storage Facilities” provided by DePauli Engineering and Surveying Co
December 2000// revised January 2001 supplemented by “Business &
Residential Water Use” analysis, January 2001 pursuant to USDA/RBEG Grant by
Northwest New Mexico Council of Governments (April, 2002)
The
Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project:
City of Gallup Regional Transmission and Storage Facilities by
DePauli Engineering and Surveying (April 2003).
Regional
References
40-Year
Regional Water Plan, New Mexico State Planning & Development District
1: San Juan, McKinley, and Cibola
Counties by Northwest New Mexico Council of
Governments; Leedshill-Herkenhoff, Shomaker, & Dumars—consulting authors
(March, 1994).
Region
6 Water Plan: The 40-Year Regional
Water Plan for Cibola County and the portion of McKinley County not in the San
Juan Basin by Northwest New Mexico Council of
Governments; Murnane, Hausam, & Kiely—principal authors (March 1998).
Region
6 Water Plan: Phase II – Evaluation of
Alternatives and Presentation of Strategies by (July
2001).
Handbook
for Local Water Planning & Implementation – Water Planning Region 6
by (July 2001).
Region
6 Water Plan: Plan Summary
by Northwest New Mexico Council of Governments; Kiely, principal author (April, 2003).
Navajo-Gallup
Water Supply References
Water
Resource Development Strategy for the Navajo Nation
by the Navajo Nation Department of Water Resources (July, 2000)
Technical
Memorandum: The Navajo-Gallup Water
Supply Project by the Navajo Nation Department of Water
Resources, the City of Gallup, the Northwest New Mexico Council of Governments,
& the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (March 2001).
New
Mexico References
Taking
Charge of Our Water Destiny: A Water
Management Policy Guide for New Mexico in the 21st Century
by Belin, Bokum, & Titus (2002)
New
Mexico’s Water: Perceptions, Reality
and Imperatives – Report of the Twenty-Eighth New Mexico First Town Hall. Background report
by Johnson & Shomaker (May, 2002).
Framework
for Public Input to a State Water Plan by the New Mexico
Office of the State Engineer & the Interstate Stream Commission (December,
2002).
Water
Use by Categories in New Mexico Counties and River Basins, and Irrigated
Acreage in 2000 by Wilson, Lucero, J. Romero &
P. Romero (February, 2003).
Other
References
City
of Grants New Mexico: 40-Year Water
Plan by Northwest New Mexico Council of
Governments, Sharon Hausam, principal author (1999).
