AWSA Update: ISC Initiates Detailed Studies of AWSA Projects
Arizona Water Settlements Act Update:
Interstate Stream Commission Initiates Detailed Studies of AWSA Projects
Bureau of Reclamation to Assess Costs and Benefits of Alternatives
At their June meeting, the Interstate Stream Commission (ISC) approved a work plan for Arizona Water Settlements Act (AWSA) planning that outlines $3.9M in studies for FY2013 – 2014. The work, to be done by ISC-approved contractors, will develop detailed engineering design and cost information, and evaluate environmental impacts for the 16 Tier 2 projects approved by the commission in February. These studies are intended to inform the state’s 2014 decision on whether or not to use Gila River water under the AWSA.
The AWSA is a congressionally approved water bill that provides $66M in non-reimbursable expenditures that may be used to meet water supply demands in the Southwest Planning Region of New Mexico (Catron, Luna, Hidalgo and Grant counties) either through the construction of a New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project that would increase water used from the Gila River by up to 14,000 acre-feet per year, or through non-diversion water projects. New Mexico will receive a guaranteed $6.6 million a year for ten years, beginning in 2012 that can be used for any water project that meets a water supply demand. New Mexico may also receive an additional $34 to $62 million if it chooses to construct a New Mexico Unit. New Mexico must notify the Secretary of the Interior by December 2014 if it will use Gila River water or not.
Stakeholders in southwestern New Mexico have been meeting since 2007 to develop AWSA project proposals to cost effectively balance water supply and demand in the region while protecting the Gila River. Their successful collaborative efforts resulted in more than 70 projects submitted to the ISC in November 2010 for consideration. The vast majority of projects were for “non-diversion” alternatives that ranged from municipal and agricultural conservation to development of regional infrastructure for water supply delivery, water reuse and storage, to watershed restoration. Only three of the projects were “diversion” proposals to withdraw water from the Gila for consumptive use.
Stakeholders worked hard to find areas of agreement, while at the same time coming forward with questions and concerns. In general, non-diversion alternatives were supported by stakeholders. A long list of concerns were identified with diversion projects.
With the transition to the Martinez administration in 2011, the ISC ceased to support the formal stakeholders’ group and initiated a new process. More than 40 Tier 1 projects were submitted for evaluation by a “secret” evaluation panel made up of state agency representatives; the ISC refused to make public the names of the proposal reviewers. Twenty-one projects made it through the first phase and were evaluated in Tier 2 according to 9 criteria, such as cost, technical feasibility and public support. The ISC approved the final set of 16 projects in February 2012 that would be analyzed during the current assessment phase leading up to the ISC’s 2014 decision on whether or not to divert water from the Gila River. The list included three diversion projects and 13 non-diversion alternatives. Since that time, the City of Deming has withdrawn its diversion proposal citing high costs and the desire to not compete with the other 2 diversion proponents, Hidalgo County and the Gila Basin Irrigation Commission.
The Gila Conservation Coalition’s proposal for municipal conservation received the top score from the evaluation panel and was approved by the ISC for further study in the assessment phase. The City of Deming and Stream Dynamics also submitted proposals for municipal conservation and rainwater harvesting respectively. The commission signed off on an expenditure of $100K for evaluation of municipal conservation measures, including rainwater harvesting. The Town of Silver City and the City of Deming are currently working on water audits to identify opportunities for conservation. Once audit data is analyzed, demonstration projects will be implemented to help determine the amount of water that could be saved if water conservation measures were funded under the AWSA. Unfortunately, the dollars allocated for this effort are not sufficient to adequately assess the potential for water savings across the entire region, and GCC has been pushing for more resources to be committed to evaluating this cost-effective means for extending the life of our water supplies.
The ISC has allocated $1.45M to analysis of the Grant County Water Commission Regional Water Supply Project that includes evaluation of construction of infrastructure to regionalize the water distribution system between Silver City and the Mining District, as well as a reservoir project north of Santa Clara and a wastewater reuse project in Bayard. This project would meet the future water needs of 26,000 people in Silver City and the Mining District for a fraction of the cost of expensive, large-scale Gila River diversion projects.
The Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) has been asked by the ISC to conduct an appraisal level cost-benefit analysis of all of the AWSA alternatives. Reclamation’s Economics and Resource Planning Team will “examine the incremental changes in benefits and costs to agriculture, municipal and industrial supply, water quality, recreation, and fish and wildlife uses between the proposed alternatives and the current conditions.” The group will also evaluate regional economic impacts through economic modeling. BOR’s Water Conveyance Group will conduct analyses of a range of diversion/storage/conveyance alternatives. Alternatives include diversion of 5000 – 14,000 acre-feet per year from one of three different diversion locations and storage in a single storage facility (generally identified as “top, middle, or lower Cliff-Gila Valley”) in smaller ponds throughout the Cliff-Gila Valley, or aquifer storage and recovery anywhere in the Cliff-Gila Valley. No conveyance alternatives to end water users have been identified and ISC staff refuses to answer where this water is ultimately going.
Given that the ISC has stated that the end water users must pay the water supplied by any of these projects above and beyond the AWSA subsidy, ISC staff says that it will have its own contractors assessing ability of water users to pay for water supplied from a diversion project. This is a fundamental question that has been asked for years and is a key factor in the decision to move forward with a diversion project given that the AWSA subsidy is estimated to cover only 40% of the construction costs.
The revised schedule approved by the ISC in June calls for the commission to make a preliminary decision on a project(s) by August 31, 2014 and a final decision by November 14, 2014.
The Gila Conservation Coalition and The Nature Conservancy serve as the conservation representatives to the ISC’s Stakeholder Input Group that provides input on scopes of work, contractor reports, workplans, and other deliverables of the AWSA planning process. GCC will continue to advocate for a fair and objective analysis of both diversion and non-diversion alternatives. Public meetings related to the AWSA process are held quarterly. The next public meeting has not been scheduled yet.