Water for River Restoration: Potential for
Collaboration between
Agricultural and Environmental Water Users in
the Rio Grande Project Area
Report prepared for Chihuahuan Desert Program,
World Wildlife Fund
By:
J. Phillip King, P.E., Ph.D.
Julie Maitland, M.A.
June 2003
Table of Contents
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. 4
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. 5
Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... 6
Executive Summary........................................................................................................................ 7
Chapter I : Introduction................................................................................................................. 11
A . Objectives................................................................................................................................ 11
B . Scope and Limitations ............................................................................................................. 11
Chapter II : The Rio Grande and its Institutions ........................................................................... 13
A . Physiographic Description of Study Area............................................................................... 13
B . The Rio Grande Compact........................................................................................................ 15
C . The Rio Grande Project ........................................................................................................... 27
Chapter III : Demographics and Socio-Economics for Agriculture ............................................. 35
A . Number and Size of Farms...................................................................................................... 35
B . County Profile Information.................................................................................................... 36
C . Summary of Market Value of Agricultural Products ............................................................. 37
D . Trends and Technology.......................................................................................................... 39
1 . Dairy Production.................................................................................................................. 39
2 . Irrigation Technology ......................................................................................................... 40
3 . Price of Water ...................................................................................................................... 42
E . Net Cash Return and Government Payments .......................................................................... 43
F . Characteristics of Farm Operators .......................................................................................... 45
G . Regional Population Information........................................................................................... 46
H . Municipal Water Demand ...................................................................................................... 48
Chapter IV : Irrigation Hydrology ................................................................................................ 49
A . Release, Diversion, Delivery, Losses, and Return Flows ....................................................... 49
B . Efficiency ............................................................................................................................... 52
C . Water Conservation Hydrology .............................................................................................. 53
Chapter V : Elephant Butte Irrigation District.............................................................................. 56
A . Background and History ........................................................................................................ 56
B . Organization........................................................................................................................... 57
C . Diversion structures and service area ..................................................................................... 61
D . Conveyance System ............................................................................................................... 64
E . Farm application..................................................................................................................... 64
F . Drainage and return flow system............................................................................................ 67
G . Cropping patterns in EBID .................................................................................................... 70
H . Transfer policies and procedures. .......................................................................................... 71
I . Non-agricultural water use ...................................................................................................... 72
J . Conservation policies and practices ........................................................................................ 75
Chapter VI : El Paso County Water Improvement District No. 1 ................................................ 79
A . Background and History ........................................................................................................ 79
B . Organization............................................................................................................................ 79
C . Diversion Structures and Service Area .................................................................................. 80
D . Conveyance System ............................................................................................................... 80
E . Farm Application.................................................................................................................... 81
F . Drainage and Return Flows .................................................................................................... 81
G . Cropping patterns in EPCWID .............................................................................................. 81
H . Transfer Policies and Procedures........................................................................................... 82
I . Non-agricultural Water Use in EPCWID ................................................................................ 83
Chapter VII : Hudspeth County Conservation and Reclamation District No. 1 ........................... 86
A . Background and History ......................................................................................................... 86
B . Organization............................................................................................................................ 88
C . Diversion Structures and Service Area ................................................................................... 88
D . Conveyance System ............................................................................................................... 92
E . Farm Application..................................................................................................................... 93
F . Drainage and return Flows....................................................................................................... 93
G . Cropping patterns in HCCRD ................................................................................................. 94
H . Potential for Water Conservation for Restoration................................................................... 94
Chapter VIII : Potential for Managing Water for Restoration Projects ........................................ 96
A . Developing the Institutional Framework for Obtaining and Managing Water for Restoration
....................................................................................................................................................... 96
B . Purchase of Water Rights........................................................................................................ 99
C . Leases of Water.................................................................................................................... 101
D . Passive Use of Water for Restoration .................................................................................. 104
E . Water Conservation for Restoration..................................................................................... 107
F . On-Farm Water Conservation................................................................................................ 108
1 . Farm Delivery Metering..................................................................................................... 108
2 . Laser Leveling.................................................................................................................... 110
3 . Pressurized Irrigation (Drip and Sprinkler) ....................................................................... 111
4 . High Flow Turnouts ........................................................................................................... 116
5 . Low Water Use Crops........................................................................................................ 118
6 . Deficit Irrigation ................................................................................................................ 119
7 . Cultural Practices .............................................................................................................. 119
G . System- Level Conservation.................................................................................................. 120
1 . Canal Lining....................................................................................................................... 120
2 . Rates and Rate Structures .................................................................................................. 122
3 . Charges to Constituents .................................................................................................... 123
4 . Release Management to Maximize System Efficiency ..................................................... 124
Chapter IX : Current Issues on the Rio Grande ......................................................................... 127
A . Endangered Species .............................................................................................................. 127
B . New Mexico Stream Adjudication....................................................................................... 128
C . Disputes between Texas and New Mexico over the Rio Grande ......................................... 130
Chapter X : Summary and Conclusions ..................................................................................... 132
References ................................................................................................................................... 136
Appendices.................................................................................................................................. 139
A . Compact Disk....................................................................................................................... 139
1 . Rincon.jpg – Map of Rincon Valley irrigation system, EBID. ......................................... 139
2 . Mesilla.jpg – Map of Mesilla Valley irrigation system, EBID and EPCWID. ................. 139
3 . El Paso.jpg – Map of El Paso Valley irrigation system, EPCWID. .................................. 139
4 . Hudspeth.jpg – Map of Hudspeth County irrigation system, HCCRD. ............................ 139
B . The Rio Grande Compact..................................................................................................... 140
2
C . The 1906 Convention between the United States and Mexico, Equitable Distribution of the
Waters of the Rio Grande............................................................................................................ 156
D . 1906 and 1908 Letters from U.S. Reclamation Service to Territorial Engineer of New
Mexico appropriating water for the Rio Grande Reclamation Project ....................................... 161
E . EBID Mutual Water Users Association Policy .................................................................... 166
3
List of Figures
Figure 1: Rio Grande Compact area. From Report of the Rio Grande Compact Commission, 2000.
................................................................................................................................................... 16
Figure 2: Rio Grande Compact index gages. From Report of the Rio Grande Compact
Commission, 2001..................................................................................................................... 17
Figure 3: Rio Grande Project map. See included CD for more detailed project maps. ................... 29
Figure 4: Deliveries to Mexico at the Acequia Madre and Caballo releases, 1939-1999. .............. 31
Figure 5: The D1 and D2 allocation curves. ..................................................................................... 33
Figure 6: Organizational chart for Elephant Butte Irrigation District............................................... 58
Figure 7: Percha Diversion Dam. ...................................................................................................... 62
Figure 8: Leasburg Diversion Dam (photo by Zhuping Sheng). ..................................................... 63
Figure 9: Mesilla Dam ...................................................................................................................... 64
Figure 10: Groundwater well in EBID. ............................................................................................ 67
Figure 11: Seasonal variation in monthly flow and TDS in the West Drain, 1981-1984................. 68
Figure 12: Annual flow of the West Drain and Westside Canal, 1930-1984. ................................. 69
Figure 13: Crop mix in EBID, 1960-2001. Width of each bar represents irrigated acreage. ......... 71
Figure 14: Tentative structure for transfers of water to MWUAs. .................................................. 74
Figure 15: Hydrologic schematic of the Rio Grande between Caballo Dam and Courchesne Bridge
(Rio Grande at El Paso gauging station). .................................................................................. 76
Figure 16: Flows at Caballo and Courchesne Bridge, and net depletion in reach. .......................... 77
Figure 17: American Dam and the heading of the American Canal. ................................................ 79
Figure 18: Cropped acreage in EPCWID, 1986-1995, 1998. .......................................................... 82
Figure 19: Diversions in EPCWID, 1979-2000. .............................................................................. 85
Figure 20: Location of Hudspeth County Conservation and Reclamation District No. 1 (from Kirby,
1978). ........................................................................................................................................ 86
Figure 21: Water supply from EPCWID to HCCRD (from Kirby, 1978). ....................................... 89
Figure 22: Irrigated acreage, total inflow, and charges to HCCRD. ................................................. 91
Figure 23: Potential structure for Environmental Water Users Association within EBID. .............. 98
Figure 24: Riparian vegetation along the Selden Drain, EBID, 2001. A beaver dam is in the
foreground. .............................................................................................................................. 105
Figure 25: Center pivot irrigation system (from Zimmatic, inc.). .................................................. 113
Figure 26: High flow turnout on pecans in EBID. ......................................................................... 117
Figure 27: Caballo releases in 1956 and 1999. ............................................................................... 126
4
List of Tables
Table 1: Summary of characteristics of EBID, EPCWID, and HCCRD. .......................................... 9
Table 2: Summary of water conservation potential for river restoration in the Rio Grande Project
area. ........................................................................................................................................... 10
Table 3: Conejos River at Mouths (Los Sauces) as a function of Conejos Index Supply. Column
numbers (1) and (2) refer to the column designations in the Rio Grande Compact. ................ 18
Table 4: Rio Grande at Lobatos as a function of Rio Grande at Del Norte. ..................................... 19
Table 5: Elephant Butte index as a function of flow at Otowi Bridge.............................................. 21
Table 6: Colorado deliveries to New Mexico, 2000. ....................................................................... 25
Table 7: New Mexico Deliveries to Texas....................................................................................... 26
Table 8: Project Storage and Release accounting, 2000. ................................................................. 27
Table 9: Delivery schedule for water to Mexico under the Treaty of 1906..................................... 30
Table 10: Sierra County, New Mexico farm and irrigated land data, from Ag. Census, 1997......... 35
Table 11: Doña Ana County, New Mexico farm and irrigated land data, from Ag. Census, 1997. . 35
Table 12: El Paso County, Texas farm and irrigated land data, from Ag. Census, 1997. ................ 36
Table 13: Hudspeth County, Texas farm and irrigated land data, from Ag. Census, 1997. ............. 36
Table 14: Agricultural production by county for study region. ........................................................ 38
Table 15: Alfalfa water use and return under flood and trickle irrigation in Doña Ana County, from
McGuckin (1991). ..................................................................................................................... 41
Table 16: Crop Acreage, Water Use, Net Returns and Average Value per Acre Foot in EBID, from
McGuckin 2001......................................................................................................................... 42
Table 17: Crop Acreage, Water Use, Net Returns and Average Value per Acre Foot in EPCWID,
from McGuckin 2001................................................................................................................ 43
Table 18: Net return and government payments to farms (Ag. Census, 1997). ............................... 44
Table 19: Demographics of farmers in study area counties, from USDA National Agriculture
Statistics Service (1997)............................................................................................................ 46
Table 20: Population change in study area counties, 1990-2000...................................................... 47
Table 21: Urban water use in Las Cruces, the City of El Paso, and Ciudad Juarez for 1998 and
estimated for 2038, from Paso del Norte Water Task Force, 2001........................................... 49
Table 22: Parcel size distribution within EBID, 2002. .................................................................... 59
Table 23: EBID flat rate assessments, 2001. .................................................................................... 61
Table 24: Crop mix acreage in EBID, 1960-2001. .......................................................................... 70
Table 25: Cropped acreage in EPCWID, 1986-1995 and 1998. From District records (this omits
some very minor crops and does not subtract out double cropped acreage). ........................... 82
Table 26: Crops and crop value in HCCRD, 1980-2000, from Blair (2001).................................... 94
Table 27: Water prices in the Western United States, from Business Valuation Services, 1999. .. 103
Table 28: General characteristics of irrigation system types, based on Cuenca (1989). ............... 111
Table 29: Center pivot cost as a function of size. .......................................................................... 114
Table 30: Summary of potential projects for acquiring water for river restoration. ...................... 134
5
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to express their sincere gratitude to Jake Kline and Kenneth Carr of
Hudspeth County Conservation and Reclamation District No. 1 for their help and hospitality. We
would also like to thank Al Blair, consultant to HCCRD and El Paso County Water Improvement
District No. 1 for his help in gathering information for this report. Tom McGuckin’s work and
advice have been very valuable to us. Our understanding of the history, geography, and subtleties
of the operation of the Rio Grande Project and HCCRD has been greatly enhanced by Jim Kirby.
We thank Gary Esslinger, Henry Magallanez, and James Narvaez of Elephant Butte Irrigation
District for their help. We greatly appreciate the input of Gary Arnold, Rudy Provencio, James
Salopek, and Mack Sloan, and for their candor in discussions with us on complex issues. Finally,
we are most grateful to Beth Bardwell of the WWF for her involvement, help, and especially
patience.
6
Executive Summary
This report, commissioned by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), examines the potential for
developing sources of water for river restoration efforts. The primary geographic focus is the Rio
Grand Project, stretching from Elephant Butte Dam in Sierra County, New Mexico, to Fort
Quitman in Hudspeth County, Texas.
The Rio Grande Project was built to deliver surface water to farmers in Elephant Butte
Irrigation District (EBID), El Paso County Water Improve ment District No. 1 (EPCWID), and to
make deliveries required by treaty to the Republic of Mexico in Ciudad Juarez. Hudspeth County
Conservation and Reclamation District No. 1 (HCCRD) uses excess flows leaving EPCWID for
irrigation. This report focuses on the opportunities for identifying water that is, or could be made
to be available from the three U.S. districts for river restoration projects.
The primary source of water for the Rio Grande Project is runoff in the Rio Grande from
southern Colorado and northern New Mexico. This water is stored in two reservoirs, Elephant
Butte and Caballo. The Rio Grande Compact is a 1938 interstate agreement among Colorado, New
Mexico, and Texas that apportions water to the three states and provides water for delivery to
Mexico as dictated in a 1906 treaty between the U.S. and Mexico. The Compact places the Rio
Grande Project, including EBID which is entirely located in New Mexico, under the administrative
authority of the Texas Compact Commissioner. Within the Texas Compact area, water is
distributed to Rio Grande Project water users by the Bureau of Reclamation, and managed within
the irrigation systems by the respective districts.
Originally constructed by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation around 1916, the Rio Grande
Project was operated by Reclamation as a single irrigation system until the districts paid off their
federal construction loans in 1978. Since that time, the districts have operated as separate
management units with their own boards of directors and district personnel. Reclamation continues
to operate the storage dams, coordinating releases from storage to meet orders from the districts and
Mexico. The diversion structures providing water to the districts are maintained and operated by
the districts under contract to Reclamation, who maintains ownership of the diversion structures.
The International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) maintains much of the river channel
in the study reach, including flood control levies and river rectification structures.
EBID, the upstream district in the project, provides water to 90,640 water-righted acres in
New Mexico. Farmers grow pecans, alfalfa, cotton, vegetables including onions, lettuce, cabbage,
and chile, and other forage and miscellaneous crops. There is a general increase in acreage of
pecans, and a declining acreage of cotton. Overall actual irrigated acreage has decreased to about
75,000 acres, though the full 90,640 maintains appurtenant water rights. While all of the district’s
water is currently supplied to irrigators, the district has developed a policy to facilitate conversion
of agricultural water to municipal use if and when municipal water providers in the service area
develop the capacity to treat surface water. Farmers in EBID supplement their surface water supply
with groundwater produced from private wells. One important ongoing activity in EBID is the
adjudication of water rights, both surface and ground water, by the New Mexico Office of the State
Engineer.
EPCWID provides water to 69,010 water-righted acres in Texas. Primary crops are cotton
and alfalfa, with some forage, vegetables, and pecans. One of EPCWID’s largest constituents is the
City of El Paso, which uses about 50,000 acre- feet of surface water in a full supply year for
municipal and industrial water supply to supplement its groundwater sources. Farmers do use some
7
groundwater, though in general the groundwater is of lower quality than that in EBID, and may be
harmful to sensitive crops. Groundwater is primarily used for irrigation when drought reduces the
available surface water supply to EPCWID.
HCCRD contains 18,250 water-righted acres south of El Paso County, Texas. Primary
crops are cotton and alfalfa. The district is quite different from EBID and EPCWID in that it is not
a part of the Rio Grande Project. The water available to HCCRD is essentially whatever flows
leave EPCWID as drainage and operational spills, and so its water supply is highly unreliable and
subject to severe reduction in drought. HCCRD gets maximum use out of its water supply by
storing it in three relatively small reservoirs within the district, so the delivery can be managed to
meet crop demands. HCCRD has one non-agricultural user, the Esperanza Fresh Water Supply
Corporation, which provides water for industrial use.
A summary of key characteristics of the three districts within the study area is presented
below in Table 1.
In considering water use for river restoration, one must first consider that the Rio Grande in the
study area is fully and explicitly appropriated to the U.S. districts and Mexico. Identifying
restoration activities that do not increase depletions or decrease the ability of existing water users to
put water to beneficial use is a distinct possibility, and one that has been successfully used in the
Project. Further implementation of such activities can be accomplished through negotiations
directly with the irrigation districts, and possibly Reclamation. State agencies may also require
some involvement. An example of this approach is the development of a bosque on the Picacho
Drain in EBID, an ongoing project. HCCRD, in the normal operations of its regulating reservoirs,
creates significant avian habitat.
Obtaining water rights, through lease, purchase, or donation, and putting the water to use in
restoration activities. Again, this should be discussed early and often with the irrigation districts, as
any use of water for restoration would have to be coordinated with district operations, policies, and
limitations. Ultimately, Reclamation and state agencies may need to be included.
Water conservation measures may make additional water available for restoration. This is an
attractive alternative since it promotes collaboration between river restoration and agriculture.
Currently, any water savings realized by conservation is still allocated to the districts, so this
approach would require negotiation with individual farmers and the districts. The first step in
putting conserved water to use for river restoration would be to create, through negotiation with the
districts and appropriate government agencies, the details of how the accounting and administration
for conserved water would be carried out.
8
District
Parameter
Total acreage in district
Water-righted acreage
Actually irrigated acreage
Full supply diversion allocation, AF
2002 diversion charge, AF
Length of canals and laterals, mi
Length of lined canals and laterals,
mi
Length of drains, mi
Regulating reservoir capacity, AF
Conveyance Efficiency
Farm Application Efficiency
Primary Crops
Status of Adjudication
Hudspeth
County
Conservation
and
Reclamation
District No. 1
(HCCRD)
20,176
18,250
18,250
N/A
114,226*
59
Elephant Butte
Irrigation District
(EBID)
133,000
90,640
76,000
495,000
431,521
357
El Paso County
Water
Improvement
District No. 1
(EPCWID)
100,000
69,010
53,000
376,862
376,926
256
< 20
350
0
65%
50-82%
Pecans Alfalfa
Cotton
Vegetables
190
270
0
75%
50-75%
Cotton Alfalfa
Pecans
Vegetables
~0
76
3,600
80%
~ 50%
Cotton Alfalfa
Preliminary
hydrographic
survey complete;
offers being
made.
Pending
Pending
* 2001
Table 1: Summary of characteristics of EBID, EPCWID, and HCCRD.
Opportunities for conservation are evaluated in this report, and focus on the system level (river,
canal/lateral systems, and return flow systems) conservation and on-farm conservation.
Conventional ideas of water conservation cannot always be applied to a given system. There
may be negative consequences along with the good to water conservation measures. On- farm
conservation measures that increase application efficiency reduce the required application of
irrigation water to achieve a given level of yield (and depletion). While this is generally a benefit,
it will also reduce the return flow to drains, which provide important existing habitat. While the
return flows may be reduced, their salinity and the salinity in the shallow groundwater will likely
become more concentrated. It is, therefore, important to examine direct and indirect consequences
of conservation measures to ensure that they are consistent with broader conservation objectives.
Several potential water conservation measures are considered in the report. A summary of
these methods, and their applicability to each district, is presented below in Table 1.
9
Conservation Method
Canal Lining/Piping
Rate Structures, charges to
Constituents
Release management
Farm Delivery Metering
EBID
Moderate
Low
Laser Leveling
District
EPCWID
HCCRD
High
Low
High
Low
N/A
Moderate
Low (widely
adopted)
Moderate
Low (widely
adopted)
Low (widely
adopted)
Pressurized Irrigation (Drip and
Sprinkler)
High Flow Turnouts
Low Water Use Crops
Deficit Irrigation
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
High
High with cotton,
alfalfa; low with
others
Moderate
High
High with cotton,
alfalfa; low with
others
Moderate
High
High
Cultural Practices
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
High
Low (widely
adopted)
Table 2: Summary of water conservation potential for river restoration in the Rio Grande Project area.
The ratings presented in the table are based largely on the presence or absence of downstream
flow obligations (as in the case of canal lining for EBID), extent of current use of technolo gy (laser
leveling is already very widely adopted) and the nature of supply (drip and sprinkler irrigation).
Low water use crops should be investigated for water use, equipment and management
requirements, and market availability and reliability, but they represent potential water savings in
all districts.
Regardless of the means by which water for restoration is obtained, the use of existing policies,
or modification of policies to facilitate restoration use, should be negotiated with the districts first.
They are the most profoundly affected, and stand to regard efforts that bypass or delay their
influence as an attack on their property rights. On the other hand, if consensus can be reached with
one or more districts, the federal and state agencies invo lved tend to be amenable, as long as the
plan has the districts’ backing.
10
Chapter I : Introduction
This report was commissioned by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) to explore the potential for
working with agricultural water users to direct some part of the water supply of the Rio Grande in
the Chihuahuan Desert to restoration of the river. While there is a long and growing history of
disputes among competing water users in the Rio Grande Basin, and agricultural and environmental
groups have in particular butted heads, the two groups share many common interests in future
management of the river.
Agricultural water use in this reach of the Rio Grande accounts for more than 80 percent of
the diversions, and because irrigation was an early use, the water rights of farmers tend to be quite
senior. These water rights represent a property right and a valuable asset to farmers. The goal here
is to identify ways in which environmental groups can accomplish river restoration projects while
respecting the established rights of irrigators by either working within the existing system or
collaborating with farmers to modify the system to mutual benefit.
A. Objectives
The broad objectives in the production of this report are to:
1. Estimate and discuss the efficiencies of each of the irrigation districts within the study area;
2. Identify and characterize existing water conservation measures in practice within each of
the irrigation districts in the study area;
3. Identify water that is currently available, or that could be made available through
conservation or transfer, for riparian restoration;
4. Identify limitations and opportunities for land available for riparian restoration;
5. Identify existing or potential institutional mechanisms for managing water for riparian
restoration and instream flows;
6. Create a constructive dialogue among agricultural water users and environmental interests
and suggest projects aimed at obtaining and using water for restoration activities.
B. Scope and Limitations
The original geographic scope of this study included the southern end of the Middle Rio Grande
Conservancy District (MRGCD), which also falls within the Chihuahuan Desert. However, that is
a system separated by major hydrologic discontinuities in Elephant Butte and Caballo Reservoirs
11
from the Rio Grande Project area, and major institutional discontinuities in the Rio Grande
Compact delivery point from New Mexico to Texas at Elephant Butte Dam. Other studies are
currently addressing the very complicated environmental issues in the Middle Rio Grande as a
whole, so the southern section of MRGCD was dropped from the scope of this study.
The reach of the Rio Grande examined in this study is the Rio Grande Project area,
stretching from San Marcial, New Mexico to Fort Quitman Texas. Some consideration is also
given to the “Forgotten Reach” south of Fort Quitman to Candelaria, Texas. The study region
contains three irrigation districts that are extremely different in character from each other: Elephant
Butte Irrigation District (EBID) in New Mexico, and El Paso County Water Improvement District
No. 1 (EPCWID) and Hudspeth County Conservation and Reclamation District No. 1 in Texas.
Water is also delivered to the Republic of Mexico at the heading of the Acequia Madre into Ciudad
Juàrez in this reach. A few farmers in this area do irrigate with groundwater in the area, but the
virtually all of the surface water supply of the Rio Grande goes to constituents of the three districts.
The three districts are the focus of this study.
This study does not examine specific river restoration activities in detail. Rather, this can
be considered a precursor to detailed restoration planning, as one must know what resources, and
water is first and foremost, are available, and in what quantity and quality. The rules and
administrative procedures that have evolved over the past century or so must also be examined, as
any new use of water will have to conform to the rules, or the rules will have to conform to the new
use of water.
12
Chapter II : The Rio Grande and its Institutions
The hydrological and institutional frameworks of the Rio Grande are inexorably linked.
The structure of the institutions that govern the Rio Grande evolved based on the geology and
hydrology of the river, with political boundaries often being placed based on the river itself. The
discussion of the Rio Grande Compact and Rio Grande Project is therefore preceded with a
description of the earlier development and morphology of the river.
A. Physiographic Description of Study Area
The Rio Grande from San Marcial to Fort Quitman flows south across a string of basins that
step downward to the south with mountain ranges on the east and west. Physiographically, the
region is a part of the arid Mexican Highland Section of the Basin and Range Province (Fenneman,
1931). Geologically, the basins represent asymmetric and tilted and down-dropped fault blocks of
the Rio Grande rift tectonic province (Hawley, 1978; Seager and Morgan, 1979; and Keller and
Cather, 1994). The down-dropped fault blocks, called half grabens, are formed by master normal
faults that displace the deepest part of the basins against uplifted and structurally- high bedrock in
the region to form a complementary mountain range. The half grabens or basins are filled with up
to several thousand feet of consolidated and unconsolidated alluvial fill sediments of gravel, sand,
silt, and clay (Mack and others, 1998).
The Rio Grande tends to traverse the basin surface closest to the master fault of the half
graben (Leeder and others, 1996). The main tributaries tend to flow laterally to the Rio Grande
from the side of the basin opposite the master half- graben normal fault. The Palomas-Rincon basin
from San Marcial to Rincon is a good example of this configuration. The Rio Grande flows
southward parallel and closest to the Fray Cristobal and Caballo Mountains. The only major basin
drainages to the Rio Grande such as Percha Creek, Palomas Creek, Cuchillo-Monticello Canyon,
and Nogales Canyon, flow eastward out of the distant Black Range and San Mateo Mountains far
to the west on the Palomas-Rincon half graben hinge opposite the master Fray Cristobal-Caballo
master normal faults to the east. Only minor drainages enter the Rio Grande from the east across
the master graben faults from the Fray Cristobal and Caballo Mountains.
Each basin or half graben ends when the master fault dies out and transforms into another
master fault facing in the opposite or same direction (Morley, 1999). As a result, at the southern
end of each basin, the Rio Grande crosses a structurally- high bedrock constriction. The narrows at
13
Truth or Consequences to Elephant Butte, Selden Canyon between Rincon and Radium Springs
(Leasburg), and the El Paso Narrows are examples of the Rio Grande flowing from one basin to the
next across a "pass" or a structural- high bedrock zones between the half grabens. These passes
create separate groundwater systems such as the Mesilla Bolson aquifer system north of the El Paso
Narrows and the Hueco Bolson aquifer system south of the Narrows that are linked by a common
river.
The development of the Rio Grande in its present course in the stretch from San Marcial to
Fort Quitman was controlled by tectonism or faulting along the master half- graben faults, sediment
infilling of the basin, and long-term climate changes. With sediment infilling, spill over drainage
was established across the southerly bedrock constrictions of each basin and resulted in progressive
integration of the main drainage (the Rio Grande) from one basin to the next (Mack and others,
1997). Prior to integration, and full sediment infilling, the basins were closed and internally
drained with playa lakes or lakes in the deepest part of the basin and upstream from the southerly
basin constrictions (Mack and others, 1998). Continued tectonism or down faulting of the half
graben resulted in the Rio Grande migrating towards or staying close the master fault side of the
basin (Leeder and others, 1996).
Completion of integrated drainage to the Gulf of Mexico and major climate changes have
resulted in the Rio Grande entrenching earlier basin fill to form the present day flood plain and Rio
Grande Valley as base level adjusted and climate controlled river flow changes occurred (Hawley
and Kottlowski, 1969). During dry (warm) times the river valley tends to back fill with flood plain
sediment. During wet (cool) times the river entrenched as flow was sufficient to remove earlier
basin fill along the river course. This episodic flow behavior has left a series of paired terraces
above the flood plain of the Rio Grande Valley and below the basin floor surfaces that formed prior
to Pleistocene entrenchment of the river system.
During the 19th and 20th centuries, engineered modifications to the area have included the
construction of simple irrigation works in the 1800s and the much more comprehensive Rio Grande
Project in the 1900s. The Rio Grande Project and its additions have included storage and diversion
dams, canalization of much of the river, flood control dams on tributary arroyos, canal and drainage
systems, and clearing and leveling of agricultural lands. These alterations are discussed in more
detail in the descriptions of the Rio Grande Project and the individual districts.
14
B. The Rio Grande Compact
The law of the river in the Chihuahuan Desert portion of the Rio Grande is the Rio Grande
Compact adopted December 19, 1939 among Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas. The stated
purpose of the compact is to “remove all causes of present and future controversy among these
States and between the citizens of one of these States and citizens of another State with respect to
the use of the waters of the Rio Grande above Fort Quitman, Texas …” The region covered by the
Compact is shown in Figure 1. While much of the Compact area is outside of the Chihuahuan
Desert, an understanding of its workings is absolutely necessary to understand the management of
water and attitudes of the players in the study area.
The Rio Grande Compact is administered by a commission with representations from each
of the three Compact states, Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas. A fourth non-voting member is
appointed by the President of the United States. The Colorado and New Mexico commissioners are
the State Engineers of the respective states. The Texas commissioner is appointed by the Texas
governor.
15
Figure 1: Rio Grande Compact area. From Report of the Rio Grande Compact Commission, 2000.
The Compact uses measured flows at index gages on the Rio Grande and its tributaries to
quantify delivery obligations from Colorado to New Mexico and from New Mexico to Texas.
Because the Rio Grande Project, consisting of EBID in New Mexico and EPCWID in Texas, was
operated as a single irrigation system at the time of the signing of the Compact, and because the
project straddles the New Mexico-Texas state line, the Compact specified deliveries to Texas at
San Marcial gage, above Elephant Butte Reservoir. For operational reasons, the delivery point to
Texas was moved to Elephant Butte Reservoir in 1949. The various index gages that determine the
16
state-to-state delivery obligations are shown in Figure 2. This arrangement places EBID in the
Texas portion of the Compact, represented by a political appointee from Texas. The resulting
feeling of disenfranchisement is strong with EBID farmers.
Figure 2: Rio Grande Compact index gages. From Report of the Rio Grande Compact Commission, 2001.
17
Beginning in Colorado, the Compact specifies the delivery obligation of Colorado to New
Mexico in terms of the flows in the Conejos River system and in the main stem of the Rio Grande.
The Compact specifies a required flow in the Conejos near Mouths, Colorado, measured at the
USGS gaging station near Los Sauces, Colorado, (Station 6 in Figure 2) above the confluence with
the Rio Grande based on the Conejos Index Supply. The Conejos Index Supply is the sum of
measured flows at the following USGS gaging stations:
1.
Conejos River near Mogote, Colorado during the calendar year (Station 3 in Figure
2);
2.
San Antonio River at Ortiz, Colorado, April to October, inclusive (Station 4 in
Figure 2);
3.
Los Pinos River near Ortiz, April to October, inclusive (Station 5 in Figure 2).
The relationship between the Conejos Index Supply and the flow obligation in the Conejos at
Conejos
Index
Supply
1,000 AF
Conejos
River at
Mouths
1,000 AF
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
0
20
45
75
109
147
188
232
278
326
376
426
476
Conejos River at Mouths, 1000 AF
Mouths is show below in Table 3.
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0
200
400
600
800
Conejos Index Supply, 1000 AF
Table 3: Conejos River at Mouths (Los Sauces) as a function of Conejos Index Supply. Column numbers (1)
and (2) refer to the column designations in the Rio Grande Compact.
The Conejos River at Mouths and the Rio Grande measured at the USGS gaging station
near Del Norte, Colorado define a flow obligation at the USGS gaging station at Lobatos,
18
Colorado, near the New Mexico state line (Station 7 in Figure 2). The Del Norte flow is adjusted to
account for the hydrologic effects of post-1937 upstream reservoirs. Lobatos is Colorado’s
delivery point to New Mexico. Colorado’s obligation is ten thousand AF less than the sum of the
indicated flows for Conejos at Mouths from Table 3 plus the Rio Grande at Lobatos less Conejos at
Rio Rio Grande
Grande @ @ Lobatos
Del Norte
less
1,000 AF Conejos @
Mouths
1,000 AF
200
60
250
65
300
75
350
86
400
98
450
112
500
127
550
144
600
162
650
182
700
204
750
229
800
257
850
292
900
335
950
380
1000
430
1100
540
1200
640
1300
740
1400
840
Rio Grande @ Lobatos less Conejos @ Mouths,
1000 AF
Mouths from Table 4:
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
Rio Grande @ Del Norte, 1000 AF
Table 4: Rio Grande at Lobatos as a function of Rio Grande at Del Norte.
The basic idea behind the delivery requirement from state to state is evident in these graphs.
At low levels of flow, the upstream state (Colorado, in the above two tables) gets a higher
percentage of the available supply, but as the supply increases, the downstream state’s (New
Mexico in above tables) gets an increasing percentage, until each acre-foot of additional flow at the
index point results in an acre- foot of required delivery at the state line.
The Compact specifies that New Mexico’s obligation to deliver water to Texas is based on
flow measured at the USGS gauging station at Otowi Bridge, New Mexico, below the confluence
of the Rio Grande and Rio Chama (Station 14 in Figure 2). In the original Compact, deliveries to
19
New Mexico were made at the San Marcial gauging station upstream of Elephant Butte Reservoir,
and deliveries excluded flows during the months of June, July, and August. In 1948, this was
amended by resolution to provide accounting for deliveries to New Mexico on a year-round basis at
Elephant Butte Reservoir.
As defined in the 1948 resolution, the Otowi Index Supply is the actual flow measured at
Otowi Bridge corrected for operations of any reservoirs constructed since 1929 between Lobatos
and Otowi, and corrected for transbasin diversions. The Otowi Index Supply actually determines
New Mexico’s annual delivery obligation to Texas. This obligation is the Elephant Butte Effective
Index Supply, which is compared to the actual algebraic sum of the annual releases from Elephant
Butte Reservoir plus any change in Project Storage, with increases being positive and decreases
being negative. Rio Grande Project Storage, commonly referred to as Project Storage, is the sum of
the water stored in Elephant Butte and Caballo Reservoirs. This arrangement places the burden of
losses in Elephant Butte Reservoir due to evaporation and seepage on New Mexico, because the
hydrologic balance yielding New Mexico’s delivery to Texas – release plus change in storage –
implicitly subtracts reservoir losses from New Mexico’s delivery. Credits, discussed later, are
subject to evaporation adjustments. However, the objective in establishing the Otowi-Elephant
Butte Index relationship was to make it equivalent to the original deliveries scheduled for San
Marcial. The relationship between the Otowi Index Supply and New Mexico’s obligation to
deliver water to Elephant Butte Reservoir is shown below in Table 5:
20
3000
Elephant Butte Index Supply, 1000 AF
Otowi
Elephant
Index Butte Index
Supply Supply 1000
1000 af
af
100
57
200
114
300
171
400
228
500
286
600
345
700
406
800
471
900
542
1000
621
1100
707
1200
800
1300
897
1400
996
1500
1095
1600
1195
1700
1295
1800
1395
1900
1495
2000
1595
2100
1695
2200
1795
2300
1895
2400
1995
2500
2095
2600
2195
2700
2295
2800
2395
2900
2495
3000
2595
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
Otowi Index Supply, 1000 AF
Table 5: Elephant Butte index as a function of flow at Otowi Bridge.
In practice, it is virtually impossible for one state to exactly meet its delivery obligation to
its downstream neighbor, so a system of debits and credits was developed in the Rio Grande
Compact. An annual credit or debit to Colorado is calculated as the difference between the actual
adjusted flow at Lobatos minus Colorado’s obligation to deliver water at Lobatos. An annual credit
occurs when the algebraic sign is positive, and a debit occurs when the algebraic sign is negative.
An annual credit or debit to New Mexico is calculated as the difference between the adjusted sum
of releases from Elephant Butte Dam and changes in Project Storage (the Elephant Butte Effective
21
Index Supply) and the Elephant Butte Index as determined from Table 5 based on the Otowi Index
Supply. An annual credit to New Mexico occurs if the algebraic sign is positive, and an annual
debit occurs if it is negative. Annual Debits are the amount of water that, in a calendar year,
Colorado may fall behind in its deliveries to New Mexico or New Mexico may fall behind in its
deliveries to Texas. Credits are similar over-deliveries. Accrued debits and credits are the running
sum of annual debits and credits between states.
Colorado may not exceed 100,000 acre-feet for either an annual or accrued debit, unless the
debit in excess of this amount is caused by Colorado’s holding water over in storage in reservoirs
constructed after 1937 (including Squaw Lake, Rio Hondo, Hermit Lakes, Troutvale No. 2, Jumper
Creek, Big Meadows, Alberta Park, Mill Creek, Fuchs, and Platoro reservoirs, as well as the
enlarged portion of the Shaw Lake enlargement) in the basin above Lobatos. Colorado is required
to retain water in storage in such reservoirs to the extent of its accrued debit.
New Mexico’s accrued debit may not exceed 200,000 acre-feet, unless the debit in excess of
this amount is caused by holdover water in post-1929 reservoirs between Lobatos and San Marcial
(Heron, El Vado, Abiquiu, Nambe Falls, McClure (Granite Point), Nichols, Cochiti, and Jemez
Canyon reservoirs). New Mexico is required to retain water in storage in such reservoirs to the
extent of its accrued debit. New Mexico’s annual debit may not exceed the sum of 150,000 acrefeet and all gains in the quantity of water in storage during the year.
Both Colorado and New Mexico are limited to a maximum annual credit of 150,000 acrefeet. Presumably, water delivered in excess of 150,000 acre- feet over the index requirement would
be free water to the downstream state. Credit water for Colorado and New Mexico is stored in
Elephant Butte and Caballo Reservoirs, and diminished by evaporation. This credit water is not
available for release as usable water to Texas water users, except when credits are relinquished to
allow the upstream states to store water in post-Compact reservoirs during times of low Project
Storage under Article VII, as further discussed below.
The Texas portion of the Compact, the Rio Grande Project, has no downstream delivery
obligation other than to Mexico. The usable water in Project Storage is the total Project Storage
less credits for New Mexico and Texas and the generally minor amounts of San Juan-Chama
Project imported water stored there.
Complicating the accounting for delivery debits and credits is the concept of the spill. An
actual spill occurs when Project Storage in Elephant Butte and Caballo Reservoirs reaches its
22
capacity, and water either flows over the spillway crest at Elephant Butte Dam or releases are made
to maintain flood storage capacity in Elephant Butte Reservoir in excess of downstream demands.
A hypothetical spill occurs when reservoir water would have actually spilled, had an annual release
of 790,000 acre- feet been made every year since the previous spill. All credit water in storage must
have been spilled before either an actual or hypothetical spill can occur.
Spills are of particular importance because in the event of a spill, all accrued debits of
Colorado and New Mexico are cancelled. Accrued credits for the two states are reduced in an
amount equal to the quantity spilled, reducing each state’s accrued credits proportionally to each
state’s respective credit balance.
As noted previously, Colorado must maintain water in storage above Lobatos in an amount
equal to any debit balance that Colorado may accrue, and New Mexico must hold water in storage
between Lobatos and San Marcial equal to any debit balance that it accrues. If a state has an
accrued debit balance, the downstream state or states may, at the beginning of the year, call for the
release of the upstream stored water. The downstream states may call for the “repayment” of
accrued debits sufficient to bring the usable water in Project Storage to 600,000 acre-feet by March,
and enough to make a normal release of 790,000 acre- feet during the year.
Clearly, an accrued debit balance is an unattractive position for Colorado or New Mexico to
find themselves in, and both have maintained accrued credit balances in recent years. The fact that
a state must have an amount of water equal to its accrued debit balance in case the downstream
state or states call for it gives little advantage to running an accrued debit on downstream
deliveries. Accrued credits, however, allow an upstream state to deliver less than the index
amount, with the downstream state relying on the equivalent amount of water in Project Storage.
Article VII addresses management and accounting when Project Storage is very low. If the
amount of usable water in Project Storage drops below 400,000 acre- feet, neither Colorado nor
New Mexico may increase the amount of water in storage in post-1929 upstream reservoirs. This
applies when the releases since the last spill do not average more than 790,000 acre- feet per year.
If the previous releases do average more than 790,000 acre- feet per year, accounting adjustments
are made to compensate for the excess release. Article VII also provides for Colorado and New
Mexico to allow the release of credit water they ma y have in Project Storage, and storing a like
amount in their upstream post-1929 reservoirs. It is interesting to note that in June 2002, Article
VII was invoked due to low storage levels.
23
The Compact specifically states in Article XI that “all controversies between said States
relative to the quantity or quality of the water of the Rio Grande are composed and settled;
however, nothing herein shall be interpreted to prevent recourse by a signatory state to the Supreme
Court of the United States to redress should the character or quality of the water, at the point of
delivery, be changed hereafter by one signatory state to the injury of another. Nothing herein shall
be construed as an admission by any signatory state that the use of water for irrigation causes
increase of salinity for which the user is responsible in law.”
An example of Compact accounting may help to illustrate how the Compact works. Table 6
through Table 8 are taken from the Report of the Rio Grande Compact Commission, 2000.
Beginning with Colorado in Table 6, Colorado began the year with a 17.7 kAF (thousand acre- feet)
accrued credit in its deliveries to New Mexico (column 23, row C1). The total flow from the
Conejos at Mogote, Los Pinos near Ortiz, and San Antonio at Ortiz is 154.4 kAF (Column 5, sum).
This is adjusted for changes in storage and post-Compact reservoir evaporation (columns 7 and 8,
respectively) to arrive at the Conejos Index Supply of 142.4 kAF (column 10, sum). Entering
Table 3 with this quantity gives a required flow from the Conejos at Mouths of 17 kAF (column 21,
C2). The Rio Grande at Del Norte gage shows an annual total measured flow of 391.2 kAF
(column 12, sum). This is corrected for changes in storage, reservoir evaporation, and
transmountain diversions for an adjusted Del Norte index of 390.8 kAF (column 18, sum), resulting
in a value of Lobatos less Conejos at Mouths of 95.8 kAF (column 21, C3) from Table 4. The
scheduled delivery at Lobatos is then the Conejos flow plus the Rio Grande flow minus 10 kAF, or
102.8 kAF. The actual flow at Lobatos was 114.2 kAF (column 22, sum), resulting in a credit of
11.4 kAF. This credit is reduced by 2.1 kAF for evaporation, producing a net annual credit for
Colorado of 9.3 kAF which, when added to the beginning accrued credit of 17.7 kAF, yields a yearend accrued credit of 27.0 kAF (column 23, row C8).
24
RIO GRANDE COMPACT - DELIVERIES BY COLORADO AT STATE LINE
YEAR 2000
Quantities in thouseands of acre feet to nearest hundred
21
ACCUMULATED TOTAL AT
LOBATOS
20
CONEJOS RIVER
19
SAUCES
18
RIO GRANDE LESS
17
CONEJOS RIVER AT
MOUTHS NEAR LOS
16
0.2
RIO GRANDE AT LOBATOS
15
ACCUMULATED TOTAL
14
SUPPLY IN MONTH
13
NET ADJUSTMENTS
12
0.0
SUPPLY
OTHER ADJUSTMENTSa
11
b
DIVERSIONS
10
TRANSMOUNTAIN
9
CHANGE IN STORAGE
8
MONTH
7
26.3
DELIVERIES
ADJUSTMENTS
STORAGE AT END OF
SUPPLY IN MONTH
6
ACCUMULATED TOTAL
NET ADJUSTMENTS
5
OTHER ADJUSTMENTSa
4
CHANGE IN STORAGE
TOTAL
3
SUPPLY
STORAGE AT END OF
MONTH
SAN ANTONIO AT
ORTIZ
2
LOS PINOS NEAR
ORTIZ
1
CONEJOS AT MOGOTE
Month
RIO GRANDE INDEX SUPPLY
ADJUSTMENTS
RECORDED FLOW NEAR
DEL NORTE
CONEJOS INDEX SUPPLY
MEASURED FLOW
22
23
0.0
0.0
JAN
2.3
2.3
26.2
-0.1
-0.1
2.2
2.2
11.5
0.2
0.0
0.0
11.5
11.5
3.8
18.0
21.8
21.8
FEB
2.7
2.7
26.3
0.1
0.1
2.8
5.0
11.6
0.2
0.0
0.0
11.6
23.1
4.1
18.4
22.5
44.3
MAR
3.8
3.8
26.5
0.2
APR
14.0
9.6
2.5
26.1
26.6
0.1
MAY
42.6
12.0
1.0
55.6
29.7
3.1
0.1
JUN
23.0
2.1
0.0
25.1
25.1
-4.6
JUL
10.6
0.9
0.0
11.5
19.5
AUG
8.9
0.8
0.0
9.7
SEP
3.8
0.5
0.0
OCT
5.4
1.2
0.3
NOV
3.8
DEC
YEAR
2.6
123.5
27.1
3.8
0.2
4.0
9.0
14.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
37.1
3.1
11.8
14.9
59.2
0.1
26.2
35.2
48.5
0.2
0.0
0.0
48.5
85.6
1.3
10.2
11.5
70.7
3.2
58.8
94.0
144.8
0.2
0.0
0.0
144.8
230.4
1.1
11.3
12.4
83.1
0.2
-4.4
20.7
114.7
68.1
0.2
0.0
0.0
68.1
298.5
0.2
6.7
6.9
90.0
-5.6
0.1
-5.5
6.0
120.7
19.4
0.2
0.0
-0.4
19.0
317.5
0.0
1.9
1.9
91.9
15.3
-4.2
0.0
-4.2
5.5
126.2
16.4
0.2
0.0
0.0
16.4
333.9
0.0
0.7
0.7
92.6
4.3
14.2
-1.1
0.1
-1.0
3.3
129.5
14.8
0.2
0.0
0.0
14.8
348.7
0.0
0.8
0.8
6.9
13.3
-0.9
0.0
-0.9
6.0
135.5
20.3
0.2
0.0
0.0
20.3
369.0
0.0
2.6
2.6
96.0
3.8
13.6
0.3
0.0
0.3
4.1
139.6
11.9
0.2
0.0
0.0
11.9
380.9
0.5
6.8
7.3
103.3
2.6
13.8
0.2
2.8
142.4
9.9
0.2
0.0
0.0
9.9
390.8
114.2
0.5
-12.0
142.4
-0.4
390.8
154.4
0.2
-12.5
391.2
0.0
-0.6
-0.6
Remarks: Col. 6 does not include transmountain water.
a
Evaporation loss post compact reservoirs; report of the Engineer Adviser for Colorado.
b
884 ac-ft minus 243 ac-ft pre-compact; report of the Engineer Adviser for Colorado.
0.2
0.2
14.0
1.4
9.5
10.9
15.5
98.7
114.2
93.4
SUMMARY OF DEBITS AND CREDITS
ITEM
DEBIT
CREDIT BALANCE
C1
Balance at Beginning of Year
C2
Scheduled Delivery from Conejos River
17.0
0.7
C3
Scheduled Delivery from Rio Grande
95.8
-95.1
17.7
C4
Actual Delivery at Lobatos plus 10,000 Acre Feet
C5
Reduction of Debits o/c Evaporation
C6
Reduction of Credits o/c Evaporation and Spill
124.2
2.1
29.1
27.0
C7
C8
Balance at End of Year
27.0
Table 6: Colorado deliveries to New Mexico, 2000.
The calculation for the delivery of water by New Mexico to Texas at Elephant Butter Reservoir is
presented below in Table 7. In that table, New Mexico starts the year with a credit balance of 170.7
kAF. The recorded flow at Otowi was 734.7 kAF. Net adjustments are the algebraic sum of the
change in reservoirs between Lobatos and Otowi that would affect the Otowi flow (-73.3 kAF),
reservoir evaporation from those reservoirs (2.5 kAF), the transmountain diversions from the San
Juan-Chama Diversion Project (-254.7 kAF), for a total net adjustment of -325.5 kAF. This
produces an Otowi Index Supply of 734.7 - 325.5 = 409.2 kAF. Entering Table 5 with an Otowi
Index Supply of 409.2 kAF, the resulting Elephant Butte Index Supply of 233.3 kAF, shown in
NM2 column 14 of Table 7. The actual delivery, or effective supply to Elephant Butte, equal to the
release from Elephant Butte plus the change in Project Storage, was 353.6 kAF, shown in NM3,
column 15. New Mexico’s credit was reduced by 20.2 kAF for reservoir evaporation (NM5,
column 14), so the net change in New Mexico’s credit is the effective supply (353.6 kAF) less the
Elephant Butte Index Supply (233.3 kAF) less reservoir evaporation (20.2 kAF) for a net change of
100.1 kAF. New Mexico’s ending balance is the beginning balance of 170.7 kAF plus the net
change of 100.1 kAF, for year-end credit of 270.8 kAF (NM8, column 16).
25
RIO GRANDE COMPACT - DELIVERIES BY NEW MEXICO AT ELEPHANT BUTTE
YEAR 2000
Quantities in thousands of acre feet to nearest hundred
OTOWI INDEX SUPPLY
ADJUSTMENTS
Recorded
RESERVOIRS: LOBATOS TO OTOWI
TransFlow at
Other
Storage End Change in
mouintain
Reservoir
Otowi Bridge
Adjustments
Storage
Evaporation
Diversions
of Month a
MONTH
1
Net
Adjustments
During Month
Accumulated
Total
ELEPHANT BUTTE EFFECTIVE SUPPLY
Total Water
Effective Supply
STORAGE IN ELEPHANT
Stored in New
Recorded
BUTTE RESERVOIR
Mexico Above
Flow Below
Accumulated
Change
San Marcial at End of
Elephant
During Month
Total
a
Gain(+)
Butte Dam
End of Month Month a
Loss(-)
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
47.5
45.9
60.7
66.8
82.0
95.4
90.4
82.8
82.1
82.3
82.3
70.6
91.0
84.3
52.3
25.8
17.0
0.2
0.0
-11.7
20.4
-6.7
-32.0
-26.5
-8.8
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.6
0.5
0.2
0.0
-1.7
-1.6
-11.4
-7.4
-28.2
-42.8
-45.6
-57.3
-1.4
-1.4
-22.8
13.4
-34.3
-74.3
-71.9
-66.1
46.1
44.5
37.9
80.2
47.7
21.1
18.5
16.7
46.1
90.6
128.5
208.7
256.4
277.5
296.0
312.7
85.0
84.3
83.5
72.0
92.5
84.2
53.0
26.4
16.8
1,706.1
1,736.2
1,676.4
1,617.6
1,559.9
1,510.4
1,424.1
1,346.2
1,258.7
30.1
-59.8
-58.8
-57.7
-49.5
-86.3
-77.9
-87.5
14.5
105.8
100.9
88.8
65.4
102.3
95.3
106.3
44.6
46.0
42.1
31.1
15.9
16.0
17.4
18.8
44.6
90.6
132.7
163.8
179.7
195.7
213.1
231.9
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC
YEAR
69.3
33.9
27.7
32.3
734.7
-12.3
1.4
2.5
0.2
-73.3
-0.1
0.2
0.1
0.0
2.5
-45.1
-9.9
-2.8
-0.9
-254.7
-57.5
-8.3
-0.2
-0.7
-325.5
11.8
25.6
27.5
31.6
409.2
324.5
350.1
377.6
409.2
4.6
7.5
8.8
8.1
1,193.5
1,196.8
1,235.8
1,274.2
-65.2
3.3
39.0
38.4
-431.9
76.3
28.2
1.0
0.7
785.5
11.1
31.5
40.0
39.1
353.6
243.0
274.5
314.5
353.6
4.7
6.1
8.6
8.8
6
INDEX SUPPLY
Remarks:
3, 11, and 12 do not include transmountain water.
a Cols.
Cols. 3 and 11 reflect implementation of revised area-capacity tables for Abiquiu, Cochiti,
and Jemez Canyon Reservoirs, effective January 1, 1999.
NM1
NM2
NM3
NM4
NM5
NM6
NM7
NM8
SUMMARY OF DEBITS AND CREDITS
ITEM
Balance at Beginning of year
Scheduled Delivery at Elephant Butte
Actual Elephant Butte Effective Supply
Reduction of Debits o/c Evaporation
Reduction of Credits o/c Evaporation and Spill
Balance at End of Year
DEBIT
CREDIT
233.3
20.2
BALANCE
170.7
-62.6
353.6
291.0
270.8
270.8
Table 7: New Mexico Deliveries to Texas.
Finally, the calculations for Project Storage and Release are presented in Table 8. The total Project
storage capacity at the end of the month is the total capacity of Elephant Butte Reservoir less the
required flood control space, which is 50 kAF from April through September, and 25 kAF from
October through March. The total usable water in storage is the actual amount in Elephant Butte
and Caballo Reservoirs less New Mexico and Colorado’s credit water. The credit water for New
Mexico and Colorado start at the previous year end value (also listed in Table 6 and Table 7) and is
reduced each month for evaporation. The total project water in storage is the sum of the usable
water in storage and the credit water for Colorado and New Mexico. Intervening diversions to
canals refers to the small lateral diverting water directly from Caballo Dam, the Bonito Lateral.
The measured flow below Caballo plus the Bonito Lateral gives the total release and spill for the
year. In 2000, there was no spill, so all of the release was usable release, which totaled 752.4 kAF.
At the end of 1999, the release was cumulatively 38.3 kAF short of normal (P1, column 19). The
release for 2000 was 37.6 kAF short of normal, so the accrued deviation from normal release is
75.9 kAF (P7, column 19) at the end of 2000.
26
MONTH
Total Project
Storage
Capacity
Available at
End of
a
Month
USABLE WATER IN STORAGE
Elephant
Butte
Reservoir
b
Caballo
Reservoir
Unfilled
Capacity of
Total at End
Project
b
Storage at
of Month
End of Month
RIO GRANDE COMPACT - RELEASE AND SPILL FROM PROJECT STORAGE
YEAR 2000
Quantities in thousands of acre feet to nearest hundred
CREDIT WATER IN STORAGE
Colorado
Credit
Water
b
Flood Water Total Water Measured
New Mexico
in Project
in Project
Flow at
Total at End
Credit
Storage at
Storage at
Caballo
b
b
of Month
End of Month End of Month Gaging
Water
Station
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2271.5
1517.7
42.3
1560.0
711.5
17.7
170.7
188.4
JAN
2271.5
1548.8
50.5
1599.3
672.2
17.6
169.8
187.4
FEB
2271.5
1490.5
126.5
1617.0
654.5
17.5
168.4
185.9
MAR
2271.5
1433.2
117.8
1551.0
720.5
17.3
167.1
184.4
APR
2246.5
1378.1
120.6
1498.7
747.8
17.1
164.7
181.8
MAY
2246.5
1332.4
74.5
1406.9
839.6
16.7
161.3
178.0
JUN
2246.5
1248.5
71.0
1319.5
927.0
16.5
159.1
175.6
JUL
2246.5
1173.4
44.6
1218.0
1028.5
16.2
156.6
172.8
AUG
2246.5
1088.2
38.8
1127.0
1119.5
16.0
154.5
170.5
SEP
2246.5
1025.8
33.9
1059.7
1186.8
15.8
151.9
167.7
OCT
2271.5
1029.7
36.2
1065.9
1205.6
15.7
151.4
167.1
NOV
2271.5
1069.0
40.3
1109.3
1162.2
15.7
151.1
166.8
DEC
2271.5
1108.1
42.8
1150.9
1120.6
15.6
150.5
166.1
YEAR
a
Project storage capacity as recognized by the September 9, 1998 Resolution of the Rio Grande Compact Commission with flood
control storage reservation a Elephant Butte Reservoir of 50,000 acre-feet from April through September and 25,000 acre-feet
from October through March.
b
Based on Balance at Beginning of Year (C1 and NM1)
10
11
1748.4
1786.7
1802.9
1735.4
1680.5
1584.9
1495.1
1390.8
1297.5
1227.4
1233.0
1276.1
1317.0
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
P6
P7
12
RIO GRANDE BELOW CABALLO DAM
SPILL FROM STORAGE
Intervening
Total
Diversions to Release and
Caballo
Credit Water
Canals
Spill
Flood Water
13
14
15
USABLE RELEASE
Usable
Water
Net During
Month
17
18
16
6.3
17.0
102.4
78.2
102.6
106.8
121.3
112.0
75.2
29.4
0.0
0.1
751.3
0.0
6.3
6.3
0.1
17.1
17.1
0.1
102.5
102.5
0.1
78.3
78.3
0.1
102.7
102.7
0.1
106.9
106.9
0.2
121.5
121.5
0.2
112.2
112.2
0.1
75.3
75.3
0.1
29.5
29.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
1.1
752.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
752.4
ACCRUED DEPARTURE FROM NORMAL RELEASE
ITEM
DEBIT
CREDIT
Accrued Departure at Beginning of Year
Actual Release during Year
752.4
Normal Release for Year
790.0
Accrued Departure at End of Year
TIME OF HYPOTHETICAL SPILL Did not occur.
Table 8: Project Storage and Release accounting, 2000.
While it is somewhat open to interpretation, in practice this means that if the water were available
and Project users could use it, the release could go as high as the normal 790 kAF plus the accrued
deviation form normal of 75.9 kAF for a usable release of 865.9 kAF in 2001. It did not occur.
C. The Rio Grande Project
A brief overview of the development of the Rio Grande Project, which extends from San Marcial,
New Mexico to Fort Quitman, Texas is in line before examining the individual districts that lie
within this stretch of the Rio Grande. The Rio Grande Project has been variously referred to in the
sources discussed here as the Rio Grande Federal Recla mation Project, and the Rio Grande Federal
Irrigation Project. All refer to the same project. Congress authorized the Project under the
Reclamation Act of 1902 to provide irrigation water to farms in Texas and New Mexico by storing
excess flows of the Rio Grande in Elephant Butte Reservoir. In a January 23, 1906 letter from the
U.S. Reclamation Service (later USBR) to the Territorial Engineer of New Mexico, Reclamation
stated the intent to appropriate 730,000 acre- feet for the Project. That was restated in an April 8,
1908 letter to appropriate “all unappropriated water of the Rio Grande and its tributaries” from San
Marcial to Fort Quitman. This 1908 letter indicates that finding unappropriated surface water in the
Rio Grande Project area is categorically impossible, since Reclamation explicitly appropriated all
of it that was not already appropriated in 1908. Elephant Butte Reservoir had an initial capacity of
over 2.6 million acre feet, but sedimentation reduced its capacity to its current level of just over 2
million acre feet. Caballo Dam, which came on line in 1938 for flood control and regulation of
non- irrigation hydropower releases from Elephant Butte Dam, has a capacity of about 332,000 acre
27
feet, though it is generally operated at a much lower level to reduce evaporation. The Project
includes diversion dams and a system of canals and laterals to convey water to farm headgates.
The funds for these irrigation and storage works were to be reimbursed by the owners of the
irrigated lands on the basis of a uniform charge per acre.
A 1904 agreement between business people from El Paso and Las Cruces formed the basis
for a Congressional act in 1905. The 1905 Reclamation Extension Act was in fact a Congressional
adjudication of the rights in each state and is an equitable apportionment of the waters of the Lower
Rio Grande. The 1905 law did the following:
•
It extended the benefits of the Reclamation Act of 1902 to include the El Paso area;
•
It provided that all irrigated lands in the Project would have the same standing with respect
to priority dates and charges; and
•
It established the guidelines for the division of the water supply above and below El Paso on
the basis that New Mexico would be allowed to irrigate 110,000 acres, and 70,000 acres in
Texas. The authorized acreage was later reduced to 88,000 acres in New Mexico and
67,000 acres, for a total of 155,000 acres. These values were subsequently increased by
three percent in 1937, to 90,640 and 69,010 acres in EBID and EPCWID, respectively.
These are the current authorized acres, totaling 159,650 acres. The percentages of Project
authorized acreage in New Mexico and Texas were, and are, 56.7742 percent and 43.2258
percent, respectively, commonly rounded to 57 percent and 43 percent for discussion
purposes.
Another primary objective of the Rio Grande Project was to ensure that the United States
could meet its obligation to deliver water to Mexico. For many years, Mexico had complained that
excessive uses of Rio Grande water in Colorado were depriving Juarez farmers of their historic
supply. In 1906 the U.S. and Mexico negotiated the Convention between the United States and
Mexico, Equitable Distribution of the Waters of the Rio Grande. Commonly referred to as the
Treaty of 1906, the document provides for the delivery of 60,000 acre-feet of water annually to
Mexico at the Acequia Madre ditch that headed below the principal diversion at El Paso, the
American Canal. The U.S. has delivered the amount of water to Mexico in most years, but has
reduced these deliveries during periods of short- supply from Elephant Butte. This reduction is
provided in the Treaty of 1906, because all acreage under the Rio Grande Project should receive the
same duty of water and that the water delivered to Mexico is Project water.
28
Figure 3: Rio Grande Project map. See included CD for more detailed project maps.
In years when Mexico receives its full supply of 60,000 acre- feet, the Treaty of 1906
specifies the following delivery schedule:
Month{PRIVAT
E}
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Total for the
Year
Acre- feet per month
0
1,090
5,460
12,000
12,000
12,000
8,180
4,370
3,270
1,090
540
0
60,000 acre-feet
Table 9: Delivery schedule for water to Mexico under the Treaty of 1906.
In practice, the U.S. has been somewhat flexible in the timing of deliveries to Mexico, so
long as the annual total of 60,000 acre- feet is maintained.
Historical annual deliveries to Mexico are shown below in Figure 4. Note the reduction in
Mexico’s deliveries in times of shortage. This reduction is based on Article II of the Treaty, which
states:
“In case, however, of extraordinary drought of serious accident to the irrigation system in
the United States, the amount delivered to the Mexican Canal shall be diminished in the same
proportion as the water delivered to lands under said irrigation system in the United States.”
The non-drought target of about 60,000 acre- feet occurs all but the highest flow years. The
Treaty of 1906 does not specify additional deliveries over 60,000 acre-feet in high flow years, so
the higher diversions in 1942, 1986, and 1987 are presumably by a less formal agreement.
Figure 4: Deliveries to Mexico at the Acequia Madre and Caballo releases, 1939-1999.
Elephant Butte Irrigation District (EBID) serves the Project lands in New Mexico and El
Paso County Water Improvement District No. 1 (EPCWID) serves those in Texas. The acreage to
be irrigated in Texas and New Mexico under the Rio Grande Project and municipal water-uses
were arrived at by means of contracts between Reclamation and one of the irrigation districts and
by three party contracts that included Reclamation and both of the districts. The most important of
these joint agreements was in signed September 1937 when the districts increased their authorized
acreage by three percent to 90,640 acres in New Mexico and 69,010 in Texas. This increased the
Project authorized acreage to 159,650 acres, with the percentage of authorized acreage in each state
unchanged. The 1937 contract is important as it provides for years when irrigation water is in short
supply, stating that the supply available to the U.S. districts in such years shall be divided
proportionally to Project authorized acreage, providing New Mexico with 57 percent and Texas
with 43 percent of the available water supply.
Colorado, Texas and New Mexico entered into the Rio Grande Compact that divided the
supply of the Rio Grande between the three states by providing sliding scale delivery tables. New
Mexico's delivery point to Texas is at Elephant Butte Dam, and EBID is, for Compact purposes,
31
located in Texas. The logic for this was that the Project was operated as a single unit, and the
division between the two districts at the actual state line was, and is, very complicated. The
Compact did not explicitly further divide the water supply between EBID and EPCWID. The
Compact did include deliveries to Mexico. Article VIII of the Rio Grande Compact, defined the
"normal release" of "usable water" for the Project from Elephant Butte Reservoir to be 790,000
acre-feet per year. This amount provided for the "full Project" release allocation of 730,000 acrefeet per year to the U.S. Districts plus 60,000 acre- feet for delivery to Mexico. The Compact also
contains provisions on volumes of water to be released from storage under certain circumstances.
From its inception through 1978, the Rio Grande Project was run by Reclamation as a single
unit project although the two irrigation districts existed as separate entities in Texas and New
Mexico. Reclamation designed and built most of the system. Reclamation controlled releases from
the Reservoir and the amount and timing of diversions to meet orders for water sent to them by the
districts. Planned allocation to Project farmlands were made at the start of each water-year based on
the volume of water stored in the Reservoir. Allotments were expressed in terms of an assigned
depth of water that each acre would receive during the irrigation season. Allocations were increased
or decreased during the course of the year depending on inflows to the Reservoir and on significant
regional rainfall. An annual operating plan guided Reclamation in its relationship to the two
irrigation districts. Beginning in 1979, the districts accepted responsibility for operation and
maintenance of the irrigation and drainage facilities as the districts paid the balance of their debt to
the Federal government for the cost of construction of their share of the facilities. While
Reclamation still owns and operates Elephant Butte and Caballo Dams and still owns the diversion
works, the two irrigation districts own the conveyance and return flow facilities and operate their
respective diversion dams under contract with Reclamation. The available water supply has been
divided between the two districts in the same 57/43 percent established based on authorized
acreage, but the allocation is now based on diversion from the Rio Grande rather than deliveries to
land.
The period 1951 through 1978, immediately before the Bureau’s hand-over to EBID and
EPCWID, was a time of severe drought. Releases from Caballo Reservoir were significantly
reduced due to lack of inflow, as shown in Figure 4. Reclamation formalized a method for
reducing deliveries to the districts and to Mexico based on experience during this period.
32
Reclamation developed regression-based linear relationships to relate delivery to U.S. lands to
release from Caballo (known as D1) and diversion from the Rio Grande by the two districts and
Mexico as a function of release from Caballo (D2). The process for allocating water according to
D1 and D2 is described in a draft operating agreement under which the Bureau has been allocating
water to the districts since 1979. It should be stressed that EPCWID objects to the use of D1/D2
for allocation of water to the districts, and the creation of a new operating agreement is the subject
of past and current litigation among EPCWID, EBID, and the Bureau. The presentation here is
intended as an objective explanation of that procedure, since it is currently used.
The primary function of D1 is to determine how much the delivery to US lands would have
been reduced due to extraordinary drought if deliveries to land were still the basis for accounting,
so that the delivery to Mexico could be reduced from 60,000 AF in the same proportion, as
provided by the Treaty of 1906. The function of D2 was to determine how much water would be
available for diversion from the river by the two U.S. districts and Mexico from the Rio Grande at a
given supply level. Mexico’s allocation of that diversion is dictated by D1, and the remaining
available diversion is divided between the two districts proportionally to the acreage in each
district, approximately 57 percent to EBID and 43 percent to EPCWID.
Figure 5: The D1 and D2 allocation curves.
33
Mexico’s delivery has not been reduced from 60,000 acre- feet since 1979, so technically D1 has
never been used. Diversion from the river rather than the delivery to land is now the basis for
allocation of water to the two districts. D1 would still be used to determine the reductio n in
Mexico’s allotment, due to its historical precedence. It may see its first action in 2003.
D2 has been used to determine the total water available for diversion each year since 1979,
and the diversion available to each district based on the 57/43 split. Some accounting changes have
been implemented in the ensuing period, such as allowing credit for some operational returns, but
D2 remains the cornerstone of the current Project allocation procedure.
A hypothetical example of the application of D1 and D2 will help to clarify their use.
Suppose at the beginning of the year, it is determined that there will be available a release of usable
water of 600 kAF. Entering this value into D1 gives a value of 393.4 kAF for theoretical deliveries
to U.S. lands. Full supply provides 528.7 kAF delivery to U.S. lands, so D1 indicates a reduction
in delivery to U.S. lands of 25.6 percent, and Mexico’s 60 kAF allotment is diminished
proportionally to 44.6 kAF. If the 600 kAF release is input to D2, it predicts a total Project
diversion of 712.7 kAF. Since Mexico is to receive 44.6 kAF, the two U.S. districts will divide the
remaining 668.1 kAF. EBID would be allocated a diversion of 56.7742 percent, or 379.3 kAF, and
EPCWID would be allocated a diversion of 43.2258 percent, or 288.8 kAF.
There are no debits and credits in the Rio Grande Project operations as there are for the
Compact. The Districts are discouraged from diverting more than the amount allocated by D2, but
it may occasionally happen that the y run slightly over. If the release does average more than 790
kAF, the Compact accounting for spills and Article VII low storage management address the
necessary adjustments. If a District does not divert its full allotment, any water that would have
been released from storage to make that allotment remains in storage, and it is redivided the
following year between the Districts with 57 percent going to EBID and 43 percent going to
EPCWID. This “use it or share it with the other district” policy has been seen as a disincentive to
conservation by some and as a method of getting water to the people who are using it to others. In
any case, no mechanism currently exists in the Project allocation and accounting mechanism to
carry over conserved water in storage for just one district.
34
Chapter III : Demographics and Socio-Economics for Agriculture
This portion of the report synthesizes state and county level agricultural and demographic
statistics in order to provide a profile of agriculture in the study area. These elements of the report
seek to explain the relationship between agricultural water consumption in production and possible
agricultural water conservation alternatives, the key parameters of interest in this study.
A. Number and Size of Farms
Table 10 through Table 13 show the number of farms, land in farms, and average size of
farms, number of irrigated farms, and irrigated land in acres, in the study area for 1997, 1992, and
1987. A cursory glance at these tables sho ws some minor fluctuations in numbers of farms,
average size, irrigated land over the time horizon from 1987-1997.
The 1997 Census of Agriculture’s definition of a farm is any place where $1,000 or more of
agricultural products were produced and sold annually or normally would have been sold during the
census year (Ag. Census, 1997, p. VII). According to Appendix A., General Explanations from the
1997 Census of Agriculture, land in farms includes agricultural land used for crops, pasture, or
grazing as well as land not under cultivation as long as that land is part of the total farm operation
(Ag. Census, 1997. p. A-8). Note that this is a different definition than that of Table 24 through
Table 26, which represent cropped acreage.
Sierra County
# Farms
Farm Acres
Average Farm Size in Acres
Irrigated Land (farms)
Irrigated Land (acres)
1997
180
1,286,887
7,149
95
5,871
1992
207
1,233,794
5,960
110
5,973
1987
192
1,226,568
6,388
96
6,626
Table 10: Sierra County, New Mexico farm and irrigated land data, from Ag. Census, 1997.
Doña Ana County
# Farms
Farm Acres
Average Farm Size in Acres
Irrigated Land (farms)
Irrigated Land (acres)
1997
1,290
581,436
451
1,189
82,265
1992
1,271
526,407
414
1,126
80,029
1987
1,104
572,747
519
962
78,078
Table 11: Doña Ana County, New Mexico farm and irrigated land data, from Ag. Census, 1997.
35
The irrigated land in Doña Ana and Sierra Counties includes lands serviced by EBID as
well as small surface water irrigation systems such as the Bonito Lateral, and some acreage
irrigated by groundwater. Most small tract irrigators in EBID would not have been counted in the
Ag. Census because the definition used in that report would exclude them. The 1.8 million acres of
farmland in the two counties is primarily rangeland.
El Paso County
# Farms
Farm Acres
Average Farm Size in Acres
Irrigated Land (farms)
Irrigated Land (acres)
1997
415
243,684
587
326
41,447
1992
438
(D)
(D)
368
41,983
1987
422
236,667
561
345
40,662
Table 12: El Paso County, Texas farm and irrigated land data, from Ag. Census, 1997.
The irrigated acreage in El Paso County is nearly all EPCWID land, and as with Doña Ana
County, most small tract irrigators are likely excluded form the count.
Hudspeth
# Farms
Farm Acres
Average Farm Size in Acres
Irrigated Land (farms)
Irrigated Land (acres)
1997
147
2,502,799
17,026
69
30,682
1992
131
2,234,262
17,055
63
21,940
1987
148
2,266,986
15,317
77
30,967
Table 13: Hudspeth County, Texas farm and irrigated land data, from Ag. Census, 1997.
Hudspeth County contains significant irrigated land in and around Dell City, located at the
northern end of Husdpeth County near the New Mexico- Texas state line (see Figure 20 on page
86). Rangeland is by far the largest agricultural use of land in Hudspeth County.
B. County Profile Information
The 1997 Census of Agriculture provides further insight through county profiles, which
track changes from the 1992 Census. Available profile data for the 1997 Census exists for the
following counties in the study area: Doña Ana in New Mexico and in Texas for Hudspeth (Ag.
Census, 1997, http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census97/county/farms/nmfarms.xls ).
The period from 1992 – 1997 resulted in a 10 percent increase in the land in farms for Do ña
Ana County. The average farm size increased 9 percent and the number of full-time farms
decreased 3 percent. The market value of agricultural products sold increased 18 percent (crop
36
sales at 55 percent of market value, and livestock sales at 45 percent of market value). The market
value of products sold on average per farm increased 16 percent.
From 1992 – 1997 the land in farms in Hudspeth County increased 12 percent, but average
farm size decreased by 29 acres. The number of full time farms increased by 21 percent. The
market value of agricultural products sold increased 30 percent (crop sales accounted for 66 percent
of market value, and livestock sales accounted for 34 percent of market value). The total market
value of products sold on average per farm increased 16 percent.
C. Summary of Market Value of Agricultural Products
Table 14 provides a summary of the market value of agricultural products sold in the
counties under study. The market value of agricultural products represents the gross market value
of all products sold before production expenses and taxes. Doña Ana and El Paso Counties have the
highest market value of agricultural products sold at $235,484,000 and $76,673,000 respectively
under the 1997 Census of Agriculture. Sierra County produced the least market value at
$15,766,000. However, Sierra County did experience a 213.53 percent increase in pecan
production in 1995 (Harper, 1995, p. 7). Hudspeth Count y has a market value of agricultural
products sold of about $25,000,000. Note that these figures include livestock.
Doña Ana County dominates in the market value of products sold in the categories of dairy
products ($87,266,000), vegetables, sweet corn, and melons ($36,934,000), fruits, nuts, and berries
($33,898,000), and nursery and greenhouse crops ($29,976,000). El Paso County leads in the
market value of cotton and cottonseed ($19,865,000) and Doña Ana comes in second with the value
of cotton and cottonseed at ($16,047,000). El Paso County leads all counties in the study area in
cattle and calf sales with a market value of $12,937,000. Doña Ana County also has the most land
in orchards (pecan) at 21,121 acres. El Paso County comes in second with 7,270 acres under
production in pecan orchards. This is approximately one third of Doña Ana County’s acreage in
pecan orchards. El Paso le ads in cotton-acres with 27,103 acres in production, while Doña Ana and
Hudspeth Counties follow, with cotton crop areas under production of 22,016 acres and 9,430
acres, respectively.
Additional data provided in Table 14 serve to elucidate the inventories sold and held by
farmers for various commodities in the study area. The top commodities listed in this table account
for approximately 90-95 percent of the crop acreage in the study region. More than half the market
value of all agricultural products in the study area is produced in Doña Ana County.
37
MARKET VALUE OF AGRICULTURAL
Sierra
Doña Ana
PRODUCTS SOLD ($1,000)
Total value of agricultural products sold
15,766 235,484
Value of livestock and poultry
11,405 107,371
Value of crops including nursery
4,361
128,371
TOP FIVE ALL COMMODITIES – VALUE OF SALES ($1,000)
Dairy products
(D)
87,266
Cattle and calves
4,329
NA
Vegetables, sweet corn, and melons
2,186
36,934
Hay silage, field seeds, grass seeds
1,762
NA
Fruits, nuts, berries
NA
33,898
Nursery and greenhouse crops
NA
26,976
Cotton, cottonseed
NA
16,047
TOP FIVE COMMODITIES – LIVESTOCK SOLD (number)
Cattle and calves sold
12,414 29,486
Sheep and lambs sold
410
997
Ducks, geese, and other poultry sold
NA
352
Hogs and pigs sold
(D)
218
Horses and ponies sold
37
NA
All goats sold
152
NA
TOP FIVE COMMODITIES – LIVESTOCK INVENTORY (number)
Layers 20 weeks and older inventory
174
(D)
Broiler inventory
NA
NA
Cattle and calves inventory
26,809 82,714
Sheep and lamb inventory
503
NA
Colony of bees inventory
NA
(D)
Horse and pony inventory
531
1,463
Hogs and pigs
NA
NA
All goat inventory
253
NA
Ducks, geese, and other poultry inventory
NA
NA
TOP FIVE COMMODITIES - CROP AREA
Cotton-acres
NA
22,016
Hay crops-acres
2,489
19,947
Corn for silage-acres
600
6,564
Land in orchards-acres
506
21,121
Sorghum for silage-acres
NA
NA
Sorghum for grain-acres
NA
NA
Land used for vegetables-acres
1,033
12,864
El Paso
Hudspeth
76,673
39,908
36,765
24,993
8,454
16,539
26,738
12,937
6,875
NA
6,234
NA
19,865
NA
7,685
5,522
4,395
NA
NA
6,309
28,307
108
86
363
NA
208
16,603
(D)
NA
(D)
NA
(D)
NA
NA
32,422
NA
(D)
894
737
NA
1,237
NA
NA
32,811
(D)
350
NA
(D)
(D)
NA
27,103
6,502
NA
7,270
1,649
NA
2,451
9,430
12,736
581
NA
1,016
581
2,467
Some counties do not have five commodities in a group. More than five commodities are listed due to
county production differences. NA = not applicable (D) = information not disclosed
Table 14: Agricultural production by county for study region.
38
D. Trends and Technology
1. Dairy Production
Beginning in the 1970s Doña Ana and El Paso Counties experienced a rapid increase in
dairy operations and an increase in dairy cow numbers. These operations resembled production
found in California – large dry- lot units of 1,000 or more milking cows. Due to environmental
concerns and urban expansion, the growth in dry- lot operations in the Rio Grande Valley slowed
during the 1980s and even declined. Operations in other regions of New Mexico have increased
rapidly, particularly in the lower Pecos Valley. Thirty years ago New Mexico dairy production was
insignificant. Now, however, dairy production in New Mexico ranks tenth in the nation. Though
other cow/calf operations exist in grassier areas of the region, increasing aridity and encroachment
of the Chihuahuan Desert ecosystem has resulted in curtailment of livestock operations in favor of
dairy operations.
Analysis by McGuckin (1991) indicated the reason for rapid increases in dairy production
in the Southwest was and continues to be high profit margins. The desert Southwest lends itself to
dry- lot production operations due to the dry and warm climate. The climatic advantage results in a
significantly lower investment per cow relative to other production regions such as the Midwest
and Northeast U.S. A second equally important input factor in high milk output per cow is quality
alfalfa. New Mexico consistently ranks in the top three states for milk production per cow. The
dry harvest conditions in New Mexico results in higher protein and energy content for alfalfa
grown. It cannot be understated or ignored that New Mexico alfalfa is a high valued cash crop in
which protein content is a major marketing characteristic. For analysis, alfalfa is often lumped in
with generic hay and pasture output for statistical purposes. This sort of analysis renders the
statistic useless. The returns to high quality alfalfa production versus pasture are orders of
magnitude greater.
Dry- lot operations do have implications for water quality. While the amount of water used
by dry- lot dairy operations is not significant relative to the consumptive use of crops, return flow
water can be contaminated. Normally water used in dry- lot operations is held in holding ponds,
lagoons, or placed on irrigated fields. This water may infiltrate ground water aquifers causing
nitrate contamination.
39
2. Irrigation Technology
It should also be noted that the vast majority of farms within EBID are laser leveled and
flood irrigated. According to Lansford et al. (1996), Doña Ana County has about 540 acres in drip
irrigation, and Sierra County has about 680 acres us ing drip irrigation technology. This number
represents only a small percentage of farms in Doña Ana and Sierra Counties. While drip irrigation
technology is employed by some and may increase over time, it does not represent a significant
portion of the currently used production technology in the study region.
The farmers in the study area are generally engaged in deficit irrigation. This means that a
reduction in water use would result in a reduction in crop production and a consequent reduction in
net economic value. For instance, alfalfa requires high consumptive water use, but the return to
water in growing alfalfa is very high relative to the costs of that water. The lower Pecos Valley has
a severe deficiency in available water, yet alfalfa acres and production has continued to increase
while other crops have declined (McGuckin, 1991). Future increases in water costs or prices will
have little dampening effect on alfalfa production in the region.
An interesting observation made by McGuckin (1991) is that a switch to trickle irrigation
for alfalfa would actually result in increased water use. One constraining factor in alfalfa
production is the limited harvest time due to field conditions after flood irrigation. Producers
cannot physically irrigate as often as they would like and still harvest the crop in a timely manner.
This conflict results in deficit irrigation of the crop – irrigated less than the potential
evapotranspiration (PET). Employing subsurface trickle irrigation would not conflict with the
harvest schedule and more water could be applied with drip irrigation than with flood, allowing the
crop to produce its maximum potential.
There are positive economic returns to trickle irrigation. The profitability of the technology
results from increased crop yields. On an annual basis, drip irrigation costs approximately $157 per
acre over and above the cost of flood irrigation. Water savings from drip depend upon water
management strategies, but if 30 percent of water could be saved, this would be an economically
justified technology. The return to drip irrigation results from increased yields due to the
employment of precise water applications. Consider Table 15, which indicates alternative water
management strategies for alfalfa. Depending on water availability, alfalfa can be deficit irrigated.
This reduces water use, but also production levels. Table 15 indicates three alternative deficit
40
irrigation levels for traditional flood irrigation and four regimes for drip irrigation. The Doña Ana
County average practice is also indicated.
Technology
Water Delivery
Consumptive
Use
Return flow
leaching fraction
Yield
Revenue
Variable Cost
Variable Water
Overhead
Non-irrigation
Capital
Irrigation Capital
Direct Irrigation
Costs
Net return per
acre
Marginal Value
--------------------------------------------Alfalfa-----------------------------------------------------------laser/flood laser/flood laser/flood trickle
trickle
trickle
trickle
3.00
4.00
5.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
5.33
Doña
Ana
average
4.00
3.03
0.51
0.17
4.78
574.04
100.94
28.70
149.78
4.04
0.51
0.13
6.50
780.37
137.22
39.02
149.78
5.02
0.68
0.14
8.00
960.00
168.80
48.00
149.78
3.15
0.34
0.11
5.88
706.11
124.16
35.31
149.78
3.98
0.51
0.13
7.53
903.71
158.90
45.19
149.78
4.97
0.51
0.10
9.49
1139.39
200.34
56.97
149.78
5.22
0.51
0.10
10.00
1199.63
210.94
59.98
149.78
4.04
0.51
0.13
6.50
780.37
137.22
39.02
149.78
187.00
0.00
187.00
0.00
187.00
0.00
187.00
116.00
187.00
116.00
187.00
116.00
187.00
116.00
187.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
23.40
31.20
39.00
41.60
0.00
107.63
--
267.36
159.73
406.42
139.06
70.46
0.00
215.64
145.18
390.30
174.65
434.34
164.02
267.36
0.00
Table 15: Alfalfa water use and return under flood and trickle irrigation in Doña Ana County, from McGuckin
(1991).
Note the yield for trickle irrigation is higher than for the same amount of water delivered
under flood irrigation. For example, 4 acre feet of flood irrigation results in a yield of
6.5 tons of alfalfa, in contrast, an application of 4 acre feet under trickle irrigation yields 7.5 tons of
alfalfa. The high yield results in a high return to water use. The highest profitability level occurs
when 5.33 acre feet of water is applied under trickle irrigation technology, with a yield of 10 tons –
the maximum PET for the crop, but the net return per acre for drip irrigation is not higher than that
for flood irrigation until over five feet of water is applied. The profit per acre is 62 percent higher
than the average returns per acre. In general return flow is quite low, about ½ acre foot per acre. A
certain level of return flow is necessary to prevent salt build-up in the soil. Thus all practices meet
a minimum leaching fraction of 10 percent. In actual practice, return flows cannot be precisely
managed due to the unpredictability of precipitation.
41
3. Price of Water
Potential continued drought conditions and hydrologic reality will persist in exerting
pressure on water managers to seek water from the agricultural community. In addition, once the
City of Albuquerque begins to use its full allotment of San Juan – Chama contract water to meet
municipal and industrial demand, the agricultural community will have opportunities to sell its
water to help meet the needs of the listed endangered species encompassed in the study region.
Depending on climatic conditions, the hydrologic reality, and the price per acre- foot of water, more
agricultural water users may be inclined to lease water to environmental water users. Obviously,
this outcome will require willing buyers and sellers.
As can be seen from Table 16 below, the Elephant Butte Irrigation District (EBID) farmers
would require a minimum payment of $60 per acre- foot of water not to farm. This number
represents a weighted average for the return per acre- foot of water used to produce the top 93
percent of agricultural products on cropped acreage within EBID.
As can be seen from Table 17, farmers in EPCWID would require a minimum payment of
$36.86 per acre- foot of water not to produce. The El Paso Water Utility (EPWU) currently receives
55,000 acre feet of surface water from converted agricultural to urban acreage. No new water,
however, has been exchanged under the forbearance contracts between EPCWID and EPWU. The
initial price under the latest contract for water is $186 per acre foot.
Average returns per acre-foot of water used are highest in EBID for lettuce, pecans, chile,
and alfalfa in that order. While in EPCWID, average returns per acre- foot of water are highest for
pecans, and alfalfa. (It can be seen in Table 16 and Table 17 that alfalfa and pecans have the
greatest quantity of water delivered and consumptively used by the crops.)
%
acreage
Alfalfa
Cotton
Chile
Pecans
Sorghum
Corn
Lettuce
Onions
Total
20%
18%
9%
21%
2%
14%
4%
5%
93%
Acreage
(acres)
19,000
17,100
8,550
19,950
1,900
13,300
3,800
4,750
88,350
Water
delivery
(AF)
4.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
2.0
3.3
3.3
4.0
Consumptive
Use (AF)
4.0
2.4
2.8
3.8
1.5
1.9
1.7
2.0
Net Returns
per acre
$ 267.36
$ 8.06
$ 319.06
$ 468.92
$ (65.11)
$ (8.11)
$ 396.40
$ 77.60
Weighted average
Average return
per acre foot
delivered
$ 66.84
$ 2.67
$ 79.76
$ 93.78
$ (32.56)
$ (2.49)
$ 119.04
$ 19.40
$ 45.45
Average return
per acre foot
used
$ 66.15
$ 3.30
$ 113.95
$ 123.40
$ (43.41)
$ (4.20)
$ 238.08
$ 38.80
$ 60.00
Table 16: Crop Acreage, Water Use, Net Returns and Average Value per Acre Foot in EBID, from McGuckin
2001.
42
%
acreage
Alfalfa
Cotton
Pecans
Sorghum
Total
14%
58%
22%
5%
99%
acreage
6,281
25,677
9,822
2,086
43,866
Water
delivery
(aft)
Consumptive
Use (aft)
4.0
3.0
5.0
2.0
4.0
2.4
3.8
1.5
Net Returns
per acre
$ 267.36
$ 8.06
$ 468.92
$ (65.11)
Weighted average
Average
return per
acre foot
delivered
$ 66.84
$ 2.67
$ 93.78
$ (32.56)
$ 30.49
Average
return per
acre foot
used
$ 66.15
$ 3.30
$ 123.40
$ (43.41)
$ 36.86
Table 17: Crop Acreage, Water Use, Net Returns and Average Value per Acre Foot in EPCWID, from
McGuckin 2001.
Clearly, water made available by agricultural users by lease or sale for use by other
constituencies requires consideration of certain legal impediments and institutional constraints.
Those constraints and impediments are considered elsewhere in this report. Suffice it to say that
should the constraints be overcome, agricultural water would then become available to the highest
bidder.
E. Net Cash Return and Government Payments
Table 18 provides a summary by county of net cash returns per farm unit, government
payments by number of farms, total government payments received, average dollar of government
payments received per farm, conservation reserve/wetlands programs by number of farms,
conservation reserve/wetlands programs by total payments received, and conservation
reserve/wetland programs payments received per farm. Where (D) is indicated, the information is
not disclosed for privacy purposes.
Net cash returns are defined by subtracting operating expenses from the gross market value
of agricultural products sold. The farm unit is used rather than the individual farm because gross
sales and production expenditures include sales and expenses of not only the farm operator, but
those of landlords, partners, and contractors. Operating expenses do not include changes in
inventory or depreciation calculations.
43
Net Cash Return/Government Payments
Net cash return $ average per farm unit
Gov’t payments- total # farms
Gov’t payments- total $ received
Gov’t payments-Average $ per farm
Conservation reserve/wetlands reserve
Total # farms
Conservation reserve/wetlands reserve
Total $ received
Conservation reserve/wetlands reserve
Average $ per farm
Sierra
23,733
10
27,000
2,670
1
Doña Ana
45,607
160
731,000
4,571
14
El Paso
48,047
58
915,000
15,775
4
Hudspeth
42,688
44
477,000
10,845
9
(D)
25,000
(D)
91,000
(D)
1,808
(D)
10,162
Table 18: Net return and government payments to farms (Ag. Census, 1997).
An examination of Table 18 shows government payments to the counties in the study area.
El Paso County farms received the largest total payment at $915,000 for 58 farms, while Doña Ana
County received $731,000 total government payment dollars for 160 farms. Hudspeth County
received the next highest cash payment at $477,000 with 44 participating farms. Interestingly,
Doña Ana County payments averaged $4,571 per farm, while per farm averages were $15,775 and
$10,845 in El Paso and Hudspeth Counties respectively.
In general government payments are only relevant for cotton. Skaggs and Wiltgen (2000)
report, “few crops in New Mexico have received or currently receive direct government subsidies
or government mandated price supports.” In general, cotton and grain framers have received the
greatest government payments. Dairy producers have received price support. All other crops in the
study region are not eligible for government payments. The numbers here reflect participation in
cotton related programs.
Conservation reserve and wetlands reserve program payments were made to 14 farms in
Doña Ana Count y, with an average payment per farm of $1,808 average payment per farm.
Hudspeth County had a total of nine participating farms with a per farm average payment of
$10,162. Speculation would lead to a conclusion that the land areas under conservation or wetland
programs in Hudspeth County are greater than land areas under similar programs in the other
reported counties. Participation rates in conservation/wetland reserve programs do not appear to
contribute significantly to farm income in most of the counties under study. In general the value
per acre of farmland is exceeded by conservation reserve payments.
An area of opportunity may exist in the counties under study to increase participation in
conservation and wetland reserve programs in an effort to enhance ecosystem restoration activities.
A report produced by the U.S. General Accounting Office states, “ . . . program effectiveness varies
44
by region and type of agricultural operation” (GAO-02-295, 2002, p. 3). Findings also show
programs targeted to particular environmental issues tend to be more effective than more general
programs for environmental improvement. The report also stated landowners prefer programs that
allow for more flexibility in achieving environmental goals. Landowners who have previously
financed and implemented environmental enhancement projects on their land are not allowed to
receive compensation for those activities. This seems to act as deterrent to participation in
environmental programs. Further study of incentives necessary for participation in and flexible
rules and protocols for agricultural water conservation pools would help identify a system for
mutual benefits and outcomes for agricultural and environmental objectives.
F. Characteristics of Farm Operators
In terms of farm operator gender, the vast majority of operators are male. In both
New Mexico counties under study, however, female farm operators have increased between 25
percent and 39 percent since the 1992 Census of Agriculture. Oppositely, in El Paso and Hudspeth
Counties, the number of female operators dropped 3 percent and 44 percent respectively during the
same time period. Given the average age of a farmer in the Chihuahuan Desert Ecoregion is 55
years of age, the increase in women farmers may be due to the death of their husbands and
subsequent inheritance of the farm.
Farm operators are characterized by race in the Census of Agriculture by the following
classifications: white, or black and other races. Black and other races comprise about 16 percent in
Sierra County (7 percent decrease since 1992 with a 14 percent decrease in white farm operators as
well); 5 percent in Doña Ana County (a 4 percent decrease since 1992); 23 percent of farm
operators in El Paso County (a 77 percent increase since 1992); and 8 percent in Hudspeth County
(a 31 percent decrease since 1992).
Farm operators in Hudspeth and Sierra County have the highest percentage of full-time
operators, i.e., farm operators who do not work off the farm. Doña Ana, and El Paso Counties have
the highest percentage of operators whose principal occupation is not farming (approximately 60
percent of these farm operators work off the farm). Yet it can be seen from Table 12 that the vast
majority of farm operations are family or individual organizations. This may indicate families
remain in farming for reasons other than income, including a desire to live a rural lifestyle, carrying
on a family tradition, and reasons not easily quantified. On the other hand, farm incomes and debt
45
structures associated with equipment, land, and other investment aspects of farming may create a
need for individuals to subsidize their own operations through off- farm work.
Items
Sierra
Doña Ana
Farms by value of sales:
∆%
Less than $10,000
83
-22
868
$10,000 or more
97
-4
422
Total farm production expenses , $1,000 12,061
14
177,315
Average per farm, dollars
67,006
30
137,560
Net cash return from agricultural sales
for the farm unit, $1,000
4,272
98
58,787
Average per farm, dollars
23,733
127
45,607
Farms by type of organization:
Individual or family
142
-4
1,095
Partnership or corporation
35
-39
172
Other
3
50
23
OPERATOR CHARACTERISTICS
Operators by principal occupation:
Farming
118
-9
521
Other
62
-19
769
Operators by sex:
Male
155
-17
1,146
Female
25
25
144
Operators by race:
White
155
-14
1,075
Black and other races
25
-7
215
Average age of operator
54.6
0
55.6
(D) = information not disclosed
∆%= percent change from 1992 to 1997 Census of Agriculture
El Paso
∆%
12
-15
12
10
Hudspeth
259
156
56,227
135,487
∆%
-10
3
-25
-21
41
106
19,283
132,073
∆%
11
13
32
19
50
48
19,939
48,047
77
86
6,232
42,688
35
22
3
-13
92
333
77
5
-7
-3
400
105
39
3
14
5
50
-3
5
169
246
-18
6
111
36
21
-8
-2
36
377
38
-6
-3
142
5
16
-44
3
-4
4
338
77
55.2
-6
77
4
136
11
54.8
18
-31
2
Table 19: Demographics of farmers in study area counties, from USDA National Agriculture Statistics Service
(1997).
While many people retire around the age of 65, individuals who work off- farm may
consider incentives from the environmental community that allow them to farm full-time or retire
early. Individuals concerned with retirement assets may consider financial incentives to lease
conserved agricultural water under certain circumstances. Surveys and outreach in the agricultural
community would help identify the needs and concerns of the agricultural community vis à vis
ecosystem restoration, instream flows, and the willingness to conserve agricultural water and
reallocate that conserved water to other uses.
G. Regional Population Information
As of the 2000 U.S. Census, New Mexico had a total population of 1,819,046. This number
represents a 20.1 percent increase from 1990. The U.S. Census Bureau projects New Mexico’s
population will grow to 2,612,000 by 2025, approximately a 44 percent increase. Undoubtedly the
46
greatest population growth will take place in the urban centers of Santa Fe, Albuquerque, and Las
Cruces. Population projections for Doña Ana County expect annual growth rates of 3.14 percent
through 2030, leading to a 153 percent increase in population from the 2000 U.S. Census numbers
(U.S. Census, 2000, http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/35000.html).
The 2000 U.S. Census Bureau reports Texas had a total population of 20,851,820. This is a
22.8 percent increase from 1990. The U.S. Census Bureau projects Texas’ population will grow to
27,183,000 by 2025. This represents a 30 percent increase from 2000.
El Paso County’s population is expected to increase 63 percent by 2030 (from 679,622 in 2000 to
1,254,503 in 2030) with an annual growth rate of 1.64 percent, according to a report published in
March 2001 by the Paso del Norte Water Task Force.
According to the U.S. Census 2000, the total U.S. population reached 281.4 million people,
an increase of 13.2 percent from the 1990 census population number of 248.7 million. While this
report focuses on the Chihuahuan Desert Ecoregion in southern New Mexico and west Texas, it is
interesting to note the west experienced an increase in population increase of 10.4 million people, a
19.7 percent increase over 1990; and population in the south increased by 63.2 million people, a
17.3 percent increase from 1990.
As illustrated by the tables included below, it can be seen that the percentage changes in
population in the study area outpaced overall population percentage increases in the United States.
The 2000 Census shows total U.S. population increased by 13.2 percent. Counties in New Mexico
and Texas in the study area showed percentage increases in growth from 14.9 percent to 46.2
percent. The New Mexico counties included in the region of study showed greater percentage
increases in population than the state of New Mexico overall and Texas, whereas the Texas
counties in the region of study showed lower percentage increases in population than Texas as a
whole.
County
Sierra
Doña Ana
El Paso
Hudspeth
2000 Population
13,270
174,682
679,622
3,344
Percent Change from 1990
33.9
28.9
14.9
14.7
Table 20: Population change in study area counties, 1990-2000
Anecdotal evidence suggests the population for El Paso County is underreported due to the
proximity to the U.S. – Mexico border, and the difficulty census workers have in obtaining
information from illegal immigrants living in the region. Not surprisingly, just across the border in
47
Mexico, Ciudad Juarez has experienced large increases in population over the same time period as
the other jurisdictions of interest. According to the Paso del Norte Water Task Force (2001) report,
population is estimated to be 1,257,926 for the year 2000 in Ciudad Juarez, with annual growth
rates predicted at 4.85 percent through 2001, and dropping off to 2.1 percent through 2020.
Despite the predicted decline in annual population growth rates, Ciudad Juarez population is
projected to be 2,517,708 by 2020. This represents about a 100 percent increase over 2000. While
Ciudad Juarez population is not a direct consideration of this report, regional water demand
projections based on these population increases cannot be ignored. Clearly, Ciudad Juarez’s future
population growth will exert pressure on Rio Grande Project water resources in terms of
reallocation and management. Ciudad Juarez’s growth will also exert continued pressure on ground
water resources, as the supply for the city’s municipal and industrial needs is coming from the
Hueco Bolson aquifer system, which Juarez shares with El Paso. Ciudad Juarez’s growth in water
demand will pose continuing challenges for the City of El Paso water supply management efforts as
well.
H. Municipal Water Demand
Water is the limiting resource in the region of study. Potential future water demand far
exceeds the available supply. Ground water mining in the El Paso, Texas area by the City of El
Paso and Ciudad Juarez, Mexico has resulted in draw down of the Hueco Bolson with a current
expected life left of less than 20 years. Desalination processes for ground water in the Hueco
Bolson are currently being developed, and could potentially increase supply by as much as 20
million acre feet. But water treatment by desalination is expensive, and transferring water from
agriculture to municipal use is likely the less expensive and more appealing option.
48
El Paso
Increased water use
Las Cruces
Increased water use
Juarez
Increased water use
Combined Cities
Increased water use
1998 Annual Use, AF
Total
Surface Ground
135,733
58,741
76,992
20,020
0
20,020
121,601
0
121,601
277,354
58,741
218,613
Estimated 2038 Annual Use,
AF
Total
Surface Ground
299,704 222,712
76,992
163,971 163,971
96,116
75,916
20,200
75,916
75,916
484,335
0 484,335
362,734
880,155 298,628 581,527
602,621 239,887 362,734
Table 21: Urban water use in Las Cruces, the City of El Paso, and Ciudad Juarez for 1998 and estimated for
2038, from Paso del Norte Water Task Force, 2001.
Table 21 presents water use by the three large cities in the study area, Las Cruces, El Paso,
and Juarez for 1998. Note that Las Cruces and Juarez are entirely dependent on groundwater for
their supply. The forecasts for water use in 2038 are somewhat rough; Las Cruces will likely
expand its groundwater use while adding surface supply, and Ciudad Juarez will very likely begin
using surface water for municipal supply far sooner than 2038 because the Hueco Bolson is running
our of potable water. El Paso may also have to rely less on groundwater in 2038 as the Hueco
becomes exhausted. The combined water use of the three cities is predicted to more than triple. It
will also pass a hydrologic threshold: the combined use of the cities in 2038 (880,155 AF) will
exceed the normal release from Caballo Reservoir (790,000 AF). Depletions and return flows are
not considered in this analysis, but the demand for municipal water is clearly a serious
consideration in river restoration planning as well as agricultural and municipal use.
Chapter IV : Irrigation Hydrology
Before proceeding with a discussion of the operations and water conservation efforts of the
irrigation districts, a discussion of irrigation hydrology and the terminology used in this report is
appropriate. The terminology described below is consistent with usage by the water managers in
the area, though terms such as diversion and delivery are sometimes mixed. Throughout this
report, the terms will be used as described below to avoid any ambiguity.
A. Release, Diversion, Delivery, Losses, and Return Flows
The major steps in the hydrologic cycle of the Rio Grande Project are:
49
1. Release is the flow of water from storage in Caballo Reservoir into the bed of the Rio
Grande. The release is controlled by outlet works gates in Caballo Dam, and the releases
are determined by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation based on current flow in the river at each
of the diversion points, orders for water from the irrigation districts and Mexico, and any
special considerations for flood control or maintenance on the system. Currently, releases
are made from February through October, though this season has historically and will likely
continue to be shortened during water-short years. Adjustments to the release are generally
made three times a week, but this will likely be more frequent during water-short years.
There is also a small release made directly from Caballo into the Bonito Lateral, a small
system that predates and is separate from the Rio Grande Project. In 2001, the release to the
Bonito Lateral was 1,100 acre- feet, quite small compared to the 786,900 released to the
Project irrigation districts.
2. Diversion is the flow of water from the river into the canal systems. Diversion occurs
primarily at Percha Dam at the northern end of the Rincon Valley, Leasburg Dam at the
northern end of the Mesilla Valley, Mesilla Dam south of Las Cruces in the Mesilla Valley,
American Dam at the head of the El Paso Valley, and International Dam just downstream of
American Dam, where Mexico makes its diversion. Riverside Dam, sout h of El Paso in the
El Paso Valley, was a diversion point until it was damaged by high flows in 1986 and 1987.
Riverside Dam has been used only occasionally since then, and water diverted at American
Dam can now be conveyed to the canal system formerly serviced by Riverside. The
California Extension and the Del Rio Lateral are two small diversions from the river above
Mesilla Dam, each diverting water for individual users that are constituents of EBID. A
few individuals are also permitted to pump water directly from the river within EBID.
Diversion tends to be larger than release, because some of the diverted water returns to the
river through drains and wasteways, and is part of the downstream diversion supply.
EPCWID has disputed the inclusion of drain water, which tends to be of lower quality than
water directly from the reservoir, in their allocation. This idsupte is dicussed in more detail
below. Local precipitation and other discharges into the river also increase the volume
available for diversion.
3. Delivery is the flow of water from the irrigation canals to farms through farm turnouts. The
diversion of water at International Dam to the Republic of Mexico is also considered a
50
delivery because in the terms of the Treaty of 1906, the diversion at International dam was
considered as equivalent to the deliveries to U.S. Project lands, and diminished in the same
proportion during shortages. Those small diversions that are pumped from the river are
considered both diversion and delivery, since the diversion point is essentially the farm. In
general, more water must be diverted than is delivered, because water seeps into unlined
and, to a much lesser extent, lined canals. Some diverted water is also returned directly to
the river through wasteways as operational spills. A relatively small amount of water is lost
to evaporation from the water surface in canals. Operational spills and canal seepage may
be recaptured by downstream users as return flows. Canal seepage in some areas is also an
important source of groundwater recharge, where it can be recaptured by pumping.
4. Consumptive Use of water is the amount of water removed from the local hydrolo gic system
through the process of evapotranspiration (ET), where water is vaporized into the
atmosphere, and biomass production, where water is tied up in the formation of plant
tissues. ET tends to be much larger than the water used in plant tissue formation, and the
latter term is generally neglected in discussion of consumptive use. As water is applied to
crop land, either by irrigation or precipitation, some water will evaporate directly from the
water and soil surfaces during infiltration, and some will be stored in the root zone and be
taken up by the crop as consumptive use.
5. Surface Runoff is irrigation water or precipitation that does not infiltrate into the soil, and
runs off the field. It is generally collected in a drain or other watercourse returning to the
river as a return flow, though some may be lost to evapotranspiration in the collection and
return systems.
6. Deep Percolation is water that infiltrates in excess of the water holding capacity in the root
zone soil. It percolates beyond the reach of the crop’s active roots, and is generally
unavailable to the crop. Deep percolation is often considered a loss, since it is water not
available for consumptive use by the crop. Deep percolation has both beneficial and
detrimental effects on crop growth. It is absolutely necessary to apply excess water to a
crop to leach salts from the root zone, but deep percolation also leaches nutrients from the
root zone. Whether deep percolation is actually a loss to the system depends on the specific
hydrology. If deep percolation percolates through the root zone and is captured by a
drainage system or ground water pumping, it is a return flow and remains part of the
51
available water supply, and therefore is not a complete loss. If the groundwater is not used
because of quality of access constraints, then deep percolation is a loss to the system rather
than a return flow.
B. Efficiency
Efficiency is one of the most used and abused terms in discussion of irrigation and water
conservation. It is used to convey some concept of quality of performance of an irrigation system,
but unless it is specifically defined and examined in a broad context, the term efficiency is
ambiguous and misleading. Efficiency generally is defined as an output divided by an input. In
irrigation terms, the output may be delivery, consumptive use, or beneficial use of water. Input
may be release, diversion, or delivery. The implications of the various forms of efficiency vary by
hydrology of the irrigation system. This section defines and examines efficiency terms and their
impact on water conservation objectives.
Water released from storage at Caballo Dam flows down the Rio Grande to diversion points
at Percha, Leasburg, Mesilla, and America Diversion Dams where it is delivered to EPCWID and
EBID constituents. The Conveyance Efficiency (Ec) is the proportion of water diverted from the
river that is delivered to farms. Mathematically, it is the ratio of farm delivery to river diversion, or
Ec = Delivery/Diversion, generally expressed as a percentage. Diversion is larger than delivery, so
Ec is less than 100 percent. High values of Ec are common in lined or piped conveyance systems
due to the reduced seepage. High values of Ec also indicate that excessive water is not being
diverted and returned to the system as operational spills. In fact, if a system operator underdelivers
water, there will be a very high demand for the water he does divert, and he may have a high Ec,
but some unhappy irrigators who are not getting adequate deliveries. Low Ec is not necessarily
wasteful, if downstream users can recapture operational spills and canal system seepage.
Application Efficiency (Ea) is an expression of efficiency of the irrigation application
system. It is the ratio of irrigation water consumed by the crop to the water applied to the crop
from the farm ditch or pipeline, or Ea = Consumptive Use/Water applied to crop. The term is
somewhat complicated by the fact that crops get some of the water they consumptively use from
precipitation, though it is a relatively small quantity in the study area. Ea varies from 50 percent in
rather poorly managed surface irrigation systems to over 90 percent with drip irrigated fields. It is
possible to achieve 100 percent in deficit irrigated systems, but the crop will show a reduced yield
due to moisture stress.
52
A closely related parameter is the Irrigation Efficiency Ei, which is the ratio of beneficially
used irrigation water to water applied to the field, or Ei = Beneficial Use/Water applied to crop.
This beneficial use includes the consumptive use plus a leaching fraction, recognizing that leaching
is a necessary function of applied water. Only water infiltrated in excess of a specified leaching
fraction is considered a deep percolation loss in the determination of Ei, but it should be
remembered that deep percolation is not necessarily a loss to the system as a whole. The required
leaching fraction is a function of irrigation water quality (higher salinity and sodicity of water
requires higher leaching fraction), soil type (soils with more clay require more leaching), crop
(more salt-sensitive crops require more leaching), and yield goal (higher yield requires higher
leaching fraction). In practice, water availability often determines leaching fraction, as one cannot
apply excess water to leach if one doesn’t have the water to apply.
Another related parameter is On-Farm Efficiency (Ef), the percentage of delivered water
that is consumptively used by the crop. Mathematically, Ef is the ratio of consumptively used
irrigation water to water delivered to the farm, or Ef = Consumptive Use/Delivery. The
consumptive use is smaller than delivery, making Ef less than 100 percent. Losses or inefficiencies
that affect the value of Ef include losses in on- farm ditches or pipelines. Ea differs from Ef in that
the former does not include losses in on-farm conveyance systems in the denominator, while the
latter does.
Ea, Ei, and Ef are similar to each other. For simplicity in discussion, Ea will be the indicator
of efficiency at the farm level, as an improvement in Ea will generally produce an improvement in
Ei and Ef. Various other combinations of outputs and inputs are sometimes expressed as
efficiencies, but Ec and Ea capture the essence of conveyance and farm application, and will be the
basis for discussion of water conservation measures.
C. Water Conservation Hydrology
In identifying potential water conservation measures within the study area, one must look at
conservation from two perspectives:
•
The farm perspective, where water use and water accounting is based on application of
water. The primary goal is to reduce application of irrigation water.
•
The District perspective, where the responsibility of the District is to deliver water to water
users while meeting obligations to downstream water users in Texas and Mexico. In order
to meet downstream obligations, the primary concern is depletions, rather than farm
53
application of water. The depletion and application are certainly related, but they are not
one in the same, as application efficiency Ea is generally less than 100 percent.
Seckler (1996) examined water conservation efforts in various parts of the world, and
pointed out a relevant distinction in conserved water. In systems where return flows, produced by
processes traditionally considered to be losses such as canal seepage and deep percolation from
irrigated fields, are recaptured and reused by downstream users, reduction in these losses does not
actually create more water to the system. For example, if a canal lining project were to reduce the
quantity of water “lost” to seepage in EBID’s Rincon Valley, conveyance efficiency Ec would
increase because return flows from the Rincon Valley would be reduced, and a like amount of
water would have to be released from Caballo Reservoir to provide sufficient water for diversion at
the downstream diversions. While less water would need to be diverted at Percha Dam, the savings
essentially came out of the return flow, which is not a loss term. This is a local saving (local to the
Rincon Valley) but a system-wide break-even proposition. Seckler termed this “dry water”
conservation, because it does not provide a net reduction of water use for the system as a whole.
Reduction in depletion is a difference matter. If depletions, which in the case of the study
area are primarily associated with evapotranspiration, are reduced, more water becomes available to
other users in the study area. For example, if a farmer who has been growing alfalfa switches to
onions, he reduces the amount of water his crop is depleting, and the saving actually results in more
water available for delivery and depletion by another user. This is what Seckler termed “wet
water” conservation.
“Dry” water conservation may produce significant benefits when water is kept in irrigation,
as farmers can use seepage and deep percolation reduction to increase their available supply in
times of drought, essentially borrowing from the groundwater system.
This distinction between wet and dry water conservation is critical in evaluating
conservation measures intended to provide available water for conservation efforts. Wet water
conservation truly frees up water that may then be assigned to another use whether considered from
the farm or district perspective. Dry water conservation, from the district perspective, has less
impact on conserving the water supply.
There is however a significant benefit even to dry water conservation. While it does not
actually net more available water to the system, it does allow the system managers to actively
control water in the release and diversion phases of the District’s hydrologic cycle, rather than
54
allowing it to flow through to the return flow system where it is passively managed. This results in
improved ability to match timing to demand, making the conveyance and application efficiencies
(Ec and Ea) potentially higher than they would be in the absence of dry water conservation
measures. The ability to actively manage water is also a great advantage in drought conditions.
There may be negative consequences along with the good to water conservation measures.
On-farm conservation measures that increase application efficiency Ea reduce the required
application of irrigation water to achieve a given level of yield (and depletion). While this is
generally a benefit, it will also reduce the return flow to drains, which provide important habitat.
While the return flows may be reduced, the ir salinity and the salinity in the shallow groundwater
will likely become more concentrated. It is, therefore, important to examine direct and indirect
consequences of conservation measures to ensure that they are consistent with conservation
objectives.
55
Chapter V : Elephant Butte Irrigation District
A. Background and History
Elephant Butte Irrigation District (EBID) is a quasi- municipality entity of the State of New
Mexico. EBID was formed and operates under New Mexico Statutes 73-10-1 through 73-10-47
Irrigation Districts Cooperating With United States Under Reclamation Laws; Formation and
Management, and 73-11-1 through 73-11-55 Irrigation Districts Cooperating With United States
Under Reclamation Laws; Fiscal Affairs; Local Improvements and Special Powers. There are
particular Federal acts and contracts that are of importance to the creation and operation of EBID.
In addition, a Quitclaim Deed of January 19, 1996 recorded at Doña Ana County Court House
Book 38, Pages 876-1067 transferred the irrigation facility rights of ways from the United States to
EBID.
The original purposes of irrigation districts organized to cooperate with the federal government
on Bureau of Reclamation projects were:
1.
To serve as a contracting agency for the water users in arranging for repayment of
construction obligations to the government and the furnishing of funds for operation and
maintenance and in connection with other matters that must be agreed to, in contract form,
between the government and the water users.
2.
To serve as an agency for the assessment and collection of operation and maintenance and
construction charges and the payment of same to the government in accordance with
contractual arrangements.
3.
To provide a water users’ organization that might later be expanded for the purpose of
assuming control of operation and maintenance upon transfer by the Bureau of
Reclamation.
In addition to the original purposes, irrigation districts have accumulated various other
functions since they were originally formed, such as:
1.
Defense of project water rights;
2.
Representing water users before all local, state and national government agencies, and
before various associations in matters directly or indirectly related to water;
3.
Participating in project programs such as water conservation, weed control, gopher
control;
56
4.
Keeping in touch with all local and national developments relating to matters that might
affect the interests of the water users.
B. Organization
EBID is governed by a nine member Board of Directors, which is elected at large. Elections
are held every other year on the first Tuesday of December. The Board is divided for election
purposes so that only a portion of the Directors or potential Directors run for election in a given
year. Constituents with two acres or more of water righted land are eligible to vote for Board
members. To become a candidate or vote for the EBID Board an individual must also own a
minimum of two acres of land within the EBID boundaries that have a right to receive project
water. Each board member represents the constituency within 1 of the 9 polling precincts. The
District’s chief executive is the Treasurer/Manager. This individual is responsible for the operation
of EBID as well as fulfilling the direction and policies of the District as set by the Directors.
The Board has broad discretion to formulate policies and procedures for the beneficial use of
Project water within the district. At a special meeting of the Board immediately following the
election, the Directors appoint a Treasurer/Manager, who oversees approximately 100 employees.
They are divided into six major departments consisting of Operations, Maintenance,
General/Administration, Hydrology, Engineering, and Information Technology. These departments
oversee the daily operations of the district. An organizational chart of the district is shown in
Figure 6.
57
Figure 6: Organizational chart for Elephant Butte Irrigation District.
The Elephant Butte Irrigation District Board of Directors approves an annual fiscal year
budget prior to the fiscal year end of October 31. The budget is submitted and approved by the
State of New Mexico, Department of Finance and Administratio n, Local Government Division,
Santa Fe, New Mexico. The EBID Board of Directors and the State of New Mexico, Department
of Finance and Administration must also approve any amendments to the fiscal year budget,
throughout the fiscal year, along with any disposition of assets. Quarterly financial statements are
reviewed by the Department of Finance and Administration.
The distribution of farm sizes within EBID is presented in Table 22. Note that the small
tract Flat Rate farmers constitute only 3 percent of the District’s area, but 39 percent of the
District’s parcels (parcels are the smallest accounting unit of land used by EBID, and an account is
kept for each parcel). On the other hand, parcels larger than 50 acres represent about half of the
District’s water righted acreage, but only about 5 percent of the District’s parcels.
58
Size Range
Acres<2
2=Acres=5
5<Acres=15
15<Acres=25
25<Acres=50
50<Acres=100
100<Acres
Total
No. Parcels
in Size
Range
3,207
2,338
1,384
463
485
276
141
8,294
Acres in
Size Range
3,006
7,200
11,438
8,740
16,378
18,596
25,283
90,640
Rate
Flat Rate
Farm
Rate
Table 22: Parcel size distribution within EBID, 2002.
Farm rate constituents, those with two acres or more of water righted land, pay a basic
assessment each year that entitles them to two acre feet per assessed acre if it is available. If a full
allocation is not available, the basic assessment entitles them to whatever the allocation is. In full
allocation years, a third acre- foot is allocated which farm rate constituents can choose to pay for.
For example, if the allocation is full, the allocation is three acre-feet per assessed acre. Each farm
rate constituent pays the base assessment, and has a right to order two acre foot of water per
assessed acre. If they choose to pay an assessment for the third acre foot, they may do so and order
that water. They must decide whether to pay the third acre- foot assessment by the first of July each
year. They may elect not to order the third acre- foot, in which case that water goes to the
conservation pool, where other farm rate constituents may purchase it on a first-come, first-served
basis. If a farm rate constituent elects not to use part or all of the two acre-feet per acre covered by
the base assessment, they may send it to the conservation pool, and be reimbursed by the District if
the water is purchased by another constituent from the conservation pool. This system of annual
transfer of water through the cons ervation pool has allowed the District to redistribute water for
higher water use crops such as pecans and alfalfa while maintaining the land tax base. In 2002, the
base assessment was $50 acre, and $20 per acre- foot for the third acre-foot. Water purcha sed from
the conservation pool is also sold for $20 per acre-foot.
If the allocation is less than full, farmers still pay the base assessment. For example, if the
allocation is one foot, each farm rate constituent pays the base allocation, even though they will not
receive two acre- feet for it. Farm rate constituents not electing to use their allotment can still send
it to the conservation pool for purchase by other farm rate constituents. A farm rate constituent
may designate to whom their water should go through the conservation pool. In this way, the
59
conservation pool also facilitates annual sale of water among farm rate constituents. The base
assessment (for the first two acre feet) is their tax base in times of short supply.
Farm rate constituents order water through the District’s Dispatch Office for delivery within
a three day window, making the farm rate system a pure demand system. This imprecise delivery
schedule is due largely to the lag time between order placement, adjustment of release from Caballo
to meet the order, and transit time to the farm headgate. Charges for irrigation water delivery are
generally made based on standard rates for a crop. For example, the standard charge for pecans is
six inches per irrigation. A farmer ordering water for a 20 acre orchard would be charged 10 acrefeet against his annual allotment.
Less than five percent of farm rate turnouts are currently metered, but as an incentive to
meter turnouts, EBID will charge farmers based on meter readings rather than the standard charges.
This allows farmers to benefit from conservation measures that reduce their delivery of water.
Demand for turnout meters is increasing, and EBID plans to meter all turnouts, though the sheer
number of turnouts makes this a daunting task. Recent technological advances by the District will
allow low cost metering (about $1,500 per turnout, regardless of size) using existing turnout
structures, though the development is currently in the pilot phase. Priority for turnout
instrumentation is based on area served (larger area served will yield flow measurement data to a
larger percentage of the District’s irrigated land) and on proximity to other telemetry sites, so that
telemetry resources can be shared.
Flat rate irrigators are those with less than two acres of water righted land. The operation
for flat rate irrigation is a strict rotation. In full supply years, “flat raters,” as they are called, are
allowed nine to ten irrigations per year on set weekends. Flat rate weekends are generally every
three weeks. During a flat rate weekend, all flat raters who are current on their assessments may
irrigate, and no farm rate constituents do. Turnouts and headgates are operated by the flat raters
themselves, and scheduling irrigatio ns during that weekend is entirely up to the flat raters.
Deliveries to flat rate irrigators are not metered. No specific quantity of water is associated with
flat rate irrigation, so in short supply years, their allocation is reduced by reducing the number of
flat rate weekends when they are allowed to irrigate.
Flat raters do not participate in the conservation pool, either to place water in or to purchase
water. They may not temporarily transfer their water to other land, and they cannot transfer water
to their land. The exception would be if a single irrigator owns multiple flat rate parcels that
60
cumulatively are two acres or more, the combined parcels may be managed by farm rate rules. The
assessments for flat raters are fixed rates (flat rates) depending on water righted acreage. The flat
rate assessment schedule for 2001 is given below in Table 23.
Water-righted
acreage
Rate
.01 - 1.00
$121.50
1.01 - 1.25
$143.00
1.26 - 1.50
$164.50
1.51 - 1.75
$186.50
1.76 - 1.99
$208.00
Table 23: EBID flat rate assessments, 2001.
C. Diversion structures and service area
The district boundaries include about 133,000 total acres, 90,640 acres of which are waterrighted. The other 43,000 or so acres include canals, drains, right-of ways, and public and private
lands not granted water rights.
EBID has three major diversion structures in the Rio Grande. These structures are owned by
the Bureau of Reclamation and operated and maintained by EBID under contract. All are metered,
and current efforts by the District should have real time diversion data available on the web by the
beginning of the 2003 water season.
Percha Dam is located about two miles south of Caballo Dam. It diverts water into Percha
Lateral, a very small ditch typically diverting less than 100 acre-feet of water, and the Arrey Canal,
which is the primary supply for about 18,690 water-righted acres in the Rincon Valley. The Arrey
canal has an initial capacity of 350 cfs. Sediment is not a serious problem at Percha Dam or in the
Arrey Canal system, since the release from Caballo Dam is essentially sediment- free. Percha Dam
is an ogee spillway section with two radial sluice gates on the west end of the dam. Percha State
Park is located immediately downstream of Percha Dam, and is popular for fishing and swimming.
The International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) is responsible for much of the
maintenance of the river between Percha Dam and the next diversion downstream, Leasburg Dam.
Much has been done to control the river in this stretch, though it is not as extensively altered as the
river below Leasburg Dam.
61
Figure 7: Percha Diversion Dam.
Leasburg Dam is located at the northern end of the Mesilla Valley about 62 miles north of El
Paso and 12 miles north of Las Cruces. It provides water to about 29,560 acres in the upper
Mesilla Valley, including irrigators in Las Cruces. Its initial capacity is 625 cfs. Sediment derived
from the upland areas surrounding the Rincon Valley is a problem at Leasburg Dam. Two
wasteways off the Leasburg Canal return water and sediment to the Rio Grande within the first mile
of the diversion. Leasburg Dam is, like Percha, an ogee spillway section. It has flat sluice gates at
its east end. Leasburg State Park is located immediately downstream of Leasburg Dam, and is the
most heavily used area in the district for swimming.
62
Figure 8: Leasburg Diversion Dam (photo by Zhuping Sheng).
From Leasburg Dam downstream, the Rio Grande is maintained by the IBWC as a canalized
river for flood control and to establish the international boundary between the United States and
Mexico. Levees on either side of the river, installed in 1938, provide flood protection and
minimize the river’s ability to change course and meander. The river stays in an incised channel,
and the area between the levees is kept relatively free of heavy vegetation to maximize its flood
capacity. Public and private land is adjacent to the levees on the outside. The IBWC is currently
conducting an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that examines various management
alternatives for the river that would include varying levels of restoration considerations.
Mesilla Dam is located about 40 miles north of El Paso, and it provides water to 14,280 acres
on the Eastside Canal system and 28,110 acres on the Westside Canal system. Mesilla Dam also
provides water to 10,880 water-righted acres in the Texas portion of the Mesilla Valley. It diverts
water into the Eastside Canal, with an initial capacity of 300 cfs, the Westside Canal, with an initial
capacity of 650 cfs, and the Del Rio Lateral, with a capacity of 12 cfs. Mesilla Dam consists of 13
radial gates 21.5 feet wide. The use of gates rather than the ogee section used at Percha and
Leasburg Dams is likely due to the heavy sediment load carried by the river at Mesilla Dam. The
dam is currently closed to public access except for a few families that use the dam for access to
their homes.
63
Figure 9: Mesilla Dam
In addition to the three major diversions, a few individual river pumps are also in use, and
collectively divert a few hundred acre- feet of water per year. Another very small diversion, the
California Extension, recently began diverting water from a site just upstream of Mesilla Dam.
D. Conveyance System
Water delivery to constituents is accomplished through ten irrigation units consisting of three
ditch riders each. The Rincon Valley is divided into two irrigation units designated 1A and 1B.
These two units deliver irrigation water through more than 76 miles of canals and laterals to more
than 18,100 acres of farms and small tracts.
The Mesilla Valley is divided into eight irrigation units with units 2A, 2B, 3A, 3B, 4A and 4B
supervising irrigations in the upper Mesilla Valley. Units 5A, 5B, 5C, and 6A supervise the lower
Mesilla Valley irrigations as well as some properties in the Texas area that irrigate from New
Mexico canals and laterals. The upper and lower portions of the Mesilla Valley are comprised of
more than 72,500 acres of farms and small tracts. There are approximately 281 miles of canals and
laterals in the Mesilla Valley. The conveyance system in EBID consists of about 357 miles of
unlined canals and laterals, and a relatively minimal amount of lined canals or piped conveyance.
E. Farm application
From the conveyance system, water is delivered to farms through turnouts. In many
Reclamation projects, some minimum acreage (e.g. 160 acres) was required for each turnout,
64
thereby limiting the number of turnouts in the project. No such requirement was implemented in
the Rio Grande Project. As a result, EBID has about 3,500 turnouts, some serving only a fraction
of an acre. Only turnouts serving at least two acres can order water. Smaller acreages are handled
separately, and are given water on a fixed schedule, usually once every three weeks.
The large number of turnouts has made metering deliveries difficult. The cost of equipment
needed to meter a delivery was, in the past, difficult to justify for smaller fields ($2,500-$3,500 per
turnout). That has changed with the growing competition for water resulting and a more acute need
for water accounting. The District is in the early stages of installing meters on all turnouts, starting
with the larger turnouts.
Further complicating evaluation of applied water is the wide-spread, but largely unmetered
and unregulated use of groundwater for irrigation, making EBID a conjunctive use system.
While farm delivery data is not complete, investigations suggest that the application efficiency
(Ea) of irrigation is quite high, at least for progressive farmers. The efficiency is dependent upon
soil type, required depth of irrigation (the depth required to fill the root zone depletion and bring
the soil in the root zone to field capacity), application rate, and cutoff time. On-farm evaluations of
single irrigation events found Ea in a 7.48 acre pecan basin with clay loam soil supplied by a high
flow turnout (optimal conditions for efficient flood irrigation) at about 82 percent. An on- farm
evaluation of a pecan field owned by the same farmer and of similar size basin on sandy loam soil
with a lower flow turnout showed an application efficiency of about 55 percent, suggesting that the
application efficiency is quite variable and strongly affected by soil type (more clayey soils have
higher potential Ea) and inflow (higher inflow leads to higher Ea) (King, 2002). Evaluation of
chloride profiles in several fields and crops (Cortez, 1999) indicated that application efficiencies of
greater than 80 percent are not uncommon in the District, due in large part to deficit irrigation.
Groundwater came into widespread use during the drought period of the 1950s, but it has
remained an important water supply component even in the subsequent full supply years.
Unfortunately, data on quantities of groundwater used by irrigators in the District has not been
collected. Cost of using groundwater is generally slightly higher that the cost of water from the
conservation pool, roughly $25 per acre- foot. Well owners will presumably be required to meter
their wells as their groundwater rights are adjudicated, and the District will require that all
groundwater pumped into District facilities – a common practice during drought – be metered. The
District and the Interstate Stream Commission are collaborating to develop and install well meters
65
and telemetry systems on all irrigation wells in the District, but it will likely take some years to
completely meter the area’s groundwater pumping.
Irrigators pump groundwater to supplement surface water for a variety of reasons:
1.
The primary irrigation season generally runs from late February or early March through
mid-October. The rest of the year, the District does not divert or deliver water. Farmers
growing cool season crops or who need an early or late irrigation for primary season
crops must rely on groundwater during the winter months.
2.
The market for most high- value crops such as vegetables are extremely dependent on
quality of harvest, and the quality is very sensitive to timing of irrigations. Since an
order for surface water must be made well in advance, and the exact delivery date is
uncertain, high-value crop farmers rely on groundwater for irrigation if surface water is
not available when the crop needs it.
3.
High use crops, particularly pecans and alfalfa, require a farm delivery of irrigation
water in excess of the standard allotment of 3 acre- feet per acre. Farmers may acquire
water through the District’s conservation pool if it is available, or they may pump
groundwater to make up the difference.
4.
Vegetable crops are not generally high consumptive water users, but the quality
requirement discussed in (2) above means that irrigations must be frequent and small.
This leads to low application efficiency due to high deep percolation losses and a higher
farm delivery requirement than the normal allocation of 3 acre-feet per acre. Again,
farmers may make up the difference through the conservation pool, but due to the
timing requirements for high value crops, groundwater is the more attractive alternative.
5.
The most important function of groundwater pumping has been, and will undoubtedly
be again, drought reserve. The District’s survival through the drought of the 1950s
through the 1970s was based on creative management of surface water and heavy
reliance on groundwater. The impending drought will induce many of the same
strategies.
66
Figure 10: Groundwater well in EBID.
F. Drainage and return flow system
Within EBID, a drainage system has been keeping the crops and hydrologic system healthy for
several decades. The District was constructed beginning in 1916 as the New Mexico portion of the
Rio Grande Project. No drainage system was initially installed, but when farmers got a reliable,
plentiful supply of water, they used it liberally, creating many high water table problems. In the
early 1920s, construction on a drainage system began and continued into the early 1930s. The
entire system includes over 350 miles of drains to service EBID’s 90,640 water-righted acres. The
open-ditch drains are still functioning.
The drains exhibit a strong seasonal cycle governed by the irrigation season. The West Drain
services a large area of the Mesilla Valley below Mesilla Dam. Its flow and TDS are shown in
Figure 11. Note the flow increasing each February or March, and peaking in August, then dropping
precipitously at the end of the season. The TDS in the drain water is nearly a mirror image of the
flow, running high in the low flow winter months and frequently dropping below 1,000 mg/L
during the irrigation season.
67
Figure 11: Seasonal variation in monthly flow and TDS in the West Drain, 1981-1984.
Another fact of life in southern New Mexico is drought. The drain flows shown in Figure 11
are for a full supply of water. Previous droughts have caused the drains to cease flowing for
months or even a full year at a time due to falling groundwater and reduced recharge from a
reduced surface water supply. All of the drains in the system dried up completely at some point in
very severe drought years, but they have been quick to recover when the drought breaks and the
surface water supply returns. The longer-term behavior of the west drain is shown below in Figure
12. The upper line is the diversion from the Rio Grande into the Westside Canal at Mesilla Dam,
which is the surface water supply for the West Drain’s service area. The lower line is the annual
flow in the West Drain. Other drains also serve the command area of the Westside canal. The
sharp reductions in diversion during the early to mid- fifties, early sixties, early seventies, and late
seventies produced closely corresponding reductions in drain flow, though the peaks and valleys in
the drain flows lag about a year behind the peaks and valleys in the diversions. Heavy groundwater
use and reduced surface water recharge during the drought years produced a drop in the shallow
groundwater of 18 to 22 feet, dropping it below the inverts of the drains. With no groundwater
flow in, the drains remained dry until the groundwater level recovered. Other drains in the District
are similarly dependent on diversion and groundwater levels in their service areas.
68
Figure 12: Annual flow of the West Drain and Westside Canal, 1930-1984.
The drains are as important to EBID as the canal system. Without them, EBID would lose irrigable
land to a rising water table, accumulation of salt, and resulting declining productivity.
The drains also represent an important alternative for habitat restoration. They tend to flow, or at
least have water in them year-round, except in drought years. They flow at lower velocities than
the river or canals, and are unobstructed by diversion or check structures. The District generally
does not maintain the drains as cleanly as they do the canals, so riparian vegetation crowds the ir
banks, though much of that vegetation is exotic salt cedar. Drains are generally mowed and
dredged on a two to four year cycle, depending on how the drain is functioning. The District has at
times agreed to mow on alternate sides of specific reaches of drains so that the unmowed side will
provide continuous habitat through the maintenance cycle.
An ongoing collaborative effort among the District, the City of Las Cruces, and environmental
organizations to develop a pilot wetland project along the Picacho Drain just above its confluence
with the Rio Grande illustrates the potential for “off- line” restoration providing habitat along the
extensive drain system rather than just along the main channel of the river.
69
As it is, EBID’s drain system appears to be keeping the District in a healthy salt balance with a
well-regulated water table under its water-righted land. The interaction with groundwater pumping,
natural inflows of surface and ground water, and the inevitable drought cycles are the subjects of
ongoing research in this irrigation – and drainage – district.
G. Cropping patterns in EBID
The crop mix in the District has changed significantly over time. While some of the detail is
lost with changing record-keeping practices, the general trend with time is clear. Table 24 shows
the crop mix broken up into eight categories, taken from USBR annual reports. The gross total
represents the cropped acres with double cropped acres counted once for each crop. The net total is
the number of acres that actually had crops on them in the given year. Note that every year the net
total is well below the water righted acreage of 90,640 acres. This is due to improvements, roads,
and fallow land.
Pecans
Cotton
Alfalfa
Vegetables
Other Forage
Grain
Hay & Pasture
Miscellaneous
Total (gross)
Multiple Cropped
Total (net)
1960
4,146
55,651
13,855
4,353
1,272
3,963
4,279
172
87,691
4,862
82,829
1970
5,468
44,640
14,200
12,157
2,304
5,874
1,408
126
86,177
3,613
82,564
Year
1980
10,893
25,840
15,138
18,840
1,996
9,343
1,610
284
83,944
4,076
79,868
1990
15,402
24,158
13,074
16,307
5,416
2,869
1,225
737
79,188
2,324
76,864
2001
20,446
14,209
15,601
9,925
9,243
1,352
1,318
656
72,750
2,398
70,352
Table 24: Crop mix acreage in EBID, 1960-2001.
Looking at the data graphically in Figure 4, there are several major trends. First, gross total
cropped acreage, represented by the top of the colored bars, declined by more than 10,000 acres
during the 42- year period. At the same time, the acreage in cotton, a relatively low water use crop,
went from more than half of the District’s acreage to less than one fourth. Pecans, high water use
crops, have been steadily increasing. Alfalfa, a high water use crop, has remained fairly constant.
Other Forage, which presumably is mostly corn, is a higher use crop whose acreage is also
increasing. Specific values of current consumptive use by various crops are given in Table 16.
Ongoing research into the consumptive use of water by crops in EBID by King and Bawazir (2002)
indicates that these values are generally reasonable estimates. The increase in area planted in
70
higher water use crops has been largely offset by decreasing total cropped acreage. The decision of
which crop to plant is a complicated one, but the bottom line in the decision is profitability. The
reduction in cotton acreage in spite of its lower water use is due to its poor market performance in
recent years. The rise in pecan acreage is due to generally favorable market conditions and a
plentiful water supply over the past 23 years that, when combined with the viable groundwater
reserve, gives farmers the confidence to invest in pecan production.
Figure 13: Crop mix in EBID, 1960-2001. Width of each bar represents irrigated acreage.
H. Transfer policies and procedures.
In discussing transfer policies and procedures, it is important to make a semantic distinction
between the transfer of water and the transfer of a water right. Transfer of water is a short term
arrangement that leaves the water right associated with the transferred water appurtenant to the land
from which it was transferred. Transfer of a water right is a permanent arrangement in which the
water right is removed from the land from which it is transferred, and the right becomes
appurtenant to the land to which it is transferred.
71
Water rights may be suspended from water righted land within the District and transferred to
other lands within the District boundaries that are eligible for receiving water rights. Current
criteria for classifying land with water rights include:
1.
The land must have access to EBID’s conveyance system. This may include use of
private ditches or lift pumps that would lift the water from a surface water facility.
2.
The land must not have alkali or saline soils.
3.
The groundwater must not be any higher than four feet below the ground surface during
the irrigation season.
Suspension of land may occur for a number of reasons.
1. The owner falls behind on the District assessments, and fails to make the requisite payment
to catch up. The involuntarily suspended water rights go to the reclassification list.
2. An owner can voluntarily give up his rights if he no lo nger intends to use them and he no
longer wishes to pay assessments. The voluntarily suspended water rights go to the
reclassification list.
3. An owner wishes to suspend water rights on one parcel of land and designate which eligible
parcel within the District the rights should be transferred. This is normally done when a
farmer wishes to permanently move water from one parcel or farm to another that he owns,
or if he sells water rights to another user. This process is termed volitional suspension and
transfer.
The reclassification list is a waiting list of individuals within the District boundaries who would
like to receive water rights on their land. It is a first come first served list. When an applicant
reaches the front of the list, the District evaluates their land to be sure that it meets the criteria
stated above. If so, they provisionally receive the water right, contingent upon payment of a fee to
offset the construction costs already paid by the District’s constituents and upon development of the
land for irrigations. The Board of Directors also reviews the application in a transfer hearing.
Right now, the waiting list is about seven years long. Volitional transfers are not subject to this
waiting list because the destination of the transfer is specified by the individual suspending the
water right, though such transfers are subject to Board approval.
I. Non-agricultural water use
At present, all water managed by EBID is delivered to nominally agricultural users. This
includes some landscape irrigation, particularly on small tracts (less than two acres). However,
72
EBID and the City of Las Cruces, recognizing the need for a water supply for municipal growth in
EBID’s service area, recently negotiated a policy on the creation of Municipal Water Users
Associations (MWUA) and the delivery of agricultural water for municipal treatment and use. This
policy is included as Appendix ??. While the MWUA policy was negotiated with the City of Las
Cruces, MWUAs may be cities, counties, public water suppliers, state universities, or privately
owned water suppliers.
The MWUA concept established by EBID Board-approved policy sets several rules for the
use of water for municipal purposes. It is intended to facilitate the use of surface water by
municipal providers. The policy was negotiated to maintain equity among EBID water users (both
agricultural and municipal), to maintain consistency with EBID’s policies and statutory obligations,
and to maintain the hydrologic health of the system.
Patterned on the EBID’s existing framework for moving water around the District, the
policy allows MWUAs to acquire water in four different ways:
1.
They may acquire water-righted land, and use the appurtenant water right for municipal
purposes;
2.
They may acquire non-water righted land within EBID’s boundaries that meet District
criteria for water rights, and purchase water rights from other land within the District.
The water rights can then be assigned to the previously non-water righted land through
the District’s process of volitional suspension and transfer.
3.
They may lease water right from other water users in the District. The term of the lease
can be from five to 40 years, and the price is negotiated between the MWUA and the
individual leasing water to them;
4.
They may purchase water on an annual basis from the District’s conservation pool. This
procedure is still under development, and the District is considering dividing the current
Conservation Pool into an Agricultural Conservation Pool, from which irrigators would
acquire water, and a Municipal Conservation Pool, from which MWUAs would acquire
water.
The resulting organizational structure is shown below in Figure 14.
73
Total Allotment
Agricultural Users
Leases:
Negotiated
Price
MWUA
Agricultural
Water Used
Transfer Process:
Municipal
Water
(SWTP)
Agricultural
Pool
Municipal
Pool
Figure 14: Tentative structure for transfers of water to MWUAs.
Other details of the policy include:
1.
The water rights owned and leased by a MWUA are consolidated for billing purposes.
2.
A MWUA receives the same pro rata allocation as irrigator, and that allocation is
diminished proportionally in water-short years.
3.
The point of delivery for a surface water treatment plant (SWTP) must be within District
boundaries.
4.
The MWUA must deliver the amount of water produced by their SWTP to users within
District boundaries.
5.
Land from which water rights are leased must be within the MWUA’s service area, or
the lease must be approved by EBID’s Board of Directors. Water righted land owned
by the MWUA may be inside or outside the MWUA’s service area.
6.
If water is to be leased from water righted land, all of the water must be leased, and the
land not irrigated.
74
7.
Until the MWUA is ready to put water to use in a surface water treatment plant, any
water rights they acquire through purchase or lease will go to the agricultural
conservation pool where farmers can purchase it.
There are details to be worked out for the administration of the policy, but the foundation is in
place. The City of Las Cruces and EBID collaborated to develop and promote legislation to allow
the policy to work, including extending the maximum lease term from ten years to 40 years and
exempting MWUA transfers from the State Engineer’s process for changes in purpose of water
rights. The City and District continue to cooperate to remove all obstacles to the implementation of
the policy before the SWTPs are actually ready to take delivery of water.
J. Conservation policies and practices
Water conservation in EBID is a complex and often non-intuitive proposition. The unique
hydrology of EBID, including its conjunctive use of surfa ce and ground water, delivery obligations
to downstream users, and severe drought cycles have forced Board members and managers to look
at the system from a broad perspective.
A schematic of the hydrologic cycle for the reach of the Rio Grande between the gauging
station below the outlet of Caballo Reservoir and the gauging station in the Rio Grande at El Paso
(Courchesne Bridge) is shown below in. Data for many of the hydrologic components are lacking,
and will be considered largely qualitatively. Howeve r, the net depletion (total inflows minus total
outflows) can be calculated from the long-term flow measurement records at the Rio Grande below
Caballo and at El Paso. These are particularly convenient measurements because the subsurface
flow past these points is negligible. The alluvial aquifers pinch out in these areas, so that virtually
all of the flow is in the river and measured. Note that this reach of river includes parts of Sierra
County and part of El Paso County in Texas. The Texas portion includes 10,880 acres of land
irrigated by El Paso County Water Improvement District No. 1 from diversions at Mesilla Dam in
New Mexico as part of the Rio Grande Project Authorized Acreage.
75
Figure 15: Hydrologic schematic of the Ri o Grande between Caballo Dam and Courchesne Bridge (Rio Grande
at El Paso gauging station).
The long-term net depletions for the reach are presented in Figure 16. The net depletions
represent the total amount of water depleted by all sources in the reach (irrigation, M&I, domestic,
riparian evapotranspiration, etc.) less the inflows within the reach (precipitation and storm runoff,
imported water, tributary groundwater flows, etc.). The annual net depletion typically runs about
300,000 acre-feet per year, but there is significant interaction among years, as a short supply of
surface water from Caballo leads to heavier use of groundwater, and wet years immediately
following dry years will show a higher net depletion due to the recharge of the groundwater supply
depleted in the drought. Note that in years of very high release from Caballo, such as 1986 and
1987, the excess water supply leads to no increase in depletion. This is because the use of water in
the reach is at its capacity, and any additional water simply flows through the system.
76
Figure 16: Flows at Caballo and Courchesne Bridge, and net depletion in reach.
This is an important view of the water consumption in the area because significant lo ng-term
increases in this net depletion may lead to an inability to deliver adequate water to Mexico and
Texas. While the specific quantity of water that New Mexico entities must allow to flow through to
Texas is the subject of debate, it is clear that an obligation does exist. Any water use or restoration
planning should consider this as a limiting constraint to the ultimate development of water
consumption in the area, unless additional sources for importation of water are available.
Water conservation measures must be considered both from the farmer’s perspective and
from a District wide perspective. On-farm measures such as drip irrigation can certainly reduce
required delivery to a farm, producing a saving for the farmer. It does not, however, necessarily
decrease the depletion to the system; in fact, drip irrigation may even increase it as it increases crop
yield. EBID has supported farmers’ conservation efforts in on- farm metering by agreeing to use
77
measured deliveries for water charges, reducing the standard charge for farmers who laser- level
their fields, and with technical support on farm ditch lining and other water management measures.
EBID’s focus in its water conservation effort has been primarily on system level
conservation, for example reducing operational spills, facilitating transfer of conserved water to
other users, and matching diversions and deliveries to orders. EBID estimates that of the water it
diverts from the river, about 35 percent seeps into the ground before the water is delivered to the
farm, with about 10 percent seeping into the main canal systems and 25 percent seeping into the
smaller lateral canals. EBID recently began planning a project to replace about 16 miles of unlined
laterals with aluminized steel pipe to reduce seepage and operating losses. Twenty one laterals will
be placed in 48 inch pipe at a total cost of about $9 million, or just over $100 per foot, including
control structures and labor. About half of the cost is for materials, and half for labor and
administrative expenses. This should present an excellent opportunity to evaluate the effectiveness
of lining for water conservation in EBID.
78
Chapter VI : El Paso County Water Improvement District No. 1
Figure 17: American Dam and the heading of the American Canal.
A. Background and History
El Paso County Water Improvement District No. 1 (EPCWID) extends from the New Mexico –
Texas state line south to the El Paso – Hudspeth county line. The District was completed in
essentially its current form in 1925, when the drainage system was completed. A subsequent
contract with the United States to upgrade structures within the District was executed in 1959. In
the early 1990s, another major project was undertaken to improve the conveyance structures at the
District’s primary diversion point for the El Paso Valley, American Dam.
EPCWID took over operation and maintenance of the District from the Bureau of
Reclamation in 1980. On January 22, 1996, EPCWID accepted ownership of the canals, laterals,
drains, and other waterways within its boundaries from the Bureau of Reclamation.
B. Organization
EPCWID is a political subdivision of the State of Texas established under Article XVI,
Section 59 of the Texas State Constitution. A five- member Board of Directors is charged with
policymaking and directing the District, and for setting the annual assessment for constituents. The
79
District has three main departments: the Engineering Department, responsible for evaluating
applications for right-of-way crossings and implementing the District’s Geographical Information
System development program; the Tax Office, which includes Land Records and Water Records
departments; and the Operations Department, which is responsible for delivering water and
includes the Dispatcher Office for taking water orders, the River Team for monitoring the quantity
and quality flow in the Rio Grande from Caballo Reservoir to the District’s final diversion at
American Dam.
C. Diversion Structures and Service Area
The District contains 69,010 water righted acres, with about 10,880 acres in the southern
Mesilla Valley and the remaining 58,130 acres in the El Paso-Juárez Valley. The gross area within
District boundaries is about 100,000 acres. The 10,880 acres of water righted land in the Mesilla
Valley (unit 6B) receive water diverted from Mesilla Dam through the Eastside and Westside
Canals to delivery points on the Three Saints East lateral on the east side of the Rio Grande and at
La Union East on the west side of the river. The land in the El Paso Valley, divided into six
operational units (7A, in the area of Socorro, Moon City, and Clint; 7B, primarily within the city
limits of El Paso; 8A, in the area of Clint, Socorro, and Fabens; 8B, in the area of San Elizario,
Clint, and Socorro; 9A, in the area of Fabens and Tornillo; and 9B, in the area of Fabens), was
historically served by diversions from American Dam and Riverside Dam, but Riverside Dam
failed in 1987. Improvements to the American Dam canals allow the District to take its entire
diversion for the El Paso Valley, including water for the City of El Paso, at American Dam, and
Riverside Dam has been abandoned.
D. Conveyance System
In its 1998 Operational Guide, the District reported characteristics of 256 miles of canals
and laterals, though on its website (http://www.epcwid1.org/index.html) the District states that it
has 350 miles of canals. Of the 256 miles described in the Operational Guide, 51 miles were
concrete lined, 175 miles were earth lined, 29 miles were concrete and earth lined, an about a mile
and a half was in pipe. Subsequent lining has taken place both on main canals and smaller laterals.
EPCWID reports that 75 percent of the quantity diverted from the river is delivered to farm
head gates. This high efficiency is partially due to the comparatively extensive ditch lining in the
80
District. The District also estimates that for every one percent improvement in conveyance
efficiency, 3,700 acre-feet of water, or one percent of the District’s diversion allotment, are saved.
E. Farm Application
The District reports that every farm tract irrigation is metered, and the user is charged with
the quantity metered. Farmers in the District are primarily using surface irrigation with
conventional and high flow turnouts. Some farmers have experimented with drip irrigation in
EPCWID, particularly in the Mesilla Valley where they have access to good quality groundwater.
The groundwater in the shallow alluvium in the El Paso Valley is generally brackish, and is not
currently used extensively for irrigation. That may change in drought conditions, as water shortage
forces farmers to use water of lower quality.
F. Drainage and Return Flows
The drainage system for EPCWID consists of about 270 miles of open drains. As discussed
in Chapter VII, the drains from EPCWID have been rerouted to feed HCCRD rather than returning
directly to the river. Discussion of the hydrology of the drain flows in left for Chapter VII.
G. Cropping patterns in EPCWID
The dominant crop in EPCWID has been cotton for most of the District’s existence, with
alfalfa and pecans a distant second and third. Crop data from the District for the ten year period
form 1986 through 1995 is presented below in tabular form in Table 25 and graphically in Figure
18. The crop mix is different from EBID because of a lack of availability of good quality
groundwater in the El Paso Valley and the increase in surface water salinity in the river as it flows
downstream. The drainage system of EPCWID also has experienced some problems, causing a rise
in the groundwater table and elevated soil water salinity.
Year
Crops
Alfalfa
Silage
Other hay
Cotton
Sorghum
Lettuce/Cabbage
Wheat
Barley
Onions
Chile
1986
8,157
525
174
22,404
2,122
29
4,327
227
653
654
1987
7,528
880
418
28,872
727
123
1,151
96
613
329
1988
6,434
1,338
462
32,870
168
250
168
12
490
78
1989
5,664
1,849
369
30,155
203
37
163
50
474
169
1990
5,242
2,341
0
28,606
565
101
969
35
896
1,203
81
1991
5,699
4,596
0
31,716
0
0
1,466
16
869
1,324
1992
6,389
3,365
565
25,858
0
20
1,637
16
844
2,837
1993
6,924
2,375
1,955
22,200
0
88
1,662
0
1,342
2,835
1994
7,080
2,074
222
24,771
0
0
1,816
74
1,840
2,975
1995
7,010
4,207
0
27,549
0
67
2,774
116
1,027
1,033
1998
6,514
335
477
27,577
3,202
241
3,004
223
1,327
1,401
Pecans
Corn, sweet
Irr. Pasture
TOTAL
5,047
82
1,444
5,651
23
1,194
5,749
83
1,221
5,481
0
969
5,168
0
1,099
6,479
0
890
6,735
0
1,011
7,255
155
1,827
7,475
233
1,890
7,494
63
845
8,390
10
704
45,845
47,605
49,323
45,583
46,225
53,055
49,277
48,618
50,450
52,185
53,405
Table 25: Cropped acreage in EPCWID, 1986-1995 and 1998. From District records (this omits some very
minor crops and does not subtract out double cropped acreage).
Figure 18: Cropped acreage in EPCWID, 1986-1995, 1998.
The District averaged 56 percent cotton in these years, and saw the pecan acreage increase
from 11 percent of the cropped area in 1986 to over 14 percent in 1995. Alfalfa is typically 13 to
14 percent of the cropped area. The District reported that its 1997 McGuckin (Table 17, 2001)
showed the District as having 22 percent pecans, 14 percent alfalfa, 58 percent cotton, and 5
percent sorghum by 2000, with a cropped area of 43,866 acres. McGuckin’s data appears to
exclude several crops that collectively could represent significant acreage, but his data does show a
significant increase in pecan irrigation in EPCWID between 1995 and 2000.
H. Transfer Policies and Procedures
The transfer policies and procedures for both EBID and EPCWID originated from Reclamation.
82
I. Non-agricultural Water Use in EPCWID
One of the unique features of EPCWID is that one of their largest constituents is the City of
El Paso’s Water Utilities – Public Service Board (PSB). The City has been using surface water for
its municipal and industrial (M&I) needs since the 1940s, and has in recent years expanded the
percentage of its water supply drawn directly from the Rio Grande to about half of its water supply.
The City also relies on groundwater pumped from the Hueco Bolson aquifer and the Canutillo well
field in the Mesilla Bolson aquifer. The Hueco has been used heavily by both El Paso and Ciudad
Juárez, and it is nearing the point of exhaustion as a productive aquifer. The City has been
examining various options to increase the amount of surface water it uses during full and near-full
supply years, saving groundwater primarily for times of drought and shortage in the Project Water
supply. As shown below in Figure 19, water diverted for municipal and industrial use of water by
the City of El Paso is still a fairly small percentage of the total diversion to the District. That will
certainly change as the City shifts more heavily to surface water, though the conversion from
agriculture to municipal and industrial use is quite controversial.
In 1999, the City of El Paso’s total water usage was 129,778 acre- feet (City of El Paso v.
EPCWID, 2001). Fifty six percent of this supply came from groundwater, with 51,127 acre-feet
pumped from the Hueco Bolson aquifer in the El Paso Valley and surrounding area, and 22,136
acre-feet from the Mesilla aquifer system.
The City of El Paso received the remaining 44 percent (56,515 acre- feet) from the Rio
Grande primarily though contracts with EPCWID (City of El Paso v. EPCWID, 2001):
1.
1941 Water Supply Contract, allowing the City to acquire up to 2,000 acres of land in the
District and obtain the water allocated to that land. This would provide 3.5 acre- feet per
acre in a full supply year.
2.
1962 Assignment Contract, allowing the City to obtain assignments of rights to water from
lands within EPCWID for a term of at least 25 years, also receiving 3.5 acre- feet in a full
supply years. In water-short years, the water from both the 1941 and 1962 contracts would
be reduced as water allocations are reduced to District farmers.
3.
1992 Memorandum of Understanding, allowing the City of El Paso to obtain one acre- foot
of water diverted from the Rio Grande at American Dam for each two acre-feet of sewage
effluent discharged from its Haskell Street Sewage Treatment Plant and Northwest Plant
into the American Canal. This effluent (required to be of suitable quality) is mixed with
83
water diverted from the Rio Grande and used for irrigation within EPCWID. This MOU
was executed by EPCWID in return for the City of El Paso’s payment of $5 million as the
local share of the American Canal Extension Project, which enlarged and concrete- lined the
American Canal, and extended it 13 miles to the Franklin Canal. According to estimates by
the International Boundary and Water Commission, the project would save 21,300 to
30,200 acre-feet of water per year, primarily through seepage reduction.
4.
2001 Implementing Contract among the USA, EPCWID, and the City of El Paso, which
voids and supercedes the 1992 MOU. It allows delivery of Project Water to the City for
District land owned by the City in excess of the 2,000 acres allowed in the 1941 contract,
and provides up to 50 percent credit for usable sewage effluent delivered by the City to the
District, and water conserved by the American Canal Extension Project. The Contract also
quit claims any rights the City would have to water conserved by the American Canal
Extension Project. The Implementing Contract specifies a procedure for estimating the
capture of underflow of the river by the City’s Canutillo Well Field in the southern Mesilla
Valley, and stipulates that the City must return 1.6 times this amount to the District. In
times of surplus, the Contract allows the City to receive up to about 28,000 acre- feet of
water from the following sources: allocationThe City has pursued legal action against the
District, seeking to receive water on land in excess of the 2,000 acres stipulated in the 1941
contract at the same cost that farmers pay, rather than the roughly $200 per acre foot
stipulated in the Implementing Contract.
While a detailed analysis of the very dynamic relationship between EPCWID and the City
of El Paso is beyond the scope of this study, restoration proponents and the agricultural core of
EPCWID share may common interests that could be explored in the negotiation of a policy on
environmental use of water.
84
Figure 19: Diversions in EPCWID, 1979-2000.
85
Chapter VII : Hudspeth County Conservation and Reclamation District
No. 1
A. Background and History
Hudspeth County Conservation and Reclamation District No. 1 (HCCRD) is located on the
United States side of the El Paso-Juarez Valley along the Rio Grande. Hudspeth County, Texas is
the western extent of the Trans-Pecos physiographic province of Texas. The District extends from
the El Paso-Hudspeth county line southeast to the point where the Guayuco Arroyo enters the Rio
Grande, about three miles up the Rio Grande from Fort Quitman. Figure 20 shows the location of
the District.
Figure 20: Location of Hudspeth County Conservation and Reclamation District No. 1 (from Kirby, 1978).
HCCRD began its evolution around the time of the formation of the Rio Grande Federal
Reclamation Project. The first development was initiated by Rio Grande Valley Farms Company,
who applied to appropriate water in Hudspeth County on September 17, 1917. The State of Texas
approved this application for 27,000 acre- feet to be applied to 9,000 acres in 1918, to be diverted
directly from the Rio Grande.
86
HCCRD, as it is now constituted, was formalized in 1924. The District entered into a
contract with the United States for the rental of surplus waters from the Rio Grande Federal
Reclamation Project in 1924. Both EBID and EPCWID concurred in this contract. The contract
provided for the delivery of water at the terminus of the Tornillo Main Canal (see maps of
EPCWID and HCCRD in appendix disk). The Secretary of the Interior was to determine the
availability of such water, and the rental of water was explicitly inferior to “the right to use water
for any purpose on the lands of the Rio Grande Federal Irrigation Project.” The District
relinquished all right, title, interest, and claim to Rio Grande water, except as provided in the 1924
contract. Payment for the water in 1925 was to be $1.25 for each acre irrigated, paid to the United
States, and the price was to be set each year by the Secretary of the Interior.
The contract also stated that in the event of shortages due to drought, distribution problems,
or due to requirements by the “Rio Grande Federal Irrigation Project or by the use of municipalities
supplied by the waters thereof, or other causes,” the United States bore no liability for damages to
the District or its constituents.
In 1935, Rio Grande Valley Farms Company, for “valuable consideration to it in hand paid
by Hudspeth County Conservation and Reclamation District No. 1,” assigned its water rights for
27,000 acre-feet to HCCRD.
The 1924 contract was amended several times, due primarily to the International Boundary
and Water Commissio n (IBWC) rectification and relocation projects. The current contract under
which the District operates is dated April 27, 1951. This contract provided for the delivery of water
to the District through the Tornillo Canal, Fabens Waste Channel (Fabens Wasteway), and the
Tornillo Drain. The Rio Grande Valley Farms Company right also allowed them to divert water
from the Rio Grande. The cost to the District for water rental is still $1.25 per irrigated acre.
In addition to irrigation, the District supplies water to the Esperanza Fresh Water Supply
Corporation for industrial use, based on a 1999 contract among the District, Reclamation, and
Esperanza.
HCCRD is quite different from EPCWID and EBID in that it is not considered a part of the Rio
Grande Project, though it does lie within the stretch of river between San Marcial and Fort Quitman
typically used to describe the Project limits. The water rights are inferior to those of the Rio
Grande Project, which is a distinct disadvantage in times of short water supply. During the drought
period of 1951 through 1978, the surface water supply was reduced drastically
87
B. Organization
HCCRD is governed by a board of five directors, elected by registered voters living within the
District’s boundaries. The District Mana ger is a full-time employee who reports to the Board and
is responsible for the overall management of the system. The District also has an office manager
and seven other employees, responsible for operating and maintaining the system. The District
Office, warehouse, and Manager’s quarters are located in Fort Hancock, Texas.
Annual assessments are set by the Board to cover operating costs and improvements such as
regulating reservoirs. In 2001, the assessment paid by District water users was $63 per water
righted acre. Water allocation is on a pro rata basis among all water-righted lands. In times of full
supply, the District operates as a demand system, delivering water to farmers roughly in the order
in which they request it. Because of the comparatively unregulated inflows to the District, water
shortage triggers the creation of a water priority list, ranking water rights holders who have
requested water based on how little water they have used up to that point in the season. The system
converts from a demand system to a prioritized rotation system under such circumstances.
C. Diversion Structures and Service Area
The original delivery system to HCCRD was composed of the Rio Grande diversion at Alamo
Canal heading acquired from Rio Grande Valley Farms Company and the terminus of the Tornillo
Canal specified in the 1924 contract. In the late 1940s, unauthorized river diversions by farmers in
Mexico prompted the USBR and IBWC to modify the delivery system so that all tail water, or
return flows, from the Rio Grande Project that had gone back to the Rio Grande were delivered to
HCCRD. The Tornillo Drain and the Hudspeth Feeder Canal No. 1 were used to direct additional
flow to HCCRD, where the water could be beneficially used within the United States. The current
plumbing to direct tail water from EPCWID to HCCRD is shown below in Figure 21.
88
Figure 21: Water supply from EPCWID to HCCRD (from Kirby, 1978).
The District’s total area within its boundaries is 20,176.4 acres, excluding rights-of-way for
state, county, or deeded roadways. Water rights are assigned to 18,249.9 acres. In 2000, about
13,400 acres were actually irrigated. The maximum irrigated acreage was 17,752 acres in 1951.
Water quality, specifically the salinity of irrigation and ground water, is a primary concern within
HCCRD. The water quality from the four sources from which they can receive Rio Grande Project
tail water is quite significant. As Kirby (1978) stated:
“It may be assumed for study purposes that the discharge of the Tornillo Canal at Alamo Alto is
made up of operational waste which is water of good chemical quality. The Hudspeth Feeder
Canal No. 1 is made up largely of drainage water of poor chemical quality supplemented at times
with operational waste of good quality. The Tornillo Drain carries drainage water of poor quality
89
with an occasional small amount of operational waste. The Rio Grande at Island Station is, in
recent years, ephemeral. Discharges past this station are either sluicing waste from the Rio Grande
Project or occasional flood flows. The chemical quality of this water is generally good.” Kirby
(1978) stated that the Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) of the Tornillo Canal at Alamo Alto is
generally less than 900 mg/L, the Hudspeth Feeder Canal No. 1 typically ranges from about 1,500
to 3,500 mg/L, and the Tornillo Drain has a maximum TDS of about 4,000 mg/L. The water
quality available to HCCRD is inferior, both in terms of chemicals and pathogens, to the water
available to EBID and EPCWID users.”
Blair (2001) confirmed this ranking of the relative water qualities of inflows to HCCRD:
“The Tornillo Canal at Alamo Alto discharges operational spills from the distribution system of the
El Paso County Water Improvement District No. 1. This is generally the same quality water that is
available in the El Paso District and is the best quality water available to the District [HCCRD].
The Hudspeth Feeder Canal carries a combination of operational waste and drainage water. The
Tornillo Drain is composed entirely of drain water.” Blair (2001) did not consider the diversion
from the Rio Grande at the heading of the Alamo Alto canal because the use of that facility has
apparently been discontinued.
The primary difficulty faced by HCCRD irrigators is the viability of their water supply in
times of drought. In the previous drought of 1951 through 1978, a decision was made by USBR
managers of the Rio Grande Project, along with EBID and EPCWID, to tighten management of the
Project’s water supply and reduce or eliminate flow to HCCRD. A restricted allotment was
imposed on water users in the Project, and water ordered by an irrigator and diverted for delivery
but not used was charged against the ordering individual’s allotment. Water users within the
Project were allowed to pump water from the drains during winter months or when no water was
being released from Caballo. The goal was to keep all water that could beneficially be used within
the Project from being “wasted” to the Hudspeth District. Kirby (1978) stated that this redirection
was not taken as a punitive action against Hudspeth, but rather recognition of a failing water
supply. The effect of this change in management and reduced water supply can be seen in Figure
22, which shows the irrigated acreage, total inflow, and total charged inflow for the period. Total
inflow is all measured flow at the three headings (Tornillo Canal at Alamo Alto, Hudspeth Feeder
Canal, Tornillo Drain) plus any diversion from the Rio Grande. Total charged flow, for which
HCCRD is assessed, is the total flow from March 1 through September 30 minus any water
90
diverted directly from the RioGrande. The inflow data is from USBR (2002); the irrigated area up
to 1975 is from Kirby (1978); the irrigated area for 1980, 1990, and 2000 are from Blair (2001).
The charged inflow is the total inflow at the three headings from March 1 through September 30,
less any diversions directly from the Rio Grande.
Figure 22: Irrigated acreage, total inflow, and charges to HCCRD.
Note the precipitous drop in water supply beginning in 1951, and the lagging drop in
irrigated acreage. Presumably the lag was achieved through to the use of groundwater as the surface
water supply ran short, and in the mid 1950s when the water supply virtually disappeared, farmers
would have been totally dependent on groundwater and rainfall to provide water even to their
reduced acreage.
HCCRD, seeing its water supply rapidly dwindling in the early 1950s, filed suit against the
Rio Grande Project in an attempt to establish rights to water from the Rio Grande. The litigation
was bitterly fought for several years, and it ended in a complete victory for the Rio Grande Project.
The decision reaffirmed that HCCRD had no rights to the waters of the Rio Grande, only rental
rights to surplus water of the Project as determined by the management of the Project (Kirby,
1978).
91
Farmers adjusted to the short water supply of the drought period by using groundwater,
temporarily retiring land from production, and switching to very low water use crops such as
irrigated pasture.
In his evaluation of the District Kirby (1978) presented a rather gloomy outlook for the
District, understandable considering the 28 years of drought that preceded his investigation:
“It would appear that the Hudpeth District may continue marginal agricultural operations at about
current levels for perhaps another twenty years. At the end of that time, the district most probably
will begin dissolution with only those few water users blessed with good soil drainage and
reasonably good groundwater surviving as independent farmers.”
Ironically, the water supply began its wet cycle the very next year, and HCCRD has enjoyed
three to nine feet of inflow per water righted acre ever since. If the current drought proves to be
anything like the period of 1951-1978, Kirby (1978) may prove to be prophetic, but ahead of his
time.
D. Conveyance System
The District conveys water in two main canals: the Hudspeth Main Canal and the Alamo
Feeder Canal. The Hudspeth Main Canal has its heading at the terminus of EPCWID’s Tornillo
Canal, and it may also take water form the Hudspeth feeder canal. It is 28.47 miles long, and runs
the length of the District. The Alamo Feeder Canal takes water from EPCWID’s Tornillo Drain,
and it can carry water from the Rio Grande. This canal joins the Hudspeth Main Canal just below
Reservoir No. 2.
The District operates about 59 miles of canals and laterals, nearly all unlined. The District
estimates its seepage loss in the conveyance system to be about 20 percent, and did not feel that
lining was a cost-effective water conservation measure. The District instead focused its resources
on regulating storage capacity and pumping plan installation to conserve water.
HCCRD’s conveyance system includes three off- line regulating reservoirs (reservoirs
located off the river) to better match the irregular and unpredictable flows coming from the Rio
Grande Project to the crop water demands of its constituents. They also allow the District to store
inflows during the non- irrigation season for use in the irrigation season. The three reservoirs are
used to capture water flowing into the District during periods when the irrigation demand is less
than the inflow, and store it for release when irrigation demand exceeds inflow. Excess flows often
92
occur when they are needed least, such as when regional rainfall generates storm runoff, but crops
are less likely to need irrigation if it is raining. The combined storage capacity of the three
reservoirs is about 3,600 acre feet. Reservoir No. 1 (Ainsworth Reservoir) is located near the El
Paso-Hudspeth county line, and has a capacity of 1,000 acre- feet of storage. All water leaving
EPCWID except the Tornillo Drain can be directed into this reservoir. It has a perimeter of about
two miles, and a maximum embankment height of about six feet. It discharges into the Hudspeth
Main Canal.
Reservoir No. 2 (Cla yton Reservoir) is located near State Highway 20 about half way
between Acala and Fort Hancock. Its embankment is 9,775 feet in length, and its capacity is about
600 acre-feet. This reservoir receives water from the Hudspeth Main Canal, and it discharges back
into the same canal further downstream.
Reservoir No. 3 (McKinney or Diablo Reservoir) is located farther southeast, and was
reconstructed and expanded in 1992. Its embankment is 11,200 feet in length, with a maximum
height of 10 feet. The reservoir’s capacity is 2,000 acre- feet. It is filled by and discharges into the
Hudspeth Main Canal.
E. Farm Application
The District is nearly all flood irrigated, though a few farmers have experimented with drip
irrigation. To maintain a healthy salt balance in the crop root zone, farmers need to apply excess
water to flush salts from the root zone. This results in deceptively low on-farm application
efficiencies of about 50 percent. The excess water is performing a beneficial function, but only
about half of the applied water is actually used by the crop as ET.
F. Drainage and return Flows
With its comparatively poor water quality, drainage is absolutely critical to the functioning of
HCCRD. Irrigators must consider both crop moisture stress and salt management when deciding
when and how much to irrigate. The District maintains about 76 miles of open-ditch drains,
typically excavated between eight and 12 feet deep, to control the water table and remove salt from
the irrigated fields. Because drainage is suc h a critical function in HCCRD, the drains are kept
freer of vegetation and debris, which could hinder their flow, than the drains in the Rio Grande
Project districts.
93
G. Cropping patterns in HCCRD
The dominant crops in HCCRD are cotton, which is a low water use crop that is tolerant to salinity,
and alfalfa. In spite of the poor water quality and uncertainty of the water quantity faced by
HCCRD, irrigators within the District manage to achieve yield levels (and consumptive use of
water) of cotton and alfalfa similar to those in the Rio Grande Project. With the full water supply
of the past two decades, the area planted in alfalfa doubled between 1990 and 2000, and chile and
corn have joined the mix. Blair (2001) presented the following crop inventories by decade:
Year
1980
1990
2000
Crop
Acreage
Value
Acreage
Value
Acreage
Value
Wheat
N/A
N/A
184
$238,464
Alfalfa
N/A
N/A
637
$478,050
1,444
$938,600
Upland Cotton
N/A
N/A
3,148 $2,228,989
6,998 $6,686,589
Pima Cotton
N/A
N/A
10,391 $6,488,322
3,161 $2,570,209
Chile (dry)
N/A
N/A
675 $1,166,400
Corn Silage
N/A
N/A
1,126
$760,050
Total
15,237 $5,161,637
14,360 $9,433,825
13,404 $12,121,848
Table 26: Crops and crop value in HCCRD, 1980-2000, from Blair (2001).
H. Potential for Water Conservation for Restoration
HCCRD farmers are necessarily flexible and willing to try new things, as they must adapt to an
ever-changing water supply. The District provides water to Esperanza Fresh Water Supply
Corporation under contract, so non-agricultural use appears to be within their mandate. The
District also maintains agreements with the Audubon Society to allow birdwatchers to use the
District’s three reservoirs, which are a haven for water fowl.
Several water conservation measures have been implemented or considered. The farms in
the District are generally serviced by high flow turnouts, and nearly all of the District’s irrigated
land has been laser- leveled. Uniformity of application is probably quite high, and significant
improvements in uniformity are unlikely under surface irrigation. Farmers do necessarily apply
extra water to leach salts out of the root zone, and this water is collected by the drainage system and
returned to the river. A project focusing on coordination with farmers to determine minimum
acceptable leaching fractions could reduce the applied water. However, Blair (2001) discounted
the benefits of irrigation scheduling, a closely related practice, because the District is a “run of the
river” system, and fa rmers must use the water when it is available. Farmers must also consider
anticipated climate, anticipated water supply, water quality of irrigation water and soil water, when
determining how much and when to irrigate. These same reasons make the potential for limiting
94
leach water application questionable. Farmers will accomplish as much leaching as possible when
surface water is available, because they don’t know when water will be available again.
At least one farmer has begun growing chile under drip irrigation. This technology may be
necessary for continued crop production in HCCRD in the impending drought conditions. Because
drip irrigation allows farmers to apply less water and more carefully manage the soil salinity,
farmers can use drip to make due with a reduced water supply by using what surface water is
available and supplementing it with marginal to low quality groundwater. This is an attractive area
for further exploration in terms of managing water for river restoration, and it could free up water
for restoration efforts in the Forgotten Reach.
95
Chapter VIII : Potential for Managing Water for Restoration Projects
There are many opportunities to obtain water for river restoration in the study area through
purchase, lease, donation, conservation, or collaborative projects that do not impair other water
rights. However, there is one fundamental obstacle in the way of obtaining, holding, and using
water for river restoration: on the Rio Grande, restoration really isn’t in the rules.
A. Developing the Institutional Framework for Obtaining and Managing Water for
Restoration
The first and most critical project that must be executed before, or at least in parallel with,
physical restoration projects is the development and negotiation of the rules and institutional
framework under which water can be acquired, transferred, managed, and accounted for
restoration projects. The details of this framework will have profound effects on what is feasible
and how projects are executed.
Several issues must be addressed, and several agencies will necessarily need to be involved.
The irrigation districts are the logical place to begin negotiations, because the government agencies
will be much more likely to cooperate with a unified district -environmentalist proposal than a
divided one. Experience suggests that it is not productive to try to satisfy everyone at the same
time, so choosing single entities to initiate the process will be most productive. The three districts
have very different rules, requirements, interests, and cultures, so it would be best to work with
them individually rather than collectively.
A logical starting point would be for an environmental group to approach one of the
districts to jointly develop a policy creating a class of water use for environmental use paralleling
that developed by EBID and the City of Las Cruces for transfers to municipal use described in
Chapter VI of this report. This policy should cover the acquisition of water rights, on a permanent
basis, through sale, donation, or reclassification, and transfer of water on a temporary basis. Criteria
for suitability and classification of land for restoration should be discussed. The details for
accounting for the water, land appurtenance, application of water to land that is not irrigable or is
owned by the federal government along the river, consumptive use, and transfers from one part of
a given district to another must be addressed.
The other agencies involved in water regulation and management will obviously have to be
addressed. Parallel negotiations to develop the institutional means to acquire, manage water for
restoration with the state regulatory agencies (New Mexico Office of the State Engineer, Texas
96
Natural Resources Conservation Commission), and federal agencies involved in river management
and administration of water compacts and contracts (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the International
Boundary and Water Commission, Fish and Wildlife Service, Army Corps of Engineers) should be
undertaken when negotiation with the irrigation districts is making progress.
Even the Colorado Rio Grande Compact Commissioners will likely need to be involved, as
any changes in the use of water in the Rio Grande Project area may draw fire if the release pattern
from Project storage reduces Colorado’s options in its Compact compliance. Particularly with the
Project storage as low as it is now, with Article VII of the Compact in effect, Colorado and New
Mexico are particularly vigilant in examining flows exiting the Project to HCCRD, as they may not
store water in post-compact upstream reservoirs without relinquishing credits in Project storage. In
1996, when Project Storage was high and near spill level, Colorado complained that EPCWID was
wasting water downstream to avoid a spill that would have cancelled Colorado’s Compact debt.
Any new management objective that will affect compact accounting, either at high or low storage
levels, will meet with harsh opposition from the upstream states.
While the development of the institutional infrastructure for restoration will not in itself
immediately put water for use in restoration projects, it is the most important step in the long-term
restoration of the river. Irrigators, regulators, and water managers are accustomed and required by
statute to follow a uniform set of rules for the allocation and management of water that ensures
equity in distribution and protection of individual property rights. Any collaborative restoration
effort will have to maintain these qualities. Other projects may certainly be attempted in parallel,
but until the institutional arrangements are made to allow water to be put to use for river
restoration, the projects will be highly contentious and limited in scope.
Estimating the cost for developing the institutional framework for applying water to river
restoration is very difficult to estimate. Legal costs will likely be the largest component of such an
effort, and technical evaluation will also be necessary. As the districts are all rather fully
committed to fighting legal battles on multiple fronts (including with each other), a grant to help
them defray the legal and technical costs of negotiation would certainly make them more receptive
to an institutional framework proposal. A pilot project could probably be launched for as little as
$10,000, but it is not unreasonable that total costs of such a negotiation could run up to $100,000 or
more, if issues are difficult to resolve. In any case, it is a necessary investment.
97
Returning to the example of EBID and the City of Las Cruces, that negotiation process and
resulting policy on MWUAs can provide a model for the development of a policy on
Environmental Water Users Associations (EWUA), to coin an acronym. While there are many
issues to address, a starting point for negotiations between irrigators and environmentalists could be
a policy mirroring that for MWUAs. Allowing EWUAs to acquire water through purchase, lease,
or from transfer through an environmental pool would provide access to surface water for
restoration activities through the market or by donation. A first cut at an organizational structure is
presented below in Figure 23. Presumably, many of the same restrictions on water use and service
area discussed fo r MWUAs in Chapter V would apply to EWUAs.
Figure 23: Potential structure for Environmental Water Users Association within EBID.
Several issues come to mind that would have to be addressed in negotiations and with legislation.
For example:
1.
The EWUA does not have a defined service area, so the location of leased of water
rights would have to be addressed.
2.
Some sort of definitive statement that river restoration is a beneficial use of water would
need to be made by the participating District and probably the appropriate state if the
EWUA is to receive water or water rights.
98
3.
Much of the land that would be preferred for restoration activities is not suitable for
water use under current agricultural criteria. Some modified criteria for environmental
water would have to be developed.
4.
EBID, EPCWID, and HCCRD have different organization structures and operating
procedures that could require a radically different approach and starting point for
negotiation. This suggested structure is most appropriate to EBID. EPCWID and
HCCRD’s longer history with non-agricultural use should provide some bases for
starting, though competition with the City of El Paso may make cutting a deal with
EPCWID difficult.
Once the institutional details are worked out, many projects are possible for obtaining water for
river restoration.
B. Purchase of Water Rights
If an EWUA has the financial resources and the institutional framework has been
implemented to facilitate it, outright purchase of water rights is the simplest and most flexible
method of obtaining water rights. Most irrigators are strong proponents of private property rights,
including water. Purchase of the water right for restoration with a willing buyer and a willing seller
is likely the most acceptable method to irrigators for acquisition of water.
As the institutional framework now stands, land would have to be purchased or already
owned by an environmental group or its members if they are to purchase water rights. The going
price of water righted land varies widely, depending on parcel size, parcel location, quality of land
for agriculture, existing permanent crops and other improvements, zoning, and general trends in the
real estate market. Currently in EBID, water righted agricultural land in parcels of a few dozen
acres or larger sells for $4,000-$5,000 per acre in the northern Rincon Valley near Arrey and
Garfield, $5,500-$6,000 per acre in the vicinity of Hatch and Rincon, over $10,000 per acre in the
Las Cruces area, $6,000 per acre south of La Mesa, and about $8,000 in the Anthony, New Mexico
area. Parcel size is a major factor as well, with a 5 acre lot in Mesilla Park selling for $25,000 per
acre.
The drawback, of course, is the price. While McGuckin (2001) suggested an average return
of $45.45 per AF delivered to an EBID farm, one must consider the opportunity cost to a water
rights holder. Growing competition for water, particularly due to the rapid urban growth in the
area, has made the price of water rights escalate rapidly. In EBID, the City of Las Cruces is
99
acquiring rights for water on a 40- year lease basis that amounts to an outright purchase for the
water right. The City pays $1,000 per acre for small tract (flat rate, less than two acres) water
rights, which would be $333/AF in a full allocation of three feet. They pay a sliding scale for farm
rate water rights, going from $607 per AF for a two acre parcel to $1,000 per AF for a parcel that is
20 acres or larger. They assume a 3 acre- foot allotment in calculating the total price, so a two acre
parcel would receive $1,821 per acre, and twenty acres or larger would receive $3,000 per acre.
Note that the price of water approaches the lower end of land prices in EBID. Values between two
and 20 acres are linearly interpolated. Of course, if the allocation is short due to drought, the City’s
allocation will be reduced in the same proportion as the farmers’. Since Las Cruces has no surface
water treatment capacity on line yet, they have not used any of the water.
The lease amounts to a purchase because at the term of the lease, the City has the option to
extend the lease or purchase the water right for no additional compensation. Basically, the water
rights are controlled by the City until the City can work out the details of land to which the rights
can be appurtenant if the City owns them, because the City is not buying the land from which the
water rights come.
The City of Las Cruces also purchased water righted land, and maintains the rights
appurtenant to those lands. The infamous Kmart parking lot in downtown Las Cruces is an
example of water righted land whose water has been going to the Conservation Pool for many
years, and will continue to do so until Las Cruces has surface water treatment capability. The City
of Las Cruces’ preference would be to lease water as described above, so that they do not have to
pay for land as well. The problem is that currently, the only way to own District water rights is to
have land to which the rights are appurtenant.
The City of El Paso owns just under 3,000 acres of water-righted farm land from which it
takes water for municipal use. The water and land were presumably acquired through a standard
purchase at prices similar to those quoted for EBID, though potentially higher in the City of El Paso
and lower in the far southern end of the District.
Purchase of water rights or water-righted land in Hudspeth County may present a longer
term opportunity for restoration. The District has no right to Project water, but in full supply years,
the flow of water from EPCWID to HCCRD has been on the order of 7.5 feet per water-righted
acre. Assuming Blair’s (2001) state seepage loss of 20 percent is the primary loss term in the
District, this would mean a pro rata delivery of six feet per acre. However, the water supply to
100
HCCRD has historically been reduced more sharply in times of shortage than the supply of the
Project districts. If the current shortage turns into a few years of short supply, many farmers in
HCCRD may look for opportunities to cash out of farming rather than incur losses and debt to
survive the drought. It is unlikely that irrigated agriculture will disappear entirely from HCCRD,
even in a severe drought, but the investments farmers would have to make in order to continue
production, including equipment such as wells and drip irrigation systems may make it a losing
proposition for many. A willing buyer-willing seller relationship between environmentalists and
farmers for water, with or without land, could prove mutually beneficial.
There would be little competition from municipalities because of the generally low quality
and unreliable supply. While it is difficult to guess what will happen to irrigated land prices in
HCCRD, this would likely be the least expensive surface irrigated land in the study area, and its
location presents unique opportunities for restoration. However, the water supply is also the least
reliable in HCCRD, and growing competition from urban growth upstream may cause a severe and
permanent reduction in the water available to HCCRD.
Sitting just above the Forgotten Reach with 3,600 AF of regulation reservoir capacity,
HCCRD would be an intriguing location for managing restoration projects below Fort Quitman.
While it is beyond the scope of this study to venture into specific restoration projects, simulation of
a more natural hydrograph in the river is clearly one important aspect of restoration. Using water
owned by an EWUA, releases could be made from the regulating reservoirs for short durations to
produce a peaked hydrograph downstream. Additional storage and release capacity would
probably be necessary to achieve the desired peak, and farmers would likely be happy to have
assistance in improving their regulating reservoir system.
The drawback of this approach in Hudspeth is that any restoration project will have to deal
with the same inevitable shortages that farmers are facing. While that applies throughout the study
area, HCCRD is in the most vulnerable position to catastrophic shortages. Also, as noted in section
A of this chapter, large flows downstream of the Project have in the past and present triggered
protests from Colorado and New Mexico at both high and low levels of storage in Elephant Butte
Dam, and so some sort of understanding with the upstream Compact states should be established.
C. Leases of Water
Leases offer much the same advantages as purchase. They are a contractual agreement
between a willing lessor and a willing lessee to convey the use of property. Long term leases are a
101
multiple year lease, as opposed to an annual transfer of water. As stated previously, the City of Las
Cruces has a long term lease program building water rights for the time when their surface water
treatment plants go online, but in this case it really amounts to a sale.
The City of El Paso leases about 7,500 acres of land from which it takes the annual
allotment for municipal use. The City therefore has a combined ownership and leases of about
10,500 acres, and they also receive a two-for-one credit on waste water treatment plant effluent
discharged into EPCWID’s canal system, whereby they receive one AF of surface water from
American Dam for every two AF of effluent they put into the system. This provides a surface
water supply of about 55,000 AF for the City.
In order to increase the water available to the City of El Paso, the City, EPCWID, and the
Bureau of Reclamation negotiated an implementing third-party contract to allow the transfer of up
to 28,116 additional AF of water to the City. The supply available to the City would be determined
annually by EPCWID, and the price is fixed in the contract. The contract price was set to $193.40
per AF per year in 2001, increasing linearly to $260.00 per AF per year in 2010. Amortized at 10
percent discount rate for perpetuity, this would be the equivalent of a purchase price of $2,600, a
price that many municipalities in the west would gladly pay. The contract also sets the price of $15
per AF per year for water the City owns rights to, and states the two- for-one sewage effluent credit.
It is important to note that these are prices for one-time use of the water, not a permanent water
right.
In 1999, EPCWID commissioned a study of water prices in the western United States by
Business Valuation Services. Adjusting various complicated contract terms and details for sales
and leases to common dollars per acre- foot per year, that study showed the following transactions:
102
To
City of Westminster
(CO)
From
Irrigator
Quantity
22.5
Year
1997
Residential Developer
(UT)
Irrigators
$480.00
M&I
15
1999
Buy
Town of Taos (NM)
Irrigators
$382.00
Municipal
98
1997
Buy
San Diego County
Water Authority (CA)
Imperial
Irrigation
Dist.
$249.00
M&I, Ag
130000
1997/98
Transfer
Santa Fe County Utility
(NM)
4
individuals
$244.90
M&I
588
1997/98
Buy
City of Fort Collins (CO)
3 irrigators
$165.82
Municipal
30.25
1997/98
Buy
City of Boulder (CO)
Irrigator
$140.00
M&I
25.5
1998
Buy
City of Boulder (CO)
2 irrigators
$114.71
Municipal
39.44
1997/98
Buy
Lower Colorado River
Authority
Garwood
Irrigation
Co.
Brownsvill
e Irrigation
Dist.
Hidalgo
County
Irrigation
Dist.
BMACWC
ID
$89.11
M&I
101000
1998
Buy
$85.20
Municipal
1152
1998
Buy
$76.80
Municipal
68
1997/98
Buy
$56.00
Municipal
6000
1997
Lease
20
Browns
Valley
Irrigation
Dist.
Browns
Valley
Irrigation
Dist.
Green
Valley
Farms
Irrigators
Irrigators
Irrigators
$50.00
Municipal
4000
1997
Lease
1
$50.00
M&I
3000
1999
Lease
1
$45.00
M&I
396
1999
Lease
5
$34.73
$34.00
$30.00
M&I
Municipal
M&I
492.66
550
2219.8
1999
1999
1999
Buy
Buy
Lease
5
Irrigators
Irrigators
$25.00
$25.00
Municipal
M&I
588
1126
1999
1999
Lease
Lease
3
3
City of Brownsville (TX)
North Alamo Water
Supply Corp. (TX)
Bexar Municipal Water
District (TX)
Sacramento County
Water Agency (CA)
Sacramento County
Water Agency (CA)
Martindale Water
Supply Corp. (TX)
Sandy City (UT)
San Antonio (TX)
San Antonio Water
System (TX)
San Antonio (TX)
San Antonio Water
System (TX)
$/AF/yr
$1,026.67
Purpose
Municipal
Lease/Buy
Buy
Term, yr
Table 27: Water prices in the Western United States, from Business Valuation Services, 1999.
103
45
D. Passive Use of Water for Restoration
One major consideration in planning restoration activities is that not all restoration needs to
have water allocated to it. If a restoration project can be implemented without impairing other
water rights, most farmers would not object. Of course, it would have to be demonstrated that the
quantity, timing, and quality of water deliveries are not impaired, and developing acceptable
methods based on the best available science would be a valuable contribution to the field of river
restoration.
This passive use of water, in which water need not even be allocated or diverted, could
occur in the river channel as improvements are made along its course. Various forms of this
approach are being analyzed in an EIS process being conducted under the supervision of the IBWC
for restoration of varying degrees in the canalized sections of the river. The alternatives are not
being well received by the irrigators, at least in EBID, because the alternatives other than no action
will increase riparian depletions along the river, and there is no way for the IBWC to offset these
depletions other than taking it from the Project water supply. This appears to many farmers in the
Project to be a government taking of their water right. Unfortunately from a river restoration
perspective, the river has been engineered and manicured for many decades to minimize riparian
evapotranspiration, maximize flood conveyance capacity to protect property, and convey water as
efficiently as possible to the diversion points of the Rio Grande Project. The river is maintained in
an incised, relatively straight channel, and the overbank between the flood control levies is kept
mowed except for a bank stabilizing fringe of native and exotic trees at the edge of the main
channel. Any significant attempt to restore the river to a more natural stream will result in increased
depletions, so before any such project is attempted, some way of addressing the institutional issues
discussed in section A of this chapter and offsetting depletions with acquired or conserved water
will be necessary if farmer cooperation or approval is expected.
On the other hand, the drain systems of EBID and EPWID represent an opportunity for
creation of riparian habitat. The drains represent about four times the length of the river in the study
area. They are generally more heavily vegetated than the river. The flow velocities are much
lower than in the river channel, and their flow tends to continue through the non-irrigation season,
as shown in Figure 11. Since the drains already are fairly heavily vegetated, largely by the high
consumptive use exotic species salt cedar, riparian restoration projects could be implemented in the
drains without increasing the depletion to the system. A typical view of a drain with heavy
104
vegetation is shown below in Figure 24, looking upstream in the Selden drain near its confluence
with the Rio Grande in 2001. The drainage systems of EBID and EPCWID are in many respects
the most viable riparian habitat in the stud y area. HCCRD maintains much cleaner (that is,
vegetation-free) drains than the other two districts because of its critical need for effective drain
flow to remove salt.
Figure 24: Riparian vegetation along the Selden Drain, EB ID, 2001. A beaver dam is in the foreground.
This approach is the basis for a collaborative project among EBID, the City of Las Cruces,
and the Southwest Environment Center (SWEC). Using a parcel of land owned by the New
Mexico Game and Fish Department, the cooperating organizations are developing a Bosque Park at
the confluence of the Picacho Drain and the Rio Grande. The site, shown in October of 2001, has
large stands of heavy salt cedar that are to be removed and replaced with a more open canopy of
native vegetation species. Work by Bawazir (2000) at the Bosque del Apache indicates that the
105
difference in evapotranspiration between a dense salt cedar stand and a restored cottonwood stand
with less dense canopy was more than one foot. The reduction in evapotranspiration due to the
change in vegetation at the Bosque Park allows restoration of native vegetation and even some
open water and wetlands without increasing net depletion. EBID agreed to this particular project as
a pilot to explore the possibility of restoration within existing frameworks.
There are drawbacks to restoration in the drains. As shown in Figure 12, in times of
drought the drains may dry out for months or even a year at a time. This could cause the loss of
plant materials and habitat. One possible solution would be to hold some water rights, either by
ownership, donation, or lease, that could be applied to the drain to keep it alive in times of drought.
Basically, this amounts to irrigating the drain when the water table drops below the drain invert.
While the rights-of-ways are narrow enough to present some restoration problems (typically 75
to 100 feet, including maintenance roads), they also present an opportunity for farmer
collaboration. Much of the extensive length of drains is adjacent to private farm land. The width
of the drains as riparian habitat could be widened, at least in sections, by implementing a
conservation easement program. Under such a program, either incentive based or purely voluntary,
farmers could set aside frontage along drains to provide extra width to the riparian zone.
Environmental groups could assist in planning and construction of restoration corridors along the
drains and conservation rights-of-way, and farmers would receive the benefit of the improved
habitat literally right in their own back yards.
The depletion within the drain right-of-way could generally be maintained as unchanged, and
the conservation right of way would already be water righted. The cost to the farmer would be the
loss of potentially productive farm land, and so some sort of an incentive program would likely be
necessary. A logical place to start on this concept would be to do a comprehensive survey of
irrigated land owners along the drains to see what the level of interest would be in such a program,
what the spatial distribution of interest along the drains would be, and what sort of incentives
would be necessary to motivate irrigators to participate. EBID and EPCWID have geographical
information systems that could perform a spatial query to identify all land owners along suitable
drains who could then be surveyed. Agreements with the districts would also need to be negotiated
to allow restoration in the drain rights-of-ways while maintaining the function and maintenance
access to the drains.
106
The feasibility of restoring habitat in the drains would have to be carefully evaluated and
planned. In the agricultural areas, the depth of the water surface below the surrounding land
generally runs from about six feet to as much as ten feet. Generally the drains need to be as deep as
they are to avoid elevated groundwater in local agricultural lands. The interaction of riparian
vegetation with the groundwater table is a critical element of restoration planning, so depth to
groundwater in the drainage and conservation rights-of-ways would also have to be evaluated.
HCCRD is the least suitable candidate for habitat restoration along their drains. They
maintain their drains much cleaner than the other two districts because drainage is a more limiting
factor for them, and the efficient functioning of their drains for salt removal is much more critical.
Heavier vegetative growth along their drains would elevate the drainage base and local water table,
which would lead to salt and sodicity buildup, and impair drain function. Irrigators in the more
poorly drained parts of EPCWID would face the same constraints. While irrigators in EBID and
much of EPCWID do rely on their drains for salt removal, the primary function of the drains is
generally water table control, which can be accomplished even with low flow velocities and
fluctuating depths to groundwater. The quality of drain flows in HCCRD is also lower than in the
other two districts, and it would likely severely restrict the vegetation species available for use,
though salt grass and similar salt-tolerant species could be considered.
E. Water Conservation for Restoration
One of the more promising but complex sources fo r water is conservation. In negotiating
agreements with the districts to allow use of water for restoration as discussed in section A of this
chapter, the administration of conserved water will necessarily be an important topic. The basic
approach should be to collaborate with farmers to implement on- farm conservation practices and
with the districts to implement system- level conservation practices. The net water saving from a
given conservation practice could then, if the details can be negotiated with individual farmers and
the districts, be reserved for restoration. This could correspond to sending it to the “Environmental
Pool” in Figure 23.
Because of their very different hydrologic and institutional settings, that which constitutes
conservation in one area of the districts may not in another. The discussion below addresses water
conservation measures and their potential impact in each of the three districts. The discussion is
based on potential hydrological impacts, but it should be kept in mind that the water saved for
restoration may be quantified hydrologically, but policy toward its use is a negotiated issue.
107
F. On-Farm Water Conservation
On-farm water conservation generally would directly involve irrigators, and the role of
the districts would be that of cooperator and administrator of any conserved water to ensure that it
could be quantified and put to use for restoration or instream flows as negotiated. Several options
for on-farm conservation are presented and discussed below. The effects of turnout metering are
many, including allowing the quantification of conserved water due to other management practices,
awareness and planning capability for water management, and a basis for conservation incentives.
Drip irrigation and high flow turnouts are aimed at decreasing applied water by increasing
application efficiency. Low water use crops and deficit irrigation scheduling can reduce depletion
to the system as well as reducing the applied water. The various options certainly are not
independent. For example, deficit irrigation will also increase application efficiency, and metering
would provide the quantification of savings. A discussion of on- farm water conservation measures
follows.
1. Farm Delivery Metering
Farm deliveries in the study area’s three districts are surface water, through turnouts that are
the physical interface between the irrigation district and the farmer, and groundwater, though
farmer-owned wells. While farmers in all three districts have historically used groundwater to
supplement surface supplies, none of the districts administers groundwater at present, though
drought management in 2003 will likely draw at least EBID and EPCWID into some involvement
with the distribution of groundwater and possibly even the production of it.
The primary benefit of metering deliveries to farms is that it allows the quantification of the
benefit of other conservation measures. For example, a farmer installing a high flow turnout can
compare his pre- high flow water use to his use after the improvement to determine quantitatively
what his water saving is, and what could be made available for restoration projects.
It has been noted by several researchers that the very act of metering reduces the amount of
water people use, though it is difficult to prove because there is no pre- metering baseline to which
metered water usage can be compared. Newly installed meters often show an initial drop in use
with time as water users adjust their management practices in response to the new information
provided by the meters. Fipps (1999) suggested that metering is a necessary part of a water
conservation program. The fact that farmers have quantitative metrics to guide their management
can, in itself, significantly reduce water use by as much as 20 percent.
108
Several approaches to turnout measurement are possible. If available energy and funding
are not too restrictive, a dedicated structure such as a flume or weir may be installed to measure
surface water deliveries. This requires the structures and the appropriate sensor (generally an
electronic pressure transducer to measure head over the control surface) and a data logger to record
the flow data. Some method of getting the data from the field where it is measured to the farmer’s
and district’s computers where it can be used is also necessary. This can be accomplished either by
manually downloading the data to a portable computer or through radio telemetry. Alternatively,
turnout gates themselves have been used as measurement structures. While this method may not
give as precise results as those of a dedicated flow measurement structure, it has the advantage of
not requiring an additional structure or the head loss associated with an additional structure. No
additional head loss means that flow measurement will not reduce the flow of the turnout as a
flume can do under low head situations.
The cost of turnout metering is variable, depending on the approach taken. Prefabricated or
cast- in-place concrete flow measurement flumes typically cost $600 to $2,000, depending on size
and type. An off- the-shelf pressure transducer appropriate for metering such flumes (one is
required per installation) costs about $800, and an appropriate data logger runs about $800, for a
total cost of equipment of $2,200 to $3,600. Radio telemetry units cost an additional $2,000.
To reduce the cost and promote the dissemination of flow measurement devices, EBID has
developed its own lower cost components. Using the turnout as a measurement structure, no flume
is required. The District fabricates its own pressure transducers for about $150 each, and two are
required for each turnout gate. EBID’s data logger/controller combination with built- in low power
radio costs $700. In order to use a turnout ga te to meter flow, the gate opening must also be
monitored, and the sensor for that costs $50. This puts the total price for metering one turnout
using EBID’s system at $1,050, and this price is independent of turnout size. This approach for
turnout measurement is described in a paper by Henry Magallanez and Fernando Cadena currently
under review by the American Society of Civil Engineers Journal of Irrigation and Drainage.
Well metering is traditionally accomplished using an impeller-type meter that accumulates
total flow on an analog counter. Such meters typically cost between $700 and $2,500, depending
on size and manufacturer. The drawback to such meters is that they require manual reading or
expensive electronic counters and data loggers, making data management awkward and expensive
if a large number of wells are being monitored.
109
EBID is also developing a metering approach to the wells used by its constituents. The
approach is to use a modified pitot tube (dubbed the “Mag Tube” after inventor Henry Magallanez)
to measure the velocity in the well discharge pipe, which, when multiplied by the cross sectional
area of the pipe, gives flow. The electronic instrument is a pressure transducer very similar to those
used for the District’s turnout measurement, and the data logger and telemetry units are identical,
and compatible with EBID’s data acquisition system. The cost of the tube is about $100, so with a
pressure transducer and data logger/telemetry unit, the total cost for parts is about $950. This
system will see its first use in 2003.
The three districts do not require farmers to measure their well flow, nor do they have the
authority to do so. Adjudication processes in both states will likely require metering in the future.
Many farmers meter groundwater pumping for their own management use, but the data from those
metered wells are not systematically compiled. There are, however, incentives for farmers to meter
their wells. Most obviously, if farmers meter their wells, they can better manage the ir water, as
discussed above. Secondly, they can quantify beneficial use for a water rights claim on their well.
Thirdly, it is likely that well metering will be mandated by both New Mexico and Texas in the near
future, and a program that can help defray the cost to farmers of well metering could be very
attractive indeed.
Obviously, the surface and groundwater measurement techniques developed by EBID
would be suitable for implementation within EBID. They would also be appropriate for use in
EPCWID and HCCRD, though to fully utilize the technology, those districts would have to develop
the radio telemetry and data management infrastructure to efficiently manage the glut of data
generated by such a system. A useful collaborative project with the Texas districts would be to
design, based on the data acquisition currently in place within the districts, a detailed System
Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system to allow for comprehensive farm delivery
metering. EBID has the SCADA design in place, and would benefit immediately from
collaborative support to instrument additional turnouts and wells.
2. Laser Leveling
Surface irrigation efficiency can be greatly enhanced by precision- grading the field using
laser leveling equipment. Advance is more rapid and uniform, producing a more uniform
infiltration profile, thus allowing the manager to fully irrigate the field with minimal deep
percolation losses. Laser leveling is very popular and widespread within the study area. The cost
110
of initial leveling of an irrigated field can vary with the condition of the field, but typically costs
about $350 per acre. Touch-up leveling is done every three or five years, and costs $200 to $250
per acre. The only drawback to laser leveling as a new approach for conserving water is that
virtually all of the significant acreage in all three districts has been laser leveled already by the
farmers.
3. Pressurized Irrigation (Drip and Sprinkler)
Irrigation systems are generally classified as surface systems, or flood irrigation, and
pressurized systems, including sprinkler and drip. Surface irrigation is the oldest and most
common method in the world, but for better efficiency, lower labor requirements, ability to irrigate
on uneven land, and potential improvements in yield and quality, pressurized systems have become
very popular in recent years. Comparative advantages and disadvantages of surface, sprinkler, and
drip irrigation systems are given below in Table 28. It should be noted that each class of irrigation
system presented here represents a very broad class of systems that, depending on design,
installation, and operation, may perform very well or very poorly. The descriptions given here are
only intended as general guides.
Characteristic
Surface
Irrigation Efficiency 50-85%
Yield Potential
Low- mod
Depletion/acre
Low- mod
Diversion/acre
Mod-high
Capital Investment
Low
Labor requirement
High
Labor skill level
Low
Soil types
Fine
Topography (slope)
0-2 %
Sprinkler
70-85%
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Mod to coarse
0-5 %
Drip
90-100%
High
High
Mod-low
High
Low
High
Any
0-15%+
Table 28: General characteristics of irrigation system types, based on Cuenca (1989).
Sprinkler systems are often divided into stationary systems, where sprinkler heads are in fixed
positions (common for landscape irrigation), hand- move systems, where an operator must manually
move sprinkler lined, and self-propelled systems, where the system moves on wheels as irrigation
progresses. Self-propelled systems generally include side-rolls, where a sprinkler line moves
laterally across a field, irrigating a rectangular area, and center pivots, where the sprinkler line
pivots about a central source, irrigating a circular area. Attachments to the end of center pivots also
allow them to irrigate square areas. Center pivots are by far the most popular, because they allow
111
more trouble- free operation and have a lower cost per acre than side-roll systems. They could be
used on larger fields in the study area, but the use of sprinkler systems in general will be limited by
field size and geometry, water quality (salt deposition on crop can cause problems with many of the
area’s crops), and crops. In the Rio Grand Project area, potential water saving by conversion to
sprink lers is probably limited, since the wind and evaporation losses incurred by conventional
sprinklers offer little savings over the evaporation loss of existing surface irrigation systems.
The primary components of a center pivot irrigation system are:
1.
The pressurized source, generally a well or canal pump system producing pressure of 40
to 70 psi (older systems ran on higher pressure).
2.
The pivot, a vertical pipe riser that allows the sprinkler lateral to rotate freely.
3.
The sprinkler lateral, ranging in length from 250 feet to over 1500 feet, providing radial
pressurized flow. The lateral is generally supported between towers by trusses.
4.
Sprinkler assemblies, consisting of an outlet from the lateral, a drop pipe, a pressure
compensator, electronic control valves, and the sprinkler head.
5.
Wheel-driven towers provide movement of the center pivot. The drive units on modern
center pivots are electric motors allowing variable speed of travel.
6.
A central computer, generally located at the pivot, maintains control of the unit.
Sprinkler systems allow small, frequent irrigations, and can achieve high efficiency. Drawbacks
include comparatively high energy costs, wind drift of spray, mineral deposits on crops, and
evaporative loss of spray.
112
Figure 25: Center pivot irrigation system (from Zimmatic, inc.).
The cost of center pivots varies with size. The area covered by a center pivot increases with the
square of the length of the lateral, but the required dia meter of the lateral pipe increases with
length. A cost function was developed by the author based on regression of various sizes of center
pivots and quotes from Valley (Valmont) vendors. The resulting cost per area is given below in
Table 29. This includes only the on- field components. Conveyance system components are highly
variable, depending on source, distance, elevation difference between source and the field, and
other considerations that are beyond the scope of this report. Land preparation costs of $200 to
$600 per acre (depending on preexisting land condition) should also be included in cost estimation.
113
Area, acres
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
Cost
$ 17,653
$ 21,464
$ 25,275
$ 29,086
$ 32,897
$ 36,708
$ 40,519
$ 44,329
$ 48,140
$ 51,951
$ 55,762
$ 59,573
$ 63,384
Cost/acre
$
441
$
429
$
421
$
416
$
411
$
408
$
405
$
403
$
401
$
400
$
398
$
397
$
396
Table 29: Center pivot cost as a function of size.
Center pivots are often depreciated over a 10 to 15 year useful life. For budgeting purposes,
maintenance and repair can be assumed to be 25 to 50 percent of the annual depreciation using
straight- line depreciation.
Sprinkler irrigation of alfalfa presents some problems, as harvesting operations during peak
demand periods can induce moisture stress, particularly on the sandy soils with low water holding
capacity at the site of interest. Irrigation must be suspended long enough before mowing to allow
the field to dry to the point where the soil is trafficable. After mowing, the hay must be
windrowed, cured, bailed, and removed from the field. By the time the hay is off and the field can
be irrigated again, the crop will have been stressed, and a yield reduction will result. Under
sprinkler irrigation, about 80 percent of maximum ET is feasible.
Pecans obviously present a problem for center pivot irrigation. In Israel, citrus trees have
been successfully irrigated with special high clearance center pivots, but pecan trees are much
taller, and New Mexico and West Texas are probably windier.
Center pivots are sometimes used for cotton irrigation in Texas, and could have application
in HCCRD. It is likely, however, that throughout the study area, drip irrigation would out perform
sprinklers both economically and in terms of water savings.
114
There is a continuum of pressurized irrigation system types from sprinkler to drip, including
microsprinklers (small, low pressure sprinklers that function similar to an above-ground drip
system) and bubblers (essentially drip irrigation with a flow typical of a small sprinkler).
Drip is the racehorse of irrigation. Managed correctly, this type of system can produce the
highest yield, and the highest quality, for a wide variety of crops. Drip proves in many cases to be
economically quite viable. Unfortunately, as with a racehorse, anything less than the highest level
of management can create serious problems. Clogging of emitters is the biggest problems faced by
most growers, particularly when using sediment-laden surface water. Clogging may occur due to
sediment, precipitation of minerals at the emitter outlet, and biological growth within the drip lines.
An acid flush will generally take care of precipitants and biological growth, but removal of
sediment requires multi- stage filtration and frequent cleaning of filters.
The primary components of a drip system are:
1.
A pressurized source, generally in the range of 15 psi.
2.
The headworks, consisting of backflow prevention valves, chemigation injectors,
pressure and flow gauges, and multistage filtering (always downstream of the injectors).
The computer control unit is generally located at the headworks.
3.
A main line and sub mains, generally controlled by electronic solenoid valves.
4.
Manifold pipes.
5.
Drip laterals, which are, for the candidate crops discussed here, generally buried drip
tape.
The cost of drip systems has come down in recent years as wider use achieves an economy of
scale. The general cost range in New Mexico is $1,700 to $2,800 per acre. The drip lines of the
more expensive laterals last about ten years, twice as long as the lower priced systems. The present
value of the two is similar for a discount rate of ten percent, so the choice is largely dependent on
choice of crops. A good working estimate would be $2,500 per acre. An additional $200 to $400
should be included for land preparation.
Drip systems are often depreciated over a 10 to 15 year useful life. For budgeting purposes,
maintenance and repair can be assumed to be 25 to 40 percent of the annual depreciation using
straight- line depreciation. The drip laterals should be depreciated separately over a five to 10 year
life, depending on choice of tape, with no salvage value.
115
Drip should allow production of all crops near maximum levels. Since the system can be
buried, irrigation need not be discontinued for field operations with alfalfa. In the design of the
system, specific traffic ways should be included so that tractors and semi trucks can get on the field
for harvest operations without running over laterals.
Drip is the most promising pressurized irrigation system, tho ugh sprinklers will find their
use. Drip allows more efficient use of water without incurring the wind loss associated with
sprinklers. Drip is also well-suited to the vegetable crops grown in the project area. Restricted
water supply due to drought may motivate farmers to switch to drip, but there are problems to
overcome, including use of canal water in a drip system and the changes in the surface water –
groundwater interaction in the Project area caused by a reduction in deep percolation.
4. High Flow Turnouts
High flow turnouts allow rapid and efficient advance across the irrigated field by pushing
the advancing water with as high a flow as possible without eroding the field. The rapid advance
produces less infiltration time variation between the head and tail of the field, thereby producing
better uniformity of infiltration and potentially high efficiency. The structure consists of a large
gate that functions as a turnout from the supply ditch to the field, and energy dissipation to protect
the field surface from erosion by the high and energetic flow. The high flow turnout shown below
in Figure 26 has a capacity of about 25 cfs, as opposed to one or two cfs for a standard turnout.
116
Figure 26: High flow turnout on pecans in EBID.
Field evaluations by one of the authors (King) indicated a uniformity of about 94 percent for a high
flow turnout on a low infiltration rate soil, which is excellent performance for a surface irrigation
system, compared to a uniformity of about 55 percent for a conventional turnout on a similar sized
field with a much sandier soil. The higher infiltration rate of the soil served by the standard turnout
was responsible for much of the difference in uniformity, but a high flow turnout would certainly
improve it to 60 or 70 percent. With proper irrigation scheduling, this could produce a reduction in
applied water of about 25 percent. The drawback to high flow turnouts is that the ditches supplying
a given turnout may lack the capacity to perform high flow irrigation. It doesn’t matter what the
capacity of the turnout is if the ditch can’t get the water to it fast enough.
High flow turnouts typically cost about $2,000 for standard construction, though farmers in
the area ha ve gotten the price down to $1,200 by using their own labor and cinderblocks, rather
than formed concrete, for the baffle blocks that dissipate the energy on the downstream side. While
data on the number of high flow turnouts in each District are not available, many of the fields that
have suitable supply ditches, crops, and geometry have already been fitted with high flow turnouts.
If lining of laterals and farm ditches is significantly expanded, the increased flow capacity of lined
channels may make more fields eligible for high flow turnouts. This should be a consideration in
the prioritization of laterals and farm ditches for lining.
117
5. Low Water Use Crops
Looking at the “Big Three” crops comprising more than three quarters of the cropped area
within the study area, alfalfa and pecans are high water use crops (consumptive use > 3.0 f) and
cotton is a low water use crop (consumptive use < 3.0 f) (see consumptive use estimates in Table
16 and Table 17). However, cotton is generally the least profitable of the three, and future market
outlook is not good for the crop. While farmers in the area have the experience and equipment to
grow cotton, if it is not economically attractive, it does not represent a viable solution to reducing
depletion due to crop production.
Sorghum is also a low water use crop grown in the area, with a consumptive use of about 1.5 f.
However, McGuckin (2001) states that, while cotton has a modest return, sorghum has a negative
return. Clearly, it is not an attractive low water use alternative.
Vegetable crops such as lettuce, onions, chile, and cabbage are also grown in significant
quantities in the study area. They are generally low water use crops in terms of depletion.
However, they require frequent irrigation to maintain marketable quality, resulting in high required
application. The difference between the high application and low depletion suggests that these
crops produce relatively large quantities of drain flows, which return to the river and are available
for downstream diversion and use. Vegetables are a potentially high return option, but they can
also present very high risk, and require a high level of management. Lettuce, for example, is
sensitive to moisture stress, disease, pests, and storage time. It sometimes is an extremely valuable
crop. However, market forces may drive the value of a crop so low that the revenue from the sale
of the crop will not even pay for the harvest operation, in which case the crop is disked in, with no
revenue return.
Corn is a lower water use crop (though the 1.9 f consumption stated by McGuckin seems too
low) that is grown in increasing quantities in EBID. It can be grown with a relatively lower level of
management than vegetables can, and the market for corn is reasonably secure with the local dairies
requiring silage. The lower management level and low market risk of corn make it an attractive
alternative for many farmers in EBID.
The perfect crop would be a low water use crop with low market risk, high potential return, and
it would require a low management level. Unfortunately, the crops that fit this description are
generally not legal. For example, hemp, a popular fiber crop that has found many other legal uses,
can typically be produced with about 21 inches of applied water, and it handles stress due to deficit
118
irrigation well. Project farmers have demonstrated the ability to adapt to environmental and market
conditions, and this ability may represent an opportunity for collaborative conservation efforts.
Economic and agronomic research into low water use crops specifically suited to conditions in
the study area could identify crops new to the area with the benefits of low water use, low market
risk, and as low a management level as possible. It is likely that if such ideal alternatives were
readily available, farmers would have found them already. Some market research and development
may be necessary to make lower water use crops attractive. In any case, promotion of low water
use crops in an excellent possibility for wet water conservation that should certainly be
investigated.
6. Deficit Irrigation
Deficit irrigation is a technique for dealing with short water supply where less water is
applied during an irrigation tha n is required to fully replenish the root zone soil moisture, or
irrigation application is delayed until some moisture stress has occurred. The farmers in the study
area often deficit irrigate, particularly in times of drought and particularly with cotton, alfalfa, and
forage crops. The problem with implementing deficit irrigation in the study area is that the crops
that can be economically deficit- irrigated already are, and the other crops, such as pecans and
vegetables, are not economically suited to deficit irrigation because of their comparatively high
value and stringent quality requirements. There may be some potential for deficit irrigation
scheduling, but in terms of water conservation, this is not the “low hanging fruit.”
7. Cultural Practices
Farmers have shown remarkable ingenuity in developing cultural practices to improve
irrigation efficiency and manage deficit irrigation. One example is alternate furrow irrigation.
Irrigating every other furrow allows the farmer to manipulate the wetted profile and reduce
irrigation while maintaining adequate drainage. Alternate furrow irrigation allows for faster, more
efficient advance of the irrigation water across the field for a given available inflow. Equipment
for alternate furrow irrigation of cotton has been developed and used successfully in EBID, though
the lack of metering prevented specific quantification of the water saving. This innovative
development has not been widely publicized, and there are likely many other similar innovations or
improvisations developed by local farmers that could help to conserve water if they are thoroughly
evaluated and publicized. One high potential water conservation project that would work in
119
conjunction with the farm turnout metering previously discussed, would be to survey farmers as to
their cultural practices for water conservation and develop a set of candidate measures for detailed
on- farm (rather than at an experiment station) evaluation and demonstration within the study area.
While the water savings is impossible to estimate without executing the project, the identification
and evaluation of these local technologies would be productive and low cost if carried out in
cooperation with the irrigation districts.
G. System-Level Conservation
System level conservation practices generally would be implemented through collaboration with
the districts, though individual farmers may well be active participants. The water conserved
through system level conservation would not historically be associated with an individual user.
Rather, the conserved water would be allocated to all constituents pro rata as a normal part of the
district water supply. Negotiations would necessarily address how system level water conservation
efforts would be evaluated, and how conserved water would be administered for river restoration.
Individual system conservation approaches are discussed below.
1. Canal Lining
The three districts in the study area all have significant lengths of unlined canals out of which
water seeps as it is transported from diversion to delivery. Many irrigation districts have drastically
reduced the seepage from canals by lining them. By far, the most common lining material is
concrete, though many other materials have been tried. Few can match concrete’s durability,
economy, and familiarity.
The cost of concrete lining is most directly a function of square footage of area to be lined and
thickness of lining. For a given canal trapezoidal section, with bottom width B (feet), side slope z,
and overall depth D (feet), the square footage of lining per linear foot of canal P (feet) can be
computed from the relationship
P = B + 2D 1 + z 2 .
Based on data from ditch lining projects in EBID, for smaller canals, the cost per square foot is
about $2.22/square foot. This would mean that a typical farm ditch with a one foot bottom width,
30 inch overall depth, and 1.25:1 side slope would require 9 square feet of lining per linear foot of
canal, for a cost of $20 per linear foot of canal or $105,600 per mile of canal. A canal or lateral
with a bottom width of two feet and a five foot overall depth would require twice the square
120
footage per linear foot of canal, and twice the cost, $40 per linear foot of canal, or $211,200 per
mile of canal. In larger canals, the price per square foot increases as the lining becomes thicker and
more reinforcement steel or fiber is required. Blair (2001) estimated that in order to line the
Hudspeth Main Canal, which has a 22 foot bottom width and a 4 foot depth, the cost would be
$600,000 per mile, or $113.64 per linear foot of canal, or $3.26 per square foot. This is basically
consistent with the EBID data for smaller canals, considering that the lining must be about 50
percent thicker for the larger canal, and the cost per square foot is therefore 50 percent higher for
the larger section.
HCCRD estimates their seepage losses to be about 20 percent of their inflow, or roughly 27,000
acre-feet per year over the past ten years. EBID, with its longer canal system has a higher seepage
rate, estimated at about 35 percent of diversion, or roughly 180,000 acre- feet in a full supply year.
Lining does not eliminate conveyance loss, but it does reduce the loss by 80 to 95 percent. Both
EBID and HCCRD have considered lining programs and concluded that lining the main canals is
not practical as a water conservation measure, though both have supported programs to line farm
ditches to improve on- farm efficiency. On the other hand, EPCWID has been actively lining
smaller canals. Larger canals in the vicinity of American Dam have included a cooperative effort
among the IBWC, Bureau of Reclamation, and the City of El Paso to line more than 13 miles of the
American Canal Extension with concrete, completed in 1999. This effort was estimated to reduce
seepage by 30,000 acre- feet per year. Current plans to enlarge and reconstruct a 1.98 mile section
of the American Canal are estimated to cost $1 million per mile, or $190 per linear foot for open
channel sections and $3 million per mile, or $570 per linear foot of canal for closed conduit
sections (ENCON 2001).
Lining of canals can benefit all of the districts, though EPCWID and HCCRD would stand
to see the best conservation results. They rely less on their groundwater than EBID, and so
reduction in recharge due to seepage would not have the same adverse effects that EBID would
feel. Furthermore, neither EPCWID nor HCCRD has an obligation to a downstream user, so the
reduction in seepage really would net these two districts more water. Of course, reduc ing seepage
in EPCWID will reduce the flow in the Hudspeth Feeder Canal and Tornillo Drain into HCCRD,
but no obligation for any quantity of water exists between the two Texas districts.
EBID could benefit from the ability to release and divert less water to achieve a given farm
delivery if seepage rates were reduced by lining. This would allow the District to keep water in
121
storage where it can be actively managed. Because it is not a net gain in available water supply to
EBID, this is not as attractive an alternative for EBID as it is for the other two districts, particularly
considering the detrimental effects on groundwater discussed above. However, EBID is currently
planning to place some of its less efficient sub- laterals in pipe to evaluate the costs and benefits of
seepage reduction.
In all three districts, the initial focus for lining efforts for water conservation should be
based on the canals and laterals that yield the most conserved water for a given investment.
Seepage rates vary widely over the area, and even within a district. Ongoing research by Sheng
and King (2002) is aimed at measuring and modeling of canal seepage in EBID and EPCWID.
Based on these seepage data and the cost of lining canals as discussed above, a feasibility study
could determine the return in acre- feet of water per dollar invested in lining in the two districts,
providing a basis for prioritizing canal lining projects. A similar approach could be used in
HCCRD based on seepage modeling, since the seepage data may be limiting. Preliminary
evaluation indicates that lining of smaller canals reduces seepage more for a given investment than
does lining large main canals. Lining of main canals costs roughly $2,000 for each acre- foot of
seepage reduction, whereas lining of smaller laterals and sub- laterals may cost as little as $600 per
acre-foot of seepage reduction. Seepage rates vary widely with soil type and canal condition, so
prioritizing canals for lining based on benefit-cost is critical.
2. Rates and Rate Structures
Observers often state that irrigation water is too cheap in the study area. They fail to
consider one critical point: irrigators own the water rights, and the districts assess them for the
delivery of that water. The districts do not operate for profit, and the boards set the assessments
based on the cost of operating the districts. Minor modifications to the rate structure might be
possible to encourage reduction in water use, such as inclined block rates, but water is clearly
priced well below its marginal value for irrigation.
It is likely that the opportunity cost, rather than the assessed cost of water to irrigators will
drive a reduction in irrigation use as municipalities compete more aggressively for use of irrigation
water. The municipal market will effectively drive the cost of water to the point where irrigators
will conserve water because it is more profitable to grow houses than many of the crops in the
study area. One can expect to see farmers growing lover value row crops such as cotton and
sorghum seek opportunities to market their water to municipalities and reduce cropped acreage,
122
pump more groundwater (as long as it is uncontrolled), or outright fallow their lands. This is likely
an unfortunate development for the prospects for obtaining water and water rights for
environmental management, as environmental interests will have to compete for water not with
relatively low priced irrigation markets, but with increasingly competitive municipal and industrial
water markets.
3. Charges to Constituents
The present drought is forcing the districts to look at more stringent administration of the
available water supply, and one area of consideration is the charging of diversions and deliveries.
Currently in EBID, and in the past in EPCWID, farmers were not charged for ordering water that
they did not use. Many reasons may cause a farmer to not take water when delivered, ranging from
the water arriving at an inconvenient time, such as the middle of the night, to serious problems with
the on-farm system. Water ordered but not taken is generally delivered and charged to another
constituent who is ready for it or spilled back to the river. The district would be charged for the
diversion of water to make the delivery, so if it is spilled back to the river, it is a waste as far as the
district is concerned. There are reasons for spills other than farmers’ failure to take water that they
ordered, such as variation in diversion and conveyance efficiency, and storm flows into the
conveyance system, and variation in lag times between control points in the conveyance system.
EPCWID has taken steps to reduce the incidence of ordered water not being taken. A
farmer ordering water is given a three-day window in which he must be ready to take the water.
The water is due by the end of the three-day period, which means the District must have the water
by that time. If a farmer is ready, he must take water and be charged when it becomes available, or
he will be charged for half of the amount he ordered. The ditchrider will then try to find another
ready farmer on the ditch to take the unused water. Farmers are given an exception if they fail to
take their water due to heavy rain, safety issues, or other legitimate reasons. The first priority is to
ensure that irrigators who are due or nearly due get their water, and any extra is delivered to
farmers who are ready. This minimizes the spilling of water because farmers are more inclined to
take it, since they will receive a charge whether they take it or not. Even if a farmer does not take
the water he/she ordered, the ditchrider has a second option to deliver the water to other irrigators
that are ready, but not necessarily due. The result is a better matching of diversion to delivery, and
a reduction in diversions and operational spills. HCCRD has successfully implemented a similar
scheme.
123
This “ready-due” method of reducing diversions and spills could improve the conveyance
efficiency of EBID, and the District is considering such measures. No collaborative project is
necessary to implement a ready-due delivery and charge policy; some form will likely be
implemented during the drought, and maintained when the water supply returns to “normal.”
4. Release Management to Maximize System Efficiency
In times of drought, the districts managed releases from Caballo to maximize the utility of
the surface water supply. Surface water flows tend to be able to provide higher, more efficient flow
rates for irrigation application. For example, a well producing 2,250 gallons per minute would be
considered quite substantial. However, that is only about 5 cfs, not even enough water for a single
high flow turnout. The general strategy was to start the releases from Caballo later than in full
supply years, release water when the demand for irrigation is high, in the early season for start-up
irrigation and in June, July, and August, and then shut down early, often when the usable water in
storage was exhausted. A comparison of the releases in a water short year, 1956, and a relatively
normal year, 1999, is shown below in Figure 27.
Current practice is to schedule releases for irrigation or maintaining flood control space in
Elephant Butte and Caballo Reservoirs. The schedule for irrigation is dictated by crops, cultural
practices, and the weather, and offers little flexibility for substantial variation. EBID and EPCWID
farmers do irrigate in the off season to produce lettuce, onions, cabbage, and possibly wheat and
barley. However, the acreage in these crops during the off season is comparatively small (less than
10,000 acres in the two Districts), and the efficiency of running water in the canal systems year
round for this small acreage would be quite poor. The City of El Paso relies on ground water in the
off season, though there is some talk of year-round releases to facilitate municipal surface water
users in both states and, potentially, in Mexico.
Changing release patterns could alter the hydrograph to simulate natural spring runoff
conditions, but it would be a major shift in the policy and philosophy of Project operations. The
early season peak in release flow shown below in Figure 27, occurring during the week of March
15 in the full supply year of 1999 and during the week of March 27 in the short supply year of 1956
has a peak flow of about 2,200 cfs both years and a volume of release in both cases of about 29,000
AF for the week. For an additional release of about 5,000 acre-feet during this period, a peak flow
of 3,500 cfs could be released for two days, simulating a spring runoff flow. This flow would be
reduced by diversions as it moves downstream, to roughly 1,300 cfs below International Dam
124
(3,500 cfs – 2,200 cfs for diversion requirements; this is something of a simplification, and the
actual peak flow below International Dam would be lower due to attenuation of the peak).
The additional flow in the river would have little benefit to irrigators if the flow stayed in
the river. The Districts do not have the capacity to divert the Project Water supply resulting from a
release of 3,500 cfs, but if the Districts could divert some of the additional flow through their
systems to flush the canals, there would be some benefit to the Districts. Such diversion may
largely defeat the purpose of the spring runoff simulation.
While such a release might have beneficial effects on the condition of habitat on the river,
measures would have to be taken to ensure that such releases did not harm river structures. In
1995, two months of release in excess of 3,000 cfs, peaking at 4,500 cfs caused scour damage to the
siphons under the river in the Rincon Valley that convey EBID water from one side to the other.
The effect on these siphons of an increased flow to simulate spring runoff would have to be
carefully evaluated. Current practice is to schedule releases to match flows in the river to demands
for diversion or to release water from storage to create flood control storage space when Elephant
Butte Reservoir is nearly full. Releasing water from storage to create a surge down river that would
exceed the diversion requirements of the Districts and Mexico would, under current operations, be
considered wasteful, and have serious implications for Compact storage accounting. Of course,
some method for obtaining the necessary water by, and assigning that water to, an environmental
group would need to be established before such an exercise could be implemented. It all depends
on negotiation involving the Districts, Reclamatio n, and the Compact Commissioners from
Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas.
125
Figure 27: Caballo releases in 1956 and 1999.
126
Chapter IX : Current Issues on the Rio Grande
A. Endangered Species
Endangered species and the restrictions placed on water management by the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) have created a rift between agricultural and environmental interests all over the
country. The study area had been largely spared the stress of management for endangered species
because the current conditio n of the river from Caballo to Fort Quitman (and beyond) had been
determined unsuitable for the Rio Grande Silvery Minnow (RGSM) and while some habitat for the
Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (SWF) has been identified in the Project area, it has not created
any special considerations in terms of water management. Several fish species have gone extinct or
become extirpated from the area, and what is left is not endangered.
The Middle Rio Grande (MRG) between Cochiti Reservoir and the headwaters of Elephant
Butte Reservoir at San Marcial, on the other hand, has been a hotbed of contention and controversy,
particularly in the weeks preceding this report. Both species are present in the MRG, and a recent
court order by Judge James A Parker, giving the federal government discretion to use imported San
Juan-Chama water to keep the Rio Grande from drying up in the lower reaches of the MRG caused
an uproar among state, City of Albuquerque, and the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District.
Judge Parker’s decision was upheld by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. While farmers in the Rio
Grande Project area generally sympathize with the farmers of the MRGCD, farmers in the Project
had something of a sense of separation due to the presence of Elephant Butte and Caballo
Reservoirs, which insulated them from the viable habitat of the RGSM. This recently has changed,
as the discretion given to the federal government may impact the Rio Grande Project.
Tension between environmentalists and irrigators is particularly high in light of these
developments, significantly higher than just a year ago. It is clear that, if any collaborative effort is
to be executed involving the irrigation districts and their constituents and environmentalists, the
irrigators will be guarded and suspicious, if not downright hostile, and this attitude will go both
ways. The management of the river seems to suffer from a bipolar disorder, being pulled from the
extreme views at the two ends of the environmental spectrum. If restoration activities are to be
based on radical change, it is unlikely that irrigators, heavily invested in their operations, will be
interested, and a water war will result. While attorneys and water resources specialists may fare
well, endangered species and irrigators will not. As in the case of the RGSM, the court order and
the stay have resulting in further polarization and still the likely demise of the species.
127
Any constructive restoration effort is going to have to get past this adversarial culture. On the
one hand, irrigators need to understand that evolutionary changes to better the river for habitat do
not necessarily harm them, can quite often benefit them, and are certainly preferable to an all out
water war between irrigators and environmentalists. Environmentalist, on the other hand, need to
understand that they are dealing with the livelihoods and culture of the irrigators, and past litigation
and political maneuvering by environmental groups has created an atmosphere of extreme distrust.
Any progress to be made in collaboration with irrigators will require safeguards to ensure that if
they cooperate with restoration efforts involving Project Water, they will not create improved
habitat only to have the Project taken over by the federal government and operated for an
endangered species.
This adversarial environment makes it all the more important to begin restoration efforts by
negotiating the ground rules by which water will be managed. As in the case of municipal use of
water, policies that balance the needs of the new user with the continuation of irrigation can be
developed, creating new opportunities for both groups. The negotiations will require skilled
personnel on both sides of the table, and quite frankly, it will be a very difficult process. However,
it will be orders of magnitude easier and more productive than attempting to fight it out.
B. New Mexico Stream Adjudication
The New Mexico Office of the State Engineer has undertaken the largest stream
adjudication in New Mexico history in an effort to quant ify the water rights of water users in the
Lower Rio Grande Administrative Basin. The extent of the adjudication includes the New Mexico
portion of the Rio Grande Project as well as the surrounding upland areas.
The typical adjudication process as defined by the Office of the State Engineer (OSE)
consists of the following steps:
1.
The State Engineer or judge orders a hydrographic survey of a stream system or
groundwater basin.
2.
OSE staff review water rights records, obtain ortho-rectified imagery, analyze water
uses and verify land ownership records.
3.
OSE staff field check all water uses; produce final maps.
4.
Data compiled into a report and sent to legal staff.
5.
Lawsuit filed by state, federal government or interested person.
6.
All water right owners joined in the suit.
128
7.
Offer of judgment sent to each water right owner; owner can accept or reject offer.
8.
After resolution, court confirms agreements reached.
9.
Water right owners have opportunity to challenge water rights of others.
10.
Hearings held to resolve challenges.
11.
Judge issues final decree defining all water rights in the adjudicated area.
Of course, the Lower Rio Grande effort is no typical adjudication. The aerial photography
was done in 1997, and field surveys were completed in 1999. The State Engineer sent the
hydrographic survey to the court in 2000. The rate of progress varies dramatically with time, as
periods of progress are interrupted by institutional and conceptual roadblocks. The adjudication
is complicated by the existing water rights on record with EBID, which are based on tax rolls of
assessed acreage, and the actual irrigated land that the OSE identified in steps 2 and 3 above.
Generally, actual irrigated acreage will be less than is on the EBID tax rolls, because the State
Engineer does not include roads, canals, temporary or permanent buildings, or even turn rows
as irrigated acreage. Occasionally, the State Engineer has found more irrigated acreage than the
tax rolls show, indicating water spreading or other sources of irrigation water.
The State Engineer’s approach in dealing with District irrigators has been to first send out
offers to water users for an area of irrigated land identified in steps 2 and 3, but with no
consumptive use of water, and therefore no volume of water associated with the right. Some
people have accepted the offer even though it disagrees with the tax roles. Others have
demonstrated with historical air photos or affidavits that their land was, at one time, fully
irrigated, and the State Engineer has adjusted the offers accordingly. Others have simply
refused the offer and gone through the alternative dispute resolution process. The process is
once a gain slowing, and the future progress is difficult to estimate.
Many of the large water users who will likely dispute the State Engineer have gone through
the process yet. Also, a new governor will be taking office in January of 2003, and Governor
Elect Bill Richardson has state publicly that he will replace the State Engineer. While the
adjudication of water rights is generally agreed to be in the best interest of water rights holders
and effective management of water, the State Engineer is faced with negotiating an approach to
adjudication with the water right holder within EBID to reflect the complex surface watergroundwater interaction, as well as the federal-state water rights interaction with this New
Mexico component of the federal Rio Grande Project.
129
C. Disputes between Texas and New Mexico over the Rio Grande
The two districts that constitute the Rio Grande Project, EBID and EPCWID, predictably
have many differences over the operation of the Project and the allocation of its water. While the
author’s (King) discussion of the specifics of the dispute over allocation of water is covered by a
confidentiality court order, a brief overview of the ongoing dispute is in order.
In 1997, the Bureau of Reclamation filed suit against EBID, EPCWID, HCCRD, the City of
El Paso, New Mexico State University, Stahmann Farms Inc. (a large pecan producer in EBID),
and the State of New Mexico to quiet title in its (Reclamation’s) water rights for the Rio Grande
Reclamation Project in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, with Judge James
Parker presiding (CIV 97-0803). Reclamation claimed that the defendants’ claims to water rights
of the Rio Grande Reclamation Project clouded the United States’ legal title to Rio Grande Project
Water. EPCWID filed a counterclaim and cross-claim, in which EPCWID stated that
Reclamation is required to treat EBID and EPCWID with impartiality, ensuring that the water
users in both Districts “receive the benefits of the Rio Grande Project on a fair and equitable basis
in terms of water quantity, water quality and cost.” EPCWID asserted in its counterclaim and
cross-claim that:
“The USA has in fact, through its acts and omission, allowed and caused conditions to arise
under which water users in the EPCWID suffer significant damages and detriment through the
delivery to EPCWID by the USA of water of inferior and, for some users, unusable quality; by the
failure of the USA to make deliveries of water over a 12- month period; by the failure of the USA
to allocate available stored Rio Grande Project Water; by failure of the USA to account properly
for water deliveries; by failure of the USA to require EBID to account, as part of the Project water
supply used by its members, the tributary groundwater pumped and used by water users in the
EBID in New Mexico; by failure of the USA to take timely and cost-effective measures to prevent
or compensate for the inequitable, discriminatory effects of requiring EPCWID to take and use
large quantities of increasingly saline and otherwise degraded return flows; and by the failure of
the USA to allow EPCWID to receive its share of the stored waters of the Project.”
Several other entities, including the States of Texas and Colorado, the City of Las Cruces,
the Pueblo of Isleta Del Sur, and the Texas Lower Valley Water Users Association, successfully
moved to intervene.
130
Judge Parker dismissed the quiet title suit, and this dismissal was affirmed by the 10th
Circuit Court of Appeals, with instruction to Judge Parker to consider whether the case should be
dismissed outright or stayed pending the outcome of parallel litigation in the Lower Rio Grande
Stream Adjudication underway in New Mexico. Judge Parker elected to stay the case, and the
adjudication continues.
In a January 14, 2002 letter to Bureau of Reclamation Regional Director Rick Gold, EBID
Board President Gary Arnold summarized EBID’s position regarding allocation and operation of
the Rio Grande Project. He states:
“…the D-1/D-2 Curves were developed using data from periods of time when the Rio
Grande Project was bedeviled by several severe droughts. Thus, D-1 and D-2 are the most
accurate predictors of how the system will perform in a drought cycle.”
Arnold continues, “There is absolutely no basis for abandoning the use of D-1 and D-2
methodology until and unless the parties can agree upon a different methodology for allocating
Project water. As you are probably aware, there is litigation pending regarding the allocation
procedures and we believe it benefits all parties to retain the status quo until either the parties can
agree or the court can order a new allocation procedure and operating agreement.”
Rick Gold, in a related January 25, 2002 letter to EPCWID Board President Johnny Stubbs,
stated:
“We appreciate the [EPCWID] District’s position with regard to the D-1/D-2 methodology,
and, as you know, we have worked diligently with the District to negotiate a replacement
operating procedure. You are aware of our efforts to implement this new draft operating
agreement, as well as the litigation and other legal complications which have slowed its
implementation. We will, however, continue to work with both districts to implement the agreed
upon changes.” Gold does not specify the agreed upon changes, and commenting on the
“replacement operating procedure” to which Gold alludes would compromise the author’s (King)
confidentiality agreement. However, it is clear from their filings that EPCWID considers current
operations of the Project, based on the D1/D2 curves, to be inequitable, and they are one of the
parties whose consent is necessary to call an operating procedure an operating agreement.
131
Chapter X : Summary and Conclusions
Since the 1906 “appropriation of all unappropriated water of the Rio Grande and its
tributaries” between San Marcial and Fort Quitman for irrigation in the Rio Grande Project in 1906,
irrigation has been the dominant use of surface water in the study area, which consists of Elephant
Butte Irrigation District (EBID), El Paso County Water Improvement District No. 1 (EPCWID),
and Hudspeth County Conservation and Reclamation District No. 1 (HCCRD). The City of El
Paso uses surface water for about half of its municipal and industrial supply, and municipal water
suppliers in New Mexico and Chihuahua are making plans to begin using surface water in the near
future. Missing from this list of water users are environmental interests planning on restoring the
condition of the Rio Grande.
As with virtually any endeavor in the Chihuahuan Desert, the limiting resource in
restoration efforts is water. The purpose of this report is to identify sources of water and
mechanisms for making it available for restoration activities. The focus is on working within the
existing framework, or changing the framework through negotiations and collaboration with water
users, particularly irrigators.
The Rio Grande Project, consisting of Elephant Butte and Caballo Dams and Reservoirs,
EBID and EPCWID, and the facilities for delivery of water to the Republic of Mexico, also
provides water on a rental basis to HCCRD.
The hydrologic and institutional settings of each of the three districts within the study area
suggest different approaches for directing water to river restoration purposes. However, one
common thread is that there is currently no administrative framework for allocating, delivering, and
administering water explicitly for any sort of restoration effort. Having been devoted primarily to
irrigation for its entire history, the Rio Grande Project also makes delivery of surface water to the
City of El Paso as a constituent of EPCWID, and municipal users in southern New Mexico are also
making plans to utilize surface water as constituents of EBID.
The most pressing need identified in this study for creating a water supply for river
restoration is the development of the institutional framework for environmental management of
water. The three districts have developed their own organizational structure and operations to fit
their particular hydrology and constituents. In order to collaborate in water management with
farmers of the districts, an organization planning on carrying out river restoration activities should
132
enter into negotiations with the districts to formalize the operating rules for environmental
management of water in coordination with irrigation and municipal use of water. The outcome of
such negotiations will have major influence on how water is obtained for and how it is most
effectively managed for river restoration.
The districts will likely see different approaches for environmental management of water,
but the key components in an environmental management agreement would be:
1.
The ability to lease or receive by donation water;
2.
The ability to purchase or receive by donation water rights;
3.
The ability to gain water and water rights through conservation practices working with
farmers at the farm level and the districts at the system level;
4.
The accounting for delivery of water to restoration projects, as opposed to irrigators or
municipal treatment plants.
The importance of this step to an overall restoration effort cannot be overstressed. By
laying out the ground rules for obtaining water and water rights in a collaborative, engaging process
with the districts and irrigators, much of the animosity that has existed between environmentalists
and the agriculture sector can be avoided, making restoration efforts much more efficient and
immediately effective. The negotiated development of ground rules should be undertaken before,
or at least in parallel with, other conservation and restoration measures. A logical starting point
would be to model the administration of water for restoration on the existing non-agricultural use of
project water: municipal and industrial. EBID and EPCWID have existing policies for such use
that could be modified to fit the particular needs of river restoration.
That said, several opportunities exist for applying water to conservation purposes. Table 30
summarizes the potential projects for acquiring water for river restoration. The first project,
developing the institutional framework, does not actually net any water, but it is a necessary first
step in order for water from any of the other projects to be put to beneficial use in river restoration.
Passive use of water, the use of water for restoration without actually acquiring it or owning
it, is certainly the most economically attractive activity below in terms of cost of water. While
purists might argue that it is too limiting to use water as it flows on a schedule dictated by
irrigation, it is the most immediately feasible restoration approach. It has been implemented in
some form in each of the three districts, and more potential exists, particularly in the drain systems
of the districts.
133
Annual
Potential
Applied
Water
Savings,
AF
Typical Cost Range
Technology
From
To per
Developing institutional
$10,000 $100,000 District
N/A
framework
Purchase of water
$333
$2,600 AF
1
*
rights
Purchase of water
$4,000
$25,000 acre
3
**
rights
***
Lease of water
$20
$260 AF
1
Passive use
$0
$0
N/A
Turnout Metering
$1,050
$5,600 unit
N/A
Drip Irrigation
$1,700
$2,800 acre
0.8
High flow turnouts
$1,200
$2,000 unit
5
Lower water use crops
Deficit Irrigation
Main Canal Lining
$600,000 $900,000 mile
400
Lateral/sublateral lining
$105,600 $500,000 mile
300
Charges to
$0
$0 N/A
Constituents
*
Purchase of water right without land. Likely to increase rapidly in future.
**
Purchase of water right with land. Likely to increase rapidly in future.
***
per
Typical
cost per
acre-foot
N/A
AF
$1,000
AF
$4,000
AF
$100
$0
N/A
$3,000
$320
N/A
N/A
$1,900
$1,000
acre
unit
mile
mile
N/A
Lease for one-time use. Likely to increase rapidly in future.
Table 30: Summary of potential projects for acquiring water for river restoration.
High flow turnouts are attractive water conservation devices, and have been installed in many, if
not most, of the fields in which they are feasible. Purchase and lease of water rights are attractive
at present, but as the current drought deepens and competition for water intensifies, municipalities
will very likely drive the price of water up rapidly. Canal lining, particularly in the smaller
channels, has a similar cost per acre-foot, and the cost of lining will be much more stable than
water purchase or lease. Drip irrigation offers many advantages to the farmer, and cold probably be
cost shared to bring the price per acre- foot down.
Low water use crops and improved cultural practices are two areas that merit further
investigation. Identification of crops with a viable economic return and low water use would be a
boon to the irrigators in the area and reduce depletion of water. Farmers in the area have been
tinkering with cultural practices to reduce water use for decades, and an investigation of the
technologies they have developed for the conditions of the area will certainly yield new approaches
to water conservation.
134
135
References
Blair, A. W., 2001. Water Conservation Plan for Hudspeth County Conservation and Reclamation
District No. 1. Final Report. Prepared for U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, April 17.
Cortez, J. R. D., 1999. Evaluation of Irrigation Efficiency and Nitrogen Leaching in Southern New
Mexico. Masters thesis, New Mexico State University.
Cuenca, R. H., 1989. Irrigation System Design: An Engineering Approach. Prentice Hall, pub.,
ISBN 0-13-506163-6
Elephant Butte Irrigation District, 2002. Web site, http://www.ebid-nm.org.
El Paso County Water Improvement District No. 1, 2002. Web site, http://www.epcwid1.org.
El Paso County Water Improvement District No. 1, 1998. Operational Guide. Water Operations
Department.
El Paso Public Service Board, 2001. Serving the Regional Water Needs: Strategic Planning
Project. El Paso Water Utilities, November.
ENCON International, Inc., 2001. Final Environmental Assessment for “Replacement of the Old
American Canal Located in El Paso, Texas.” Prepared for USIBWC, Contract No. 99-27,
December 16.
Far West Texas Regional Water Plan 2001. http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/rwp
Fipps, G., 1999. Quoted in: Significant Opportunities Exist to Conserve Water in Valley Irrigation
Districts, TAEX Study Suggests. NewWaves Volume 12 Number 1: March 1999.
King, J. P., 2001. Unpublished irrigation efficiency investigations, EBID, 1999-2001.
Kingsbury, L., W. Boggess, Oregon State University. August 1999. An Economic Analysis of
Riparian Landowners’ Willingness to Participate in Oregon’s Conservation Reserve Program.
Selected Paper for the Annual Meeting of the American Agricultural Economics Association.
Kirby, J. W., 1978. Hudspeth County Conservation and Reclamation District No. 1, A Case Study
of Resource Failure. Unpublished report.
Kuo, R. H., 1982. Seepage from Irrigation Canals in Mesilla Valley, New Mexico. Doctoral
dissertation, New Mexico State University.
Lisson, S., N. Mendham, 1998. Response of fiber hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) to varying irrigation
regimes. Journal of the International Hemp Association 5(1): 9-15.
136
New Mexico Department of Agriculture/United States Department of Agriculture and Natio nal
Agricultural Statistics Services. New Mexico Agricultural Statistics 2000.
http://nmdaweb.nmsu.edu/
Paso del Norte Water Task Force, 2001. Water Planning in the Paso del Norte: Toward Regional
Cooperation. March.
Swihar, J., J. Hayes, 2000. Canal-Lining Demonstration Project Supplemental Report. USDOI,
Bureau of Reclamation R-00-01, January.
United States Census Bureau: State and County Quick Facts. Data derived from population
estimates, 2000 Census of Population and Housing. http://www.census.gov
United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. 1997 Census of
Agriculture. World Wide Web site: http://www.usda.gov/nass
United States General Accounting Office. Report to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry, U.S. Senate. Agricultural Conservation, State Advisory Committees’ Views on How
USDA Programs Could Better Address Environmental Concerns. February 2002. GAO-02-295.
http://www.gao.gov
137
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, El Paso County Water Improvement District No.1, and City pf El
Paso, 2001. Conversion of Rio Grande Project Water to Municipal Use; Delivery of Distrct Water
to the Jonathan Rogers Water Treatment Plant; and Delvery by the City of El Paso of Usable
Sewage Effluent to the El Paso County Water Improvement District No. 1. Rio Grand Project
Implementing Third Party Contract.
138
Appendices
A. Compact Disk
1. Rincon.jpg – Map of Rincon Valley irrigation system, EBID.
2. Mesilla.jpg – Map of Mesilla Valley irrigation system, EBID and EPCWID.
3. El Paso.jpg – Map of El Paso Valley irrigation system, EPCWID.
4. Hudspeth.jpg – Map of Hudspeth County irrigation system, HCCRD.
139
B. The Rio Grande Compact
140
RIO GRANDE COMPACT COMMISSION REPORT
RIO GRANDE COMPACT
The State of Colorado, the State of New Mexico, and the State of Texas, desiring to remove all causes of
present and future controversy among these States and between citizens of one of these States and citizens of another
State with respect to the use of the waters of the Rio Grande above Fort Quitman, Texas, and being moved by
considerations of interstate comity, and for the purpose of effecting an equitable apportionment of such waters, have
resolved to conclude a Compact for the attainment of these purposes, and to that end, through their respective
Governors, have named as their respective Commissioners:
For the State of Colorado M. C. Hinderlider
For the State of New Mexico Thomas M. McClure
For the State of Texas Frank B. Clayton
who, after negotiations participated in by S. O. Harper, appointed by the President as the sir\representative of the
United States of America, have agreed upon the following articles, to- wit:
ARTICLE I
(a) The State of Colorado, the State of New Mexico, the State of Texas, and the United States of America, are
hereinafter designated “Colorado,” “New Mexico,” “Texas,” he and the “United States,” respectively.
(b) “The Commission” means the agency created by this Compact for the administration thereof.
(c) The term “Rio Grande Basin” means all of the territory drained by the Rio :
Grande and its tributaries in Colorado, in New Mexico, and in Texas above Fort Quitman, (including the Closed Basin
in Colorado.
(d) The “Closed Basin” means that part of the Rio Grande Basin in Colorado where the streams drain into the San Luis
Lakes and adjacent territory, and do not normally contribute to the flow of the Rio Grande.
(e) The term “tributary” means any stream which naturally contributes to the flow of the Rio Grande.
(f) “Transmountain Diversion” is water imported into the drainage basin of the Rio Grande from any stream system
outside of the Rio Grande Basin, exclusive of the Closed Basin.
(g) “Annual Debits” are the amounts by which actual deliveries in any calendar year fall below scheduled
deliveries.
(h) “Annual Credits” are the amounts by which actual deliveries in any calendar year exceed scheduled
deliveries.
(i) “Accrued Debits” are the amounts by which the sum of all annual debits exceeds sum of all annual credits
over any common period of time.
(j) “Accrued Credits” are the amounts by which the sum of all annual credits exceeds the sum of all annual
debits over any common period of time.
(k) “Project Storage” is the combined capacity of Elephant Butte Reservoir and all other reservoirs actually
available for the storage of usable water below Elephant Butte and above the first diversion to lands of the Rio Grande
Project, but not more than a total of 2,638,860 acre feet.
(l) “Usable Water” is all water, exclusive of credit water, which is in project storage and which is available for
release in accordance with irrigation demands, including deliveries to Mexico.
141
(m) “Credit Water” is that amount of water in project storage which is equal to the accrued credit of Colorado,
or New Mexico, or both.
(n) “Unfilled Capacity” is the difference between the total physical capacity of project storage and the amount
of usable water then in storage.
(o) “Actual Release” is the amount of usable water released in any calendar year from the lowest reservoir
comprising project storage.
(p) “Actual Spill” is all water which is actually spilled from Elephant Butte Reservoir, or is released therefrom
for flood control, in excess of the current demand on project storage and which does not become usable water by
storage in another reservoir; provided, that actual spill of usable water cannot occur until all credit water shall have
been spilled.
(q)”Hypothetical Spill” is the time in any year at which usable water would have spilled from project storage
if 790,000 acre feet had been released therefrom at rates proportional to the actual release in every year from the
starting date to the end of the year in which hypothetical spill occurs; in computing hypothetical spill the initial
condition shall be the amount of usable water in project storage at the beginning of the calendar year following the
effective date of this Compact, and thereafter the initial condition shall be the amount of usable water in project storage
at the beginning of the calendar year following each actual spill.
ARTICLE II
The Commission shall cause to be maintained and operated a stream gaging station equipped with an
automatic water stage recorder at each of the following points, to-wit:
(a) On the Rio Grande near Del Norte above the principal points of diversion to the San Luis Valley;
(b) On the Conejos River near Mogote;
(c) On the Los Pinos River near Ortiz;
(d) On the San Antonio River at Ortiz;
(e) On the Conejos River at its mouths near Los Sauces;
(f) On the Rio Grande near Lobatos;
(g) On the Rio Chama below El Vado Reservoir;
(h) On the Rio Grande at Otowi Bridge near San Ildefonso;
(i) On the Rio Grande near San Acacia;
(j) On the Rio Grande at San Marcial;
(k) On the Rio Grande below Elephant Butte Reservoir;
(l) On the Rio Grande below Caballo Reservoir.
Similar gaging stations shall be maintained and operated below any other reservoir constructed after 1929, and
at such other points as may be necessary for the securing of records required for the carrying out of the Compact; and
automatic water stage recorders shall be maintained and operated on each of the reservoirs mentioned, and on all others
constructed after 1929.
Such gaging stations shall be equipped, maintained and operated by the Commission directly or in cooperation
with an appropriate Federal or State agency, and the equipment, method and frequency of measurement at such stations
shall be such as to produce reliable records at all times. (Note: See Resolution of Commission printed elsewhere in this
report.)
ARTICLE III
The obligation of Colorado to deliver water in the Rio Grande at the Colorado-New Mexico State Line,
measured at or near Lobatos, in each calendar year, shall be ten thousand acre feet less than the sum of those quantities
set forth in the two following tabulations of relationship, which correspond to the quantities at the upper index stations:
142
DISCHARGE OF CONEJOS RIVER
Quantities in thousands of acre feet
Conejos Index Supply (1)
Conejos River at Mouths (2)
100
0
150
20
200
45
250
75
300
109
350
147
400
188
450
232
500
278
550
326
600
376
650
426
Intermediate quantities shall be computed by proportional parts.
(1) Conejos Index Supply is the natural flow of Conejos River at the U.S.G.S. gaging station near Mogote
during the calendar year, plus the natural flow of Los Pinos River at the U.S.G.S. gaging station near Ortiz and the
natural flow of San Antonio River at the U.S.G.S. gaging station at Ortiz, both during the months of April to October,
inclusive.
(2) Conejos River at Mouths is the combined discharge of branches of this river at the U.S.G.S. gaging
stations near Los Sauces during the calendar year.
DISCHARGE OF RIO GRANDE EXCLUSIVE OF CONEJOS RIVER
Quantities in thousands of acre feet
Rio Grande at Lobatos less
Rio Grande at Del Norte (3)
Conejos at Mouths (4)
200
60
250
65
300
75
350
86
400
98
450
112
500
127
550
144
600
162
650
182
700
204
750
229
800
257
850
292
900
335
950
380
1,000
430
1,100
540
1,200
640
1,300
740
1,400
840
Intermediate quantities shall be computed by proportional parts.
143
(3) Rio Grande at Del Norte is the recorded flow of the Rio Grande at the U.S.G.S. gaging station near Del
Norte during the calendar year (measured above all principal points of diversion to San Luis Valley) corrected for the
operation of reservoirs constructed after
(4) Rio Grande at Lobatos less Conejos at Mouths is the total flow of the Rio Grande at the U.S.G.S. gaging
station near Lobatos, less the discharge of Conejos River at its Mouths, during the calendar year.
The application of these schedules shall be subject to the provisions hereinafter set forth and appropriate
adjustments shall be made for (a) any change in location of gaging stations; (b) any new or increased depletion of the
runoff above inflow index gaging stations; be and (c) any transmountain diversions into the drainage basin of the Rio
Grande above Lobatos.
In event any works are constructed after 1937 for the purpose of delivering water into the Rio Grande from the
Closed Basin, Colorado shall not be credited with the amount of such water delivered, unless the proportion of sodium
ions shall be less than forty-five percent of the total positive ions in that water when the total dissolved solids in such
water of exceeds three hundred fifty parts per million.
ARTICLE IV
The obligation of New Mexico to deliver water in the Rio Grande at San Marcial, during each calendar year, exclusive
of the months of July, August, and September, shall be that quantity set forth in the following tabulation of relationship,
which corresponds to the quantity at the upper index station:
144
DISCHARGE OF RIO GRANDE AT OTOWI BRIDGE AND AT SAN MARCIAL
EXCLUSIVE OF JULY, AUGUST AND SEPTEMBER
Quantities in thousands of acre feet
Index Supply (5)
San Marcial Index Supply (6)
100
0
200
65
300
141
400
219
500
300
600
383
700
469
800
557
900
648
1,000
742
1,100
839
1,200
939
1,300
1,042
1,400
1,148
1,500
1,257
1,600
1,370
1,700
1,489
1,800
1,608
1,900
1,730
2,000
1,856
2,100
1,985
2,200
2,117
2,300
2,253
Intermediate quantities shall be computed by proportional parts.
(5) The Otowi Index Supply is the recorded flow of the Rio Grande at the U.S.G.S. gaging station at Otowi
Bridge near San Ildefonso (formerly station near Buckman) during the calendar year, exclusive of the flow during the
months of July, August and September, corrected for the operation of reservoirs constructed after 1929 in the drainage
basin of the Rio Grande between Lobatos and Otowi Bridge.
6) San Marcial Index Supply is the recorded flow of the Rio Grande at the gaging station at San Marcial
during the calendar year exclusive of the flow during the months of July, August and September.
The application of this schedule shall be subject to the provisions hereinafter set forth and appropriate
adjustments shall be made for (a) any change in location of gaging stations; (b) depletion after 1929 in New Mexico at
any time of the year of the natural runoff at Otowi Bridge; (c) depletion of the runoff during July, August and
September of tributaries between Otowi Bridge and San Marcial, by works constructed after 1937; and (d) any
transmountain diversions into the Rio Grande between Lobatos and San Marcial.
Concurrent records shall be kept of the flow of the Rio Grande at San Marcial, near San Acacia, and of the release from
Elephant Butte Reservoir to the end that the records at at these three stations may be correlated. (Note: See Resolution
of Commission printed elsewhere in this report.)
145
ARTICLE V
If at any time it should be the unanimous finding and determination of the Commission that because of
changed physical conditions, or for any other reason, reliable records Ware not obtainable, or cannot be obtained, at
any of the stream gaging stations herein referred to, such stations may, with the unanimous approval of the
Commission, be abandoned, and with such approval another station, or other stations, shall be established and new
measurements shall be substituted which, in the unanimous opinion of the Commission, will result in substantially the
same results so far as the rights and obligations to deliver water are concerned, as would have existed if such
substitution of stations and measurements had not been so made. (Note: See Resolution of Commission printed
elsewhere in this report.)
ARTICLE VI
Commencing with the year following the effective date of this Compact, all credits and debits of Colorado and
New Mexico shall be computed for each calendar year; provided, that in a year of actual spill no annual credits nor
annual debits shall be computed for that year.
In the case of Colorado, no annual debit nor accrued debit shall exceed 100,000 acre feet, except as either or both may
be caused by holdover storage of water in reservoirs constructed after 1937 in the drainage basin of the Rio Grande
above Lobatos. Within the physical limitations of storage capacity in such reservoirs, Colorado shall retain water in
storage at all times to the extent of its accrued debit.
In the case of New Mexico, the accrued debit shall not exceed 200,000 acre feet at any time, except as such
debit may be caused by holdover storage of water in reservoirs constructed after 1929 in the drainage basin of the Rio
Grande between Lobatos and San Marcial. Within the physical limitations of storage capacity in such reservoirs, New
Mexico shall retain water in storage at all times to the extent of its accrued debit. In computing the magnitude of
accrued credits or debits, New Mexico shall not be charged with any greater debit in any one year than the sum of
150,000 acre-feet and all gains in the quantity of water in storage in such year.
The Commission by unanimous action may authorize the release from storage of any amount of water which
is then being held in storage by reason of accrued debits of Colorado or New Mexico; provided, that such water shall be
replaced at the first opportunity thereafter.
In computing the amount of accrued credits and accrued debits of Colorado or New Mexico, any annual
credits in excess of 150,000 acre feet shall be taken as equal to that amount.
In any year in which actual spill occurs, the accrued credits of Colorado, or New Mexico, or both, at the
beginning of the year shall be reduced in proportion to their respective credits by the amount of such actual spill;
provided that the amount of actual spill shall be deemed to be increased by the aggregate gain in the amount of water in
storage, prior to the time of spill, in reservoirs above San Marcial constructed after 1929; provided, further, that if the
Commissioners for the States having accrued credits authorize the release of part, or all, of such credits in advance of
spill, the amount so released shall be deemed to constitute actual spill.
In any year in which there is actual spill of usable water, or at the time of hypothetical spill thereof, all accrued
debits of Colorado, or New Mexico, or both, at the beginning of the year shall be cancelled.
In any year in which the aggregate of accrued debits of Colorado and New Mexico exceeds the minimum
unfilled capacity of project storage, such debits shall be reduced portionally to an aggregate amount equal to such
minimum unfilled capacity.
To the extent that accrued credits are impounded in reservoirs between San Marcial and Courchesne, and to
the extent that accrued debits are impounded in reservoirs above San Marcial, such credits and debits shall be reduced
annually to compensate for evaporation losses in the proportion that such credits or debits bore to the total amount of
water in such reservoirs during the year.
ARTICLE VII
Neither Colorado nor New Mexico shall increase the amount of water in storage in reservoirs constructed after
1929 whenever there is less than 400,000 acre feet of usable water in project storage; provided, that if the actual
146
releases of usable water from the beginning of the calendar year following the effective date of this Compact, or from
the beginning of the calendar year following actual spill, have aggregated more than an average of 790,000 acre feet
per annum, the time at which such minimum stage is reached shall be adjusted to compensate for the difference
between the total actual release and releases at such average rate; provided, further, that Colorado, or New Mexico, or
both, may relinquish accrued credits at any time, and Texas may accept such relinquished water, and in such event the
state, or states, so relinquishing shall be entitled to store water in the amount of the water so relinquished.
ARTICLE VIII
During the month of January of any year the Commissioner for Texas may demand of Colorado and New Mexico, and
the Commissioner for New Mexico may demand of Colorado, the release of water from storage reservoirs constructed
after 1929 to the amount of the accrued debits of Colorado and New Mexico, respectively, and such releases shall be
made by each at the greatest rate practicable under the conditions then prevailing, and in proportion to the total debit of
each, and in amounts, limited by their accrued debits, sufficient to bring the quantity of usable water in project storage
to 600,000 acre feet by March first and to maintain this quantity in storage until April thirtieth, to the end that a normal
release of 790,000 acre feet may be made from project storage in that year.
ARTICLE IX
Colorado agrees with New Mexico that in event the United States or the State of New Mexico decides to construct the
necessary works for diverting the waters of the San Juan River, or any of its tributaries, into the Rio Grande, Colorado
hereby consents to the construction of said works and the diversion of waters from the San Juan River, or the tributaries
thereof, into the Rio Grande in New Mexico, provided the present and prospective uses of water in Colorado by other
diversions from the San Juan River, or its tributaries, are protected.
ARTICLE X
In the event water from another drainage basin shall be imported into the Rio Grande Basin by the United
States or Colorado or New Mexico, or any of them jointly, the State having the right to the use of such water shall be
given proper credit therefore in the application of the schedules.
ARTICLE XI
New Mexico and Texas agree that upon the effective date of this Compact all controversies between said
States relative to the quantity or quality of the water of the Rio Grande are composed and settled; however, nothing
herein shall be interpreted to prevent recourse by a signatory state to the Supreme Court of the United States for redress
should the character or quality of the water, at the point of delivery, be changed hereafter by one signatory state to the
injury of another. Nothing herein shall be construed as an admission by any signatory state that the use of water for
irrigation causes increase of salinity for which the user is responsible in law.
ARTICLE XII
To administer the provisions of this Compact there shall be constituted a Commission composed of one
representative from each state, to be known as the Rio Grande Compact Commission. The State Engineer of Colorado
shall be ex-officio the Rio Grande Compact Commissioner for Colorado. The State Engineer of New Mexico shall be
e x-officio the Rio Grande Compact Commissioner for New Mexico. The Rio Grande Compact Commissioner for
Texas shall be appointed by the Governor of Texas. The President of the United States shall be requested to designate
a representative of the United States to sit with such Commission, and such representative of the United States, if so
designated by the President, shall act as Chairman of the Commission without vote.
The salaries and personal expenses of the Rio Grande Compact Commissioners for the three States shall be
paid by their respective States, and all other expenses incident to the administration of this Compact, not borne by the
United States, shall be borne equally by the three States.
In addition to the powers and duties hereinbefore specifically conferred upon such Commission, and the members
thereof, the jurisdiction of such Commission shall extend only to the collection, correlation and presentation of factual
data and the maintenance of records having a bearing upon the administration of this Compact, and, by unanimous
action, to the making of recommendations to the respective States upon matters connected with the administration of
this Compact. In connection therewith, the Commission may employ such engineering and clerical aid as may be
reasonably necessary within the limit of funds provided for that purpose by the respective States. Annual reports
compiled for each calendar year shall be made by the Commission and transmitted to the Governors of the signatory
147
States on or before March first following the year covered by the report. The Commission may, by unanimous action,
adopt rules and regulations consistent with the provisions of this Compact to govern their proceedings.
The findings of the Commission shall not be conclusive in any court or tribunal which may be called upon to
interpret or enforce this Compact.
ARTICLE XIII
At the expiration of every five-year period after the effective date of this Compact, the Commission may, by unanimous
consent, review any provisions hereof which are not substantive in character and which do not affect the basic
principles upon which the Compact is founded, and shall meet for the consideration of such questions on the request of
any member of the Commission; provided, however, that the provisions hereof shall remain in full force and effect until
changed and amended within the intent of the Compact by unanimous action of the Commissioners, and until any
changes in this Compact are ratified by the legislatures of the respective states and consented to by the Congress, in the
same manner as this Compact is required to be ratified to become effective.
ARTICLE XIV
The schedules herein contained and the quantities of water herein allocated shall never be increased nor
diminished by reason of any increase or diminution in the delivery or loss of water to Mexico.
ARTICLE XV
The physical and other conditions characteristic of the Rio Grande and peculiar to the territory drained and
served thereby, and to the development thereof, have actuated this Compact and none of the signatory states admits that
any provisions herein contained establishes any general principle or precedent applicable to other interstate streams.
ARTICLE XVI
Nothing in this Compact shall be construed as affecting the obligations of the United States of America to
Mexico under existing treaties, or to the Indian Tribes, or as impairing the rights of the Indian Tribes.
ARTICLE XVII
This Compact shall become effective when ratified by the legislatures of each of the signatory states and
consented to by the Congress of the United States. Notice of ratification shall be given by the Governor of each state to
the Governors of the other states and to the President of the United States, and the President of the United States is
requested to give notice to the Governors of each of the signatory states of the consent of the Congress of the United
States.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Commissioners have signed this Compact in quadruplicate original, one of
which shall be deposited in the archives of the Department of State of the United States of America and shall be
deemed the authoritative original, and of which a duly certified copy shall be forwarded to the Governor of each of the
signatory States.
Done at the City of Santa Fe, in the State of New Mexico, on the 18th day of March, in the year of our Lord,
One Thousand Nine Hundred and Thirty-eight.
(Sgd.) M. C. HINDERLIDER
(Sgd.) THOMAS M. McCLURE
(Sgd.) FRANK B. CLAYTON
APPROVED:
(Sgd.) S. O. HARPER
RATIFIED BY:
Colorado, February 21, 1939
New Mexico, March 1, 1939
Texas, March 1, 1939
Passed Congress as Public Act No. 96, 76th Congress,
Approved by the President May 31, 1939
148
RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY RIO GRANDE COMPACT COMMISSION
AT THE ANNUAL MEETING HELD AT EL PASO, TEXAS, FEBRUARY 22-24, 1948,
CHANGING GAGING STATIONS AND MEASUREMENTS OF
DELIVERIES BY NEW MEXICO
RESOLUTION
Whereas, at the Annual Meeting of the Rio Grande Compact Commission in the year 1945, the question was
raised as to whether or not a schedule for delivery of water by New Mexico during the entire year could be worked out,
and
Whereas, at said meeting the question was referred to the Engineering Advisers for their study,
recommendations and report, and
Whereas, said Engineering Advisers have met, studied the problems and under date of February 24, 1947, did
submit their Report, which said Report contains the findings of said Engineering Advisers and their recommendations,
and
Whereas, the Compact Commission has examined said Report and finds that the matters and things therein
found and recommended are proper and within the terms of the Rio Grande Compact, and
Whereas, the Commission has considered said Engineering Advisers’ Report and all available evidence,
information and material and is fully advised:
Now, Therefore, Be it Resolved:
The Commission finds as follows:
(a) That because of change of physical conditions, reliable records of the amount of water passing San
Marcial are no longer obtainable at the stream gaging station at San Marcial and that the same should
be abandoned for Compact purposes.
(b) That the need for concurrent records at San Marcial and San Acacia no longer exists and that the gaging
station at San Acacia should be abandoned for Compact purposes.
(c) That it is desirable and necessary that the obligations of New Mexico under the Compact to deliver water
in the months of July, August, September, should be scheduled.
(d) That the change in gaging stations and substitution of the new measurements as hereinafter set forth will
result in substantially the same results so far as the rights and obligations to deliver water are
concerned, and would have existed if such substitution of stations and measurements had not been so
made.
Be it Further Resolved:
That the following measurements and schedule thereof shall be substituted for the measurements and
schedule thereof as now set forth in Article IV of the Compact:
149
”The obligation of New Mexico to deliver water in the Rio Grande into Elephant Butte Reservoir
during each calendar year shall be easured by that quantity set forth in the following tabulation of
relationship which corresponds to the quantity at the upper index station:
DISCHARGE OF RIO GRANDE AT OTOWI BRIDGE AND ELEPHANT BUTTE EFFECTIVE
SUPPLY
Quantities in thousands of acre-feet
Otowi Index Supply (5)
Elephant Butte Effective
Index Supply (6)
100
57
200
114
300
171
400
228
500
286
600
345
700
406
800
471
900
542
1,100
621
1,000
707
1,200
800
1,300
897
1,400
996
1,500
1,095
1,600
1,195
1,700
1,295
1,800
1,395
1,900
1,495
2,000
1,595
2,100
1,695
2,200
1,795
2,300
1,895
2,400
1,995
2,500
2,095
2,600
2,195
2,700
2,295
2,800
2,395
2,900
2,495
3,000
2,595
150
Intermediate quantities shall be computed by proportional parts.
(5) The Otowi Index Supply is the recorded flow of the Rio Grande at the U.S.G.S. gaging station at Otowi
Bridge near San ildefonso (formerly station near Buckman) during the calendar year, corrected for
the operation of reservoirs constructed after 1929 in the drainage basin of the Rio Grande between
Lobatos and Otowi Bridge.
(6) Elephant Butte Effective Index Supply is the recorded flow of the Rio Grande at the gaging station
below Elephant Butte Dam during the calendar year plus the net gain in storage in Elephant Butte
Reservoir during the same year or minus the net loss in storage in said reservoir, as the case may
be.
The application of this schedule shall be subject to the provisions hereinafter set forth and
appropriate adjustments shall be made for (a) any change in location of gaging stations; (b)
depletion after 1929 in New Mexico of the natural runoff at Otowi Bridge; and (c) any
transmountain diversions into the Rio Grande between Lobatos and Elephant Butte Reservoir.”
Be it Further Resolved:
That the gaging stations at San Acacia and San Marcial be, and the same are hereby abandoned for
Compact purposes.
Be it Further Resolved:
That this Resolution has been passed unanimously and shall be effective January 1, 1949, if within
120 days from this date the Commissioner for each State shall have received from the Attorney
General of the State represented by him, an opinion approving this Resolution, and shall have so
advised the Chairman of the Commission, otherwise, to be of no force and effect.
(Note: The following paragraph appears in the Minutes of the Annual Meeting of the Commission
held at Denver, Colorado, February 14-16, 1949.
”The Chairman announced that he had received, pursuant to the Resolution Fadopted by the
Commission at the Ninth Annual Meeting on February 24, 1948, opinions from the Attorneys
General of Colorado, New Mexico and Texas that the substitution of stations and measurements of
deliveries by New Mexico set forth in said resolution was within the powers of the Commission”).
RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION OF
THE RIO GRANDE COMPACT
A Compact, known as the Rio Grande Compact, between the States of Colorado, New Mexico and Texas,
having become effective on May 31, 1939 by consent of the Congress of the United States, which equitably
apportions the waters of the Rio Grande above Fort Quitman and permits each State to develop its water resources at
will, subject only to its obligations to deliver water in accordance with the schedules set forth in the Compact, the
following Rules and Regulations have been adopted for its administration by the Rio Grande Compact Commission;
to be and remain in force and effect only so long as the same may be satisfactory to each and all members of the
Commission, and provided always that on the objection of any member of the Commission, in writing, to the
remaining two members of the Commission after a period of sixty days from the date of such objection, the
sentence, paragraph or any portion or all of these rules to which any such objection shall
151
made, shall stand abrogated and shall thereafter have no further force and effect; it being the intent and purpose of
the Commission to permit these rules to obtain and be effective only so long as the same may be satisfactory to each
and all of the Commissioners.
GAGING STATIONS /1
Responsibility for the equipping, maintenance and operation of the stream gaging stations and reservoir
gaging stations required by the provisions of Article II of the Compact shall be divided among the signatory States
as follows:
(a) Gaging stations on streams and reservoirs in the Rio Grande Basin above the Colorado-New Mexico
boundary shall be equipped, maintained, and operated by Colorado in cooperation with the U.S. Geological Survey.
(b) Gaging stations on streams and reservoirs in the Rio Grande Basin below Lobatos and above Caballo
Reservoir shall be equipped, maintained and operated by New Mexico in cooperation with the U.S. Geological
Survey to the extent that such stations are not maintained and operated by some other Federal agency.
(c) Gaging stations on Elephant Butte Reservoir and on Caballo Reservoir, and the stream gaging stations
on the Rio Grande below those reservoirs shall be equipped, maintained and operated by or on behalf of Texas
through the agency of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.
The equipment, method and frequency of measurements at each gaging station shall be sufficient to obtain records at
least equal in accuracy to those classified as “good” by the U.S. Geological Survey. Water-stage recorders on the
reservoirs specifically named Article II of the Compact shall have sufficient range below maximum reservoir level
to record ma jor fluctuations in storage. Staff gages may be used to determine fluctuations below the range of the
water-stage recorders on these and other large reservoirs, and staff gages may be used upon approval of the
Commission in lieu of water-stage recorders on small reservoirs, provided that the frequency of observation is
sufficient in each case to establish any material changes in water levels in such reservoirs.
/1 Amended at Eleventh Annual Meeting, February 23, 1950.
RESERVOIR CAPACITIES /1
Colorado shall file with the Commission a table of areas and capacities for each reservoir in the Rio Grande
Basin above Lobatos constructed after 1937; New Mexico shall file with the Commission a table of areas and
capacities for each reservoir in the Rio Grande Basin between Lobatos and San Marcial constructed after 1929; and
Texas shall file with the Commission tables of areas and capacities for Elephant Butte Reservoir and for all other
reservoirs actually available for the storage of water between Elephant Butte and the first diversion to lands under
the Rio Grande Project.
Whenever it shall appear that any table of areas and capacities is in error by more than five per cent, the
Commission shall use its best efforts to have a re-survey made and a corrected table of areas and capacities to be
substituted as soon as practicable. To the end that the Elephant Butte effective supply may be computed accurately,
the Commission shall use its best efforts to have the rate of accumulation and the place of deposition of silt in
Elephant Butte Reservoir checked at least every three years.
ACTUAL SPILL /2, / 3
(a) Water released from Elephant Butte in excess of Project requirements, which is currently passed
through Caballo Reservoir, prior to the time of spill, shall be deemed to have been Usable Water released in
anticipation of spill, or Credit Water if such release shall have been authorized.
(b) Excess releases from Elephant Butte Reservoir, as defined in (a) above, shall be added to the quantity of water
in storage in that reservoir, and Actual Spill shall be deemed to have commenced when this sum equals the total
capacity of that reservoir to the level of the uncontrolled spillway less capacity reserved for flood control purposes,
i.e., 2,040,000 acre-feet in the months of October through March, inclusive, and 2,015,000 acre-feet in the months of
April through September, inclusive, as determined from the 1988 area-capacity table or successor area-capacity
152
tables and flood control storage reservation of 50,000 acre-feet from April through September and 25,000 acre -feet
from October through March.
(c) All water actually spilled at Elephant Butte Reservoir, or released therefrom, in excess of Project
requirements, which is currently passed through Caballo Reservoir, after the time of spill, shall be considered as
Actual Spill, provided that the total quantity of water then in storage in Elephant Butte Reservoir exceeds the
physical capacity of that reservoir at the level of the sill of the spillway gates, i.e. -1,830,000 acre -ft in 1942.
(d) Water released from Caballo Reservoir in excess of Project requirements and in excess of water currently
released from Elephant Butte Reservoir, shall be deemed Usable Water released, excepting only flood water entering
Caballo Reservoir from tributaries below Elephant Butte Reservoir.
DEPARTURES FROM NORMAL RELEASES / 4
For the purpose of computing the time of Hypothetical Spill required by Article VI , for the purpose of the
adjustment set forth in Article VII, no allowance shall be made for the difference between Actual and Hypothetical
Evaporation, and any under-release of usable water from Project Storage in excess of 150,000 acre-ft in any year
shall be taken as equal to that amount.
/1 Amended at Eleventh Annual Meeting, February 23, 1950.
/2 Adopted at Fourth Annual Meeting, February 24, 1943.
/3 Amended September 9, 1998.
/4 Adopted June 2, 1959; made effective January 1, 1952.
EVAPORATION LOSSES /5, /6, / 7
The Commission shall encourage the equipping, maintenance and operation, in cooperation with the U.S.
Weather Bureau or other appropriate agency, of evaporation stations at Elephant Butte Reservoir and at or near each
major reservoir in the Rio Grande Basin within Colorado constructed after 1937 and in New Mexico constructed
after 1929. The net loss by evaporation from a reservoir surface shall be taken as the difference between the actual
evaporation loss and the evapo-transpiration losses which would have occurred naturally, prior to the construction of
such reservoir. Changes in evapo-transpiration losses along stream channels below reservoirs may be disregarded.
Net losses by evaporation, as defined above, shall be used in correcting Index Supplies for the operation of
reservoirs upstream from Index Gaging Stations as required by the provisions of Article III and Article IV of the
Compact.
In the application of the provisions of the last unnumbered paragraph of Article VI of the Compact:
(a) Evaporation losses for which accrued credits shall be reduced shall be taken as the difference between
the gross evaporation from the water surface of Elephant Butte Reservoir and rainfall on the same surface.
(b) Evaporation losses for which accrued debits shall be reduced shall be taken as the net loss by
evaporation as defined in the first paragraph.
ADJUSTMENT OF RECORDS
The Commission shall keep a record of the location, and description of each gaging station and evaporation
station, and, in the event of change in location of any stream gaging station for any reason, it shall ascertain the
increment in flow or decrease in flow between such locations for all stages. Wherever practicable, concurrent
records shall be obtained for one year before abandonment of the previous station.
NEW OR INCREASED DEPLETIONS
153
In the event any works are constructed which alter or may be expected to alter the flow at any of the Index Gaging
Stations mentioned in the Compact, or which may otherwise necessitate adjustments in the application of the
schedules set forth in the Compact, it shall be the duty of the Commissioner specifically concerned to file with the
Commission all available information pertaining thereto, and appropriate adjustments shall be made in accordance
with the terms of the Compact; provided, however, that any such adjustments shall in no way increase the burden
imposed upon Colorado or New Mexico under the schedules of
TRANSMOUNTAIN DIVERSIONS
In the event any works are constructed for the delivery of waters into the drainage basin of the Rio Grande from any
stream system outside of the Rio Grande Basin, such waters shall be measured at the point of delivery into the Rio
Grande Basin and proper allowances shall be made for losses in transit from such points to the Index Gaging Station
on the stream with which the imported waters are commingled.
/5 Amended at Tenth Annual Meeting, February 15, 1949.
/6 Amended at Twelfth Annual Meeting, February 24, 1951.
/7 Amended June 2, 1959.
QUALITY OF WATER
In the event that delivery of water is made from the Closed Basin into the Rio Grande, sufficient samples of such
water shall be analyzed to ascertain whether the quality thereof is within the limits established by the Compact.
SECRETARY / 8
The Commission, subject to the approval of the Director, U.S. Geological Survey, to a cooperative
agreement for such purposes, shall employ the U.S. Geological Survey on a yearly basis, to render such engineering
and clerical aid as may reasonably be necessary for administration of the Compact. Said agreement shall provide
that the Geological Survey shall:
(1) Collect and correlate all factual data and other records having a material bearing on the administration
of the Compact and keep each Commissioner adviser thereof.
(2) Inspect all gaging stations required for administration of the Compact and make recommendations to the
Commission as to any changes or improvements in methods of measurement or facilities for measurement which
may be needed to insure that reliable records be obtained.
(3) Report to each Commissioner by letter on or before the fifteenth day of each month, except January, a
summary of all hydrographic data then available for the current year - on forms prescribed by the Commission pertaining to:
(a) Deliveries by Colorado
(b) Deliveries by New Mexico
(c) Operation of Project Storage
(4) Make such investigations as may be requested by the Commission in aid of its administration of the
Compact.
(5) Act as Secretary to the Commission and submit to the Commission at its regular meeting in February a
report on its activities and a summary of all data needed for determination of debits and credits and other matters
pertaining to administration of the Compact.
COSTS / 1
In February of each year, the Commission shall adopt a budget for the ensuing fiscal year beginning July
first.
154
Such budget shall set forth the total cost of maintenance and operating of gaging stations, of evaporation
stations, the cost of engineering and clerical aid, and all other necessary expenses excepting the salaries and personal
expenses of the Rio Grande Compact Commissioners.
Contributions made directly by the United States and the cost of services rendered by the United States without cost
shall be deducted from the total budget amount; the remainder shall then be allocated equally to Colorado, New
Mexico and Texas.
/8 The substitution of this section for the section titled “Reports to Commissioners” was adopted at Ninth Annual
Meeting, February 22, 1948.
/1 Amended at Eleventh Annual Meeting, February 23, 1950.
Expenditures made directly by any State for purposes set forth in the budget shall be credited to that State;
contributions in cash or in services by any State under a cooperative agreement with any federal agency shall be
credited to such State, but the amount of the federal contribution shall not so be credited; in event any State, through
contractual relationships, causes work to be done in the interest of the Commission, such State shall be credited with
the cost thereof, unless such cost is borne by the United States.
Costs incurred by the Commission under any cooperative agreement between the Commission and any U.S.
Government Agency, not borne by the United States, shall be apportioned equally to each State, and each
Commissioner shall arrange for the prompt payment of one-third thereof by his State.
The Commissioner of each State shall report at the annual meeting each year the amount of money
expended during the year by the State which he represents, as well as the portion thereof contributed by all
cooperating federal agencies, and the Commission shall arrange for such proper reimbursement in cash or credits
between States as may be necessary to equalize the contributions made by each State in the equipment, maintenance
and
operation of all gaging stations authorized by the Commission and established under the terms of the Compact.
It shall be the duty of each Commissioner to endeavor to secure from the Legislature of his State an
appropriation of sufficient funds with which to meet the obligations of his State, as provided by the Compact.
MEETING OF COMMISSION / 1, / 9
The Commission shall meet in Santa Fe, New Mexico, on the third Thursday of February of each year for
the consideration and adoption of the annual report for the calendar year preceding, and for the transaction of any
other business consistent with its authority; provided that the Commission may agree to meet elsewhere. Other
meetings as may be deemed necessary shall be held at any time and place set by mutual agreement, for the
consideration of data collected and for the transaction of any business consistent with its authority.
No action of the Commission shall be effective until approved by the Commissioner from each of the three
signatory States.
(Signed) M. C. HINDERLIDER
M. C. Hinderlider
Commissioner for Colorado
(Signed) THOMAS M. McCLURE
Thomas M. McClure
Commissioner for New Mexico
(Signed)
JULIAN P. HARRISON
Julian P. Harrison
Commissioner for Texas
Adopted December 19, 1939.
/1 Amended at Eleventh Annual Meeting, February 23, 1950.
/9
Amended at Thirteenth Annual Meeting, February 25, 1952.
155
C. The 1906 Convention between the United States and Mexico, Equitable
Distribution of the Waters of the Rio Grande
156
Convention
Between the
United States and Mexico
________
Equitable Distribution of the Waters
of the Rio Grande
__________
SIGNED AT WASHINGTON, MAY 21, 1906
RATIFICATION ADVISED BY THE SENATE, JUNE 26, 1906
RATIFIED BY THE PRESIDENT, DECEMBER 26, 1906
RATIFIED BY MEXICO, JANUARY 5, 1907
RATIFICATIONS EXCHANGED AT WASHINGTON, JANUARY 16, 1907
PROCLAIMED, JANUARY 16, 1907
___________________________________________________________________
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A PROCLAMATION
Whereas a Convention between the United States of America and the United States of Mexico,
providing for the equitable distribution of the waters of the Rio Grande for irrigation purposes,
and to remove all causes of controversy between them in respect thereto, was concluded and
signed by their respective Plenipotentiaries at Washington on the twenty-first day of May, one
thousand nine hundred and six, the original of which Convention, being in the English and
Spanish languages, is word for word as follows:
The United States of America an the United States of Mexico being desirous to provide for the
equitable distribution of the waters of the Rio Grande for irrigation purposes, and to remove all
causes of controversy between them in respect thereto, and being moved by considerations of
international comity, have resolved to conclude a Convention for these purposes and have named
as their Plenipotentiaries:
The President of the United States of America, Elihu Root, Secretary of State of the United
States; and
The President of the United States of Mexico, His Excellency Señor Don Juaquín D. Casasús,
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United State of Mexico at Washington;
Who, after having exhibited their respective full powers, which were found to be in good and due
form, have agreed upon the following articles:
157
Article I.
After the completion of the proposed storage dam near Engle, New Mexico, and the distributing
system auxiliary thereto, and as soon as water shall be available in said system for the purpose,
the United States shall deliver to Mexico a total of 60,000 acre- feet of water annually, in the bed
of the Rio Grande at the point where the head works of the Acequia Madre, known as the Old
Mexican Canal, now exit above the city of Juarez, Mexico.
Article II.
The delivery of thee said amount of water shall be assured by the United States and shall be
distributed through the year in the same proportions as the water supply proposed to be furnished
from the said irrigation system to lands in the United States in the vicinity of El Paso, Texas,
according to the following schedule, as nearly as may be possible:
Acre- feet per month
Corresponding Cubic
feet of water.
0
0
February
1,090
47,480,400
March
5,460
237,837,600
April
12,000
522,720,000
May
12,000
522,720,000
June
12,000
522,720,000
July
8,180
356,320,800
August
4,370
190,357,200
September
3,270
142,441,200
October
1,090
47,480,400
November
540
23,522,400
December
0
0
60,000
acre-feet
2,613,600,000
cubic feet
{PRIVATE}
January
Total for the Year
In case, however, of extraordinary drought of serious accident to the irrigation system in the
United States, the amount delivered to the Mexican Canal shall be diminished in the same
proportion as the water delivered to lands under said irrigation system in the United States.
Article III.
The said delivery shall be made without cost to Mexico, and the United States agrees to pay the
whole cost of storing the said quantity of water to be delivered to Mexico, of conveying the same
158
to the international line, of measuring the said water, and of delivering it in the river bed above
the head of the Mexican Canal. It is understood that the United States assumes no obligation
beyond the delivering of the water in the bed of the river above the head of the Mexican Canal.
Article IV.
The delivery of waters as herein provided is not to be construed as a recognition by the United
States of any claim on the part of Mexico to the said waters; and it is agreed that in consideration
of such delivery of water, Mexico waives any and all claims to the waters of the Rio Grande for
any purpose whatever between the head of the present Mexican Canal and Fort Quitman, Texas,
and also declares fully settled and disposed of, and hereby waives, all claims heretofore asserted
or existing, or that may hereafter arise, or be asserted, against the United States on account of
any damages alleged to have been sustained by the owners of land in Mexico, by reason of the
diversion by citizens of the United States of waters of the Rio Grande.
Article V.
The United States, in entering into this treaty, does not thereby concede, expressly or by
implication, any legal basis for any claims heretofore asserted or which may be hereafter asserted
by reason of any losses incurred by the owners of land in Mexico due or alleged to be due to the
diversion of the waters of the Rio Grande within the United States; nor does the United States in
an way concede the establishment of any general principle or precedent by the concluding of this
treaty. The understanding of both parties is that the arrangement contemplated by this treaty
extends only to the portion of the Rio Grande which forms the international boundary, from the
head of the Mexican Canal down to Fort Quitman, Texas, and in no other case.
Article VI.
The present Convention shall be ratified by both contracting parties in accordance with their
constitutional procedure, and the ratifications shall be exchanged at Washington as soon as
possible.
In witness whereof, the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed the Convention both in the
English and Spanish languages and have thereunto affixed their seals. Done in duplicate at the
City of Washington, this 21st day of May, one thousand nine hundred and six.
ELIHU ROOT [SEAL.]
JOAQUIN D CASASUS [SEAL.]
And whereas the said Convention has been duly ratified on both parts, and the ratifications of the
two governments were exchanged in the City of Washington, on the sixteenth day of January,
one
thousand nine hundred and seven;
Now, therefore, be it known the I, Theodore Roosevelt, President of the United States of
America, have caused the said Convention to be made public, to the end that the same and every
article and clause thereof may be observed and fulfilled with good faith by the United States and
the citizens thereof.
159
In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States of
America to be affixed.
Done at the City of Washington, this sixteenth day of January, in the year of our Lord one
thousand nine hundred and seven, and of the Independence of the United States of America the
hundred and thirty- first.
[SEAL]
THEODORE ROOSEVELT
By the President:
ELIHU ROOT
Secretary of State.
160
D. 1906 and 1908 Letters from U.S. Reclamation Service to Territorial Engineer of
New Mexico appropriating water for the Rio Grande Reclamation Project
161
Water Appropriations,
Rio Grande Project.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Reclamation Service
Carlsbad, New Mexico. Jan. 23, 1906.
Mr. David L. White,
Territorial Irrigation Engineer,
Santa Fe, New Mexico
Dear Sir:
The United States Reclamation Service, acting under authority of an Act of Congress
known as the Reclamation Act, approved June 17, 1902 (32 Stat., 388), proposes to construct
with the Territory of New Mexico certain irrigation works in connection with the so-called Rio
Grande project. The operation of the works in question contemplates the diversion of water from
the Rio Grande River.
Section 22 of Chapter 102 of the laws enacted in 1905 by the 36th Legislative Assembly
of the Territory of New Mexico – an Act entitled, “An Act Creating the Office of Territorial
Irrigation Engineer, to Promote Irrigation Development and Conserve the Waters of New
Mexico for the Irrigation of Lands and for other Purposes,” approved March 16, 1905 – reads as
follows:
“Whenever the proper officers of the United States authorized by law to construct
irrigation works, shall notify the territorial irrigation engineer that the United States intends to
utilize certain specified waters, the waters so described, and unappropriated at the date of such
notice, shall not be subject to further appropriations under the laws of New Mexico, and no
adverse claims to the use of such waters, initiated subsequent to the date of such notice, shall be
recognized under the laws of the territory, except as to such amount of the water described in
such notice as may be formally re- leased in writing by an officer of the United States thereunto
duly authorized”.
162
In pursuance of the above statute of the Territory you are hereby notified that the United
States intends to utilize the following described waters, to-wit:
A volume of water equivalent to 730,000 acre- feet per year requiring a maximum
diversion or storage of 2,000,000 miner’s inches said water to be diverted or stored from the Rio
Grande River at a point described as follows:
Storage dam about 9 miles west of Engle, New Mexico, with capacity for 2,000,000 acrefeet, and diversion dams below in Palomas, Rincon, Mesilla, and El Paso Valleys in New
Mexico and Texas.
It is, therefore, requested that the waters above described be withheld from further
appropriation and that the rights and interests of the United States in the premises to otherwise
protected as contemplated by the statute above cited.
Very truly yours,
(Signed) B.M. Hall,
Supervising Engineer
163
Supplemental notice of the intention of the United States to use the waters of the Rio Grande for
irrigation purposes on the Rio Grande Project.
Phoenix, Arizona, April, 1908
Mr. Vernon L. Sullivan
Territorial Engineer,
Santa Fe, New Mexico
Dear Sir:
Claiming and reserving all rights under our former notice of January 23, 1906, addressed
to David L. White, Territorial Irrigation Engineer of New Mexico, which said notice advised him
of the intention of the United States to use the waters of the Rio Grande for the purpose of
irrigation, and is now filed in your office, I do now hereby give you the following notice in
addition to said former notice and supplemental thereto.
The United States acting under authority of an Act of Congress, known as the
Reclamation Act, approved June 17m 1902, (32 Stat., 388), proposes to construct with the
Territory of New Mexico certain irriga tion works in connection with the so-called Rio Grande
Project. The operation of the works in question contemplates the diversion of the water of the
Rio Grande River.
Section 40 of Chapter 49 of the laws enacted in 1907 by the 37th Legislative Assembly of
the Territory of New Mexico, an Act entitled, “An Act to conserve and regulated the use and
distribution of the waters of New Mexico; to create the office of Territorial Engineer; to create a
Board of Water Commissioners, and for other purposes”, approved March 19, 1907, reads as
follows:
Whenever the proper officers of the United States Authorised by law to construct works
for the utilisation of waters within the Territory, shall notify the Territorial Engineer that the
United States intends to utilise certain specified waters, the waters so described and
unappropriated, and not covered by applications or affidavits duly filed or permits as required by
law, at the date of such notice, shall not be subject to a further appropriation under the laws of
164
the Territory for a period of three years from the date of said notice, within which time the
proper officers of the United States shall file plans for the proposed work in the office of the
Territorial Engineer for his information, and no adverse claim to the use of the water required in
connection with such plans, initiated subsequent to the date of such notice, shall be recognised
under the laws of the Territory, except as to such amount of water described in such notice as
may be formally released in writing by an officer of the United States thereunto duly authorised;
Provided, that in case of failure to file plans of the proposed work within three years, as herein
required, the waters specified in the notice given by the United States to the Territorial Engineer
shall become public water, subject to general appropriations.
In pursuance of the above statute of the Territory you are hereby notified that the United
States intends to utilise the following described waters, to-wit:
All the unappropriated water of the Rio Grande and its tributaries, said water to be
diverted or stored from the Rio Grande River at a point described as follows:
Storage dame about nine mines west of Engle, New Mexico, with capacity for two
million (2,000,000) acre feet, and diversion dams below in Palomas, Rincon, Mesilla and El Paso
Valleys in New Mexico and Texas.
It is therefore requested that the waters above described be withheld from further
appropriation and that the rights and interests of the United States in the premises be otherwise
protected as contemplated by the status above cited.
Very truly yours,
(Signed) Louis C. Hill,
Supervising Engineer
165
E. EBID Mutual Water Users Association Policy
POLICY 2001-GA7
POLICY SUBJECT:
Municipal Water User Association
DATE APPROVED:
August 8, 2001
POLICY:
Rules implementing Municipal Water User Association (Association) within Elephant
Butte Irrigation District (EBID) under Section 73-10-48 (A).
IMPLEMENTATION:
EBID shall contract with the Association to implement this policy and any future
amendments.
Section I.
Definitions:
1. Municipal Water User Association (Association): Municipalities, counties,
state universities, member-owned water systems, and public utilities
supplying water to municipalities or counties, which supply water to lands
within the boundaries of Irrigation Districts organized as pursuant to chapter,
73, Articles 10 and 11 NMSA 1978: and the Interstate Stream Commission.
2. Leases: Agreement between EBID constituents and Association providing for
the annual lease of annual allotments of project water.
3. Municipal Combined Unit: An established subdivision with a combined
acreage of two acres or more.
4. Annual allotments of project water: The volume of water determined annually
by the EBID Board of Directors to be available to assessed acreage within the
District.
5. Assessment acreage: Land within EBID that according to EBID classification
is “water righted acres”.
6. Assessments: Annual charges approved by EBID Board of Directors for
project water.
7. Levies: Annual charges approved by EBID Board of Directors for purposes
other than operation and maintenance, I.e. Local Improvement District
charges.
8. Administrative fee: Fees assessed by EBID for the implementation of this
policy with an Association under Section 73-10-48 (A), NMSA.
9. Record owner: Person(s) or entity(ies) appearing as the owner of assessed
acreage according to EBID Land Records.
166
Section II. EBID shall do the following:
1. Assess the Association for total assessed acreage of participating members
in the Association.
2. Coordinate delivery of annual allotment of project water for all assessed
acreage participating in the Association.
3. Place the Association as record owner on the irrigation district tax statement
for the duration of the participation by district constituents in an Association.
4. On an annual basis, the EBID Board of Directors may in their sole discretion
determine whether or not an Association may lease the use of project water
from acreage not within the Association service area.
Section III: The Association shall do the following:
1. Lease the use of the entire annual allotment of project water for all assessed
acreages participating in the Association.
2. Subject to Section II (4) above, an Association may lease the use of annual
allotments of project water from owners of tracts of land within EBID
boundaries that are concurrent with the Association service area. In all cases
where there may be overlapping service area, among two or more
Associations, the EBID Board of Directors will have final approval as to which
Association will be authorized to lease the annual allotments of project water
within the disputed service area.
3. In cooperation with EBID, shall take steps to insure that land from which the
water has been leased is not irrigated with any water from any source during
the term of the lease.
4. All assessments, levies and administrative fees must be paid in full prior to
February 1 of the current year for all assessed acreage included in the
Association.
5. Submit to EBID a map indicating its legal service area which provides water
delivery service within EBID boundaries. If those boundaries should change,
the Association shall revise the map and submit the revision within 60 days of
the approved change.
6. The Association agrees that the annual allotment of water shall only be used
for the placement of that water in a municipal water treatment plant which
serves within the boundaries of EBID. The Association will transfer into the
EBID “Agricultural Pool” annual allotments of Project Water that it holds or
may acquire. The water may be sold at a rate equal to or less than the
assessment charge. This transfer shall occur until such time as the
Association utilizes project water in a municipal water treatment plant.
Section IV: Notification and reporting requirements:
1. The Association shall submit to EBID a recorded copy of the lease agreement
with the EBID member by September 1 of each year.
167
2. The Association shall annually submit to EBID a summary of all assessed
acreage for the current year on a form to be provided by EBID.
3. The Association shall annually request a transfer of all annual allotments of
project water from the summary of leased acreages, subject to the
procedures and guidelines as established by the EBID Board of Directors.
4. The Association shall designate a contact person who will be responsible for
coordination of the delivery of project water with the EBID Water Records
Department during the irrigation season.
Section V: Association Leases:
1. Leases shall be for a minimum of 5 years and a maximum of 40 years.
2. Leases shall include only “water righted acres”.
3. Partial leases of “water righted” acreage will be allowed if administratively
feasible.
4. Leases shall be signed by all appropriate parties and recorded with the Office
of the County Clerk.
5. Leases shall be binding on the current land owner and all future land owners
for the term of the lease.
6. Leases shall stipulate that maintenance to the assessed acreage is to continue
to insure that fallowed land does not become a public nuisance, including but
not limited to weed infestation, wind and soil erosion, etc.
Section VI: Municipal Combined Unit (MCU):
1. An Association may make application to the EBID Board of Directors for the
formation of a MCU.
2. The MCU combines all tracts of land (with or without water righted acreage)
within the subdivision into one tract.
3. All tracts of land within the proposed MCU must be within a legal subdivision.
4. The combination of all water righted acres within the proposed MCU must
contain more than 2.0 acres of water righted acres.
5. The EBID Board of Directors may grant an Association’s request to form a
MCU only if it is in the best interest of the District to do so.
•
Section VII: Fees and Penalties Applicable to the Association:
1. The Association is responsible for applicable administrative fees as adopted
by the EBID Board of Directors.
168
2. If water is used by a member in violation under Section III, Item (3), the
Association shall be assessed a penalty in the amount of the current
approved assessments for the farm or flat rate charges for the applicable tract
of land receiving unauthorized water and a deduction from the Association’s
water account for the unauthorized use of water, as determined by EBID.
Leased water may not be transferred outside of EBID boundaries. The
Association shall be assessed a penalty in the amount of the current
approved assessments for the farm or flat rate charges for the applicable tract
of land and a deduction from the Association’s water account for any
unauthorized use of water outside of EBID boundaries, as determined by
EBID.
4. In addition to administrative fees, the Association shall pay all costs incurred
by EBID associated with the approval of the transfer of water by the
Association, including but not limited to the Municipal and Industrial charge for
maintenance of Elephant Butte Dam which is charged annually to EBID by
the United States.
Section VIII: Mitigation of Effects of Groundwater Pumping on Project Water Supply
1.
EBID shall develop a procedure to analyze the effects of groundwater
pumping on Project water supply. The analysis will examine the current
effects of groundwater pumping and the effects caused by the use of water
under this policy by the Association.
2.
Depletions of Project supply by the Association shall be accounted for by a
reduction in the amount of Project water ultimately delivered to the
Association or by other methods agreed to by EBID.
Section IX:
Variance
1. The Association may request a variance to any of the conditions in this policy,
by written application to the Board. The Association will set forth the specific
reason(s) for the variance request and attach whatever materials are necessary
to evaluate and justify the variance.
2. The Board, in its sole discretion, has the authority to grant the variance if they
find a rational and/or statutory basis to do so.
169