Workshop for Local Legislators and Participating OfficialsMay 7, 2008

City of Las Cruces Doña Ana CountyDoña Ana MDWCATown of MesillaAnthony WSDVillage of HatchNew Mexico State UniversityElephant Butte Irrigation District

The Rio Grande Project Settlement of 2008

1905-1916The Rio Grande

Project

New Mexico:Elephant Butte

Irrigation District(EBID)

90,640 acres (57%)

El Paso County Water Improvement District No. 1

(EPCWID)69,010 acres (43%)

Mexico60,000 AF

Compact NM

Compact TX

1938 – The Rio Grande Compact

Otowi

• Apportions the water of the Rio Grande among Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas– Federal government

operated the Rio Grande Project as a single unit

– Entire Rio Grande Project included in Texas

– No provision for apportioning water within the Rio Grande Project

Irrigation Hydrologic Cycle:Plan View

Irrigation Hydrologic Cycle:Plan View

Reservoir Rio Grande

Release/Diversion

Diversion

Main C

anals

Lat

eral

s

Conveyance/Distribution

Deliveries

Delivery (Farm Turnout)

Drains

Return Flows

DownstreamUsers

Post-Compact Problems • 1951-1978 – Persistent recurring drought

– Rio Grande Project farmers respond to short water supply by developing groundwater pumping capacity

– D1 and D2 curves developed for future allocation to EBID, EPCWID, and Mexico

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000

1,000,000

0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000

Release, AF

De

liv

ery

/Div

ers

ion

, A

F

DeliveryD1

DiversionD2

Rel

ease

600

kA

F

D2 - Divert 713 kAF

D1 - Deliver 393 kAF

Post-Reclamation• 1979 - 80 – Districts pays off construction loans

– Reclamation contractually obligated to develop allocation and operating plan for Project

• 1980 – City of El Paso applied for groundwater well permits in New Mexico portion of Mesilla Bolson– State of New Mexico denies application– Ensuing lawsuit by El Paso dismissed in 1991

• 1979-2002 – Full allocations to EBID, EPCWID, and Mexico

• 1997 – 2001 Reclamation files Quiet Title Suit– EPCWID files cross claim– Trilateral negotiations begin in 1998, collapse in 2000– Suit dismissed in 2001– EBID files suit in Federal District Court in Albuquerque

GroundwaterGroundwater

Diversion/ConveyanceDiversion/Conveyance

DrainageDrainage ReturnReturnFlowFlow

SeepageSeepage

WellWell

CropCropWaterWaterUseUse

IrrigationIrrigationCanalCanal

FieldFieldDrainDrain Rio Rio

GrandeGrande

Problem: Release to diversion hydrology altered by groundwater pumping in New Mexico

Return of Drought

• 2003 – After 24 years of full supply, drought returns

• 2003 – 2006 – Reclamation employs “ad hoc” allocation method– Mexico’s allocation based on usable water in

Project storage– Remaining diversion divided between EBID

and EPCWID in 57%/43% proportions, respectively

Visualizing Groundwater Impacts

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

Thousa

nds

Thousands

Rel

Div

D2

1938-1950

1951-1978

1979-2002

2003-2007

Visualizing Groundwater Impacts

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

Thousa

nds

Thousands

Rel

Div

D2

2003-2007

Year Release D2 Diversion Actual Diversion Deviation2003 363,963 396,939 350,231 -46,7082004 399,576 444,583 355,000 -89,5832005 659,000 791,640 639,230 -152,4102006 433,000 489,297 415,680 -73,6172007 636,136 761,052 632,872 -128,181

07

06

05

0403

Dangers of Groundwater Depletions of Surface Water

• Kansas v. Colorado on the Arkansas River

• Texas v. New Mexico on the Pecos River– $15M settlement, $180M compliance cost

• Rio Grande much higher value resource

Escalating Tensions

• 2006 – (April) EBID proposes D3 allocation method, tying EPCWID and Mexico allocations to Project Release, based on D1/D2

• Inconsistent implementation by U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

• 2007 – EPCWID files suit in federal district court in Texas based on Reclamation’s allocation and carryover issues

• Litigation appears inevitable

February 14, 2008

• January 2008 – Last-ditch attempt to January 2008 – Last-ditch attempt to negotiate allocation and operating negotiate allocation and operating agreementagreement– Mediated by Texas Compact Commissioner Mediated by Texas Compact Commissioner

Pat GordonPat Gordon– Major issues addressed January 21 and 22Major issues addressed January 21 and 22– Details worked out January 23 to February 13Details worked out January 23 to February 13

Highlights of the Agreement• Annual Allocation based on D3 procedure (D1 basis for Mexico

allocation, D2 basis for El Paso #1 allocation)

• 1951-78 level of groundwater pumping grandfathered in

• EBID benefits from Project supply in excess of D2 level if release is greater than 600 kAF

• Carryover equal to 60 percent of a full allocation may be accumulated by each district (306 kAF for EBID, 233 kAF for EPCWID)

• Excess carryover goes into account of other district

• Mexico’s allocation based on actual release

Key Points of Compromise• EPCWID wanted and got carryover, protection from impacts of

excessive groundwater pumping in New Mexico

• EBID wanted and got D3 as basis for allocation of Project Water regardless of origin, and accountability from Reclamation

• EBID and EPCWID dismiss their lawsuits

• Reclamation will conduct an internal review of the operations of the El Paso Field Office under the Managing for Excellence program

• Allocation and operating procedures are specifically codified, subject to change by consensus agreement

Benefits• Massive court, settlement, and

compliance costs avoided• Cost to State of New Mexico:

$0.00• Potential for LRG to develop

innovative conjunctive management of water resources

• Resources can be focused on improving productivity rather than litigation

• Local solution to local problem• LRG water supply is as certain as

it can be

What’s Next?• Negotiations with State of New Mexico over conjunctive

management of surface water and groundwater

• Continuing coordination among water use sectors– Protect existing equities and beneficial use– Plan for and support economic development and changing

use

• Storm water management and capture– Address existing flood control deficiencies– Take advantage of opportunity for new water

LRGWUO’s Flood – Related Initiatives

• Need continued Dam Safety – Pilot Project– Training, inspection, inundation mapping,

emergency response planning– Building local organizational and institutional

infrastructure

• Need an Early Warning System– National Weather Service NEXRAD– Upper watershed and flow instrumentation

• Pilot project in Placitas (Hatch), Rincon, and Picacho Arroyos

• Need a Storm Water Capture and Use program– Controlled release from dams to river, canals, drains,

Municipal &Industrial treatment– Offset release from Caballo Reservoir– Infiltration for aquifer recharge– Environmental enhancements for river restoration– Water quality enhancements – E. Coli mitigation– Sediment management– Redesign of flood control infrastructure– Institutional/legal implications

• Need an Aquifer Storage and Recovery program

LRGWUO’s Flood – Related Initiatives Continued…

Municipal and Industrial Surface Water Treatment Initiatives

• Village of Hatch – Rincon Valley

• Doña Ana Mutual Domestic Water Consumers Association – North Valley

• City of Las Cruces

• Mesquite Mutual Domestic Water Consumers Association – South Valley

Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse Initiatives

• City of Las Cruces

• Doña Ana Mutual Domestic Water Consumers Association – North Valley

• Village of Hatch – Rincon Valley

• Doña Ana County

Funding RequestsItem Subtotal TotalFlood - Related Initiatives $3,050,000 Early Warning System $650,000 Dam Safety Center $500,000 Critical Flood Assessment and Planning $500,000 Storm Water Capture and Use Planning $1,400,000Aquifer Storage and Recovery Pilot Project $575,300 $575,300M&I Surface Water Treatment $15,200,000 Village of Hatch $200,000 Doña Ana MDWCA $15,000,000 City of Las Cruces - Comprehensive Feasibility Rpt Fully Funded $0 $0 Mesquite MDWCAWastewater Reclamation and Reuse Initiatives $22,200,000 City of Las Cruces - Fully Funded $0 $0 Doña Ana MDWCA $20,000,000 Village of Hatch $2,000,000 Doña Ana County $200,000

TOTAL $41,025,300

Questions?