Middle Rio Grande Regional Water Plan

Recommendations

Info

Middle Rio Grande Regional Water Plan Comments Last Updated 05/24/2016 Comment Page Paragraph or Section Number Number Number 49 1 Subsection 1, third paragraph 50 2 Subsection 1, 4th bullet Comment information supplied by water stakeholders in the [MRG] region” did not, to our knowledge, include administrative water supply and demand information. Why does Section 5 present data items for temp., precip., drought indices, etc., when Sections 5, 6, and 7 direct the use of Administrative Water Supply and Demand instead of those data? Comment Type (Technical or Process) Commenter Steering Committee Comments Technical Water Assembly ‐ Bob Wessely Technical Water Assembly ‐ Bob Wessely 51 Section 2 Our comment here contrasts the nature of the public process used in the current “update” effort to that Technical Water Assembly ‐ undertaken by the MRG Water Assembly in the development of the 2004 RWP. Here we equate “public involvement” to “public participation,” and define it as the active engagement of relevant stakeholders in planning, management and evaluation processes (these constitute “governance”). Effective participation: • is important for building trust and relationships among stakeholders with differing interests; • is critical for facilitating the learning and collective action needed to respond to stresses and disturbances in a social‐ecological system (SES); • requires negotiation of fair rules for who participates, under which conditions participation is appropriate, and how participation takes place. Although government agencies – such as water suppliers and regulators – are well represented on the MRCOG/WRB‐created “steering committee,” as are business and development interests, other voices advocating non‐market values are either not at the table or struggle to be heard. Lack of time and financial resources are offered as reasons for the failure of outreach efforts, but the narrow focus of the “update” process on “projects” (and, of late, “policies”) precludes exploration of fundamental issues. Moreover, it convinces some, who might otherwise have reason to participate, that to do so would be irrelevant or even antithetical to their interests. For perspective on the update public involvement process, it should be noted that the 2004 RWP included over 100 general public meetings, 100 briefings to agencies, 60 Water Resources Board sessions, 500 Water Assembly meetings, and an aggregated 2200 signed in participants. For more, see Public Participation (DRAFT December 4, 2015) New Mexico Regional Water Planning Governance Study Group Issue Paper at http://nmwaterdialogue.org/library/water‐governance/governance‐study‐group‐issuepapers/ Bob Wessely 52 Section 2 We suggest it necessary to correct some terms that are used inconsistently and incorrectly in this document. “Previous plan” appears several times on pages 5 and 6, in reference to the existing MRG RWP. As Rosemary Romero stated at the February 9 meeting of the MRCOG Steering Committee, the 2004 plan remains in effect and will continue to be so except as modified by the update process. Moreover, it is not the Mid Region Water Plan. “Mid Region” is the name of the COG, encompassing a four‐county area. The geographic scope of the water plan for the Middle Rio Grande (MRG) is a threecounty area (Sandoval, Bernalillo, and Valencia) within the drainage of the Rio Grande. Technical Water Assembly ‐ Bob Wessely 53 4 Section 3.3 From a hydrology view, does it make sense for several areas to be a “part of the same Middle Rio Grande Underground Water Basin” and also be “hydrologically separate”? The sentence as is sounds counterintuitive. 54 7 Section 4.1.1.4 Montgomery v. Lomos Altos ‐ The NM Supreme Court again recognized the supremacy of the system of priority administration of water rights. The OSE has an obligation to protect senior rights and their sources. It cannot determine any aspect of a water right, that task to remain with the Court. The OSE cannot improvise to administer rights, such as “de minimus” and must follow the letter of the law. The OSE and the Court are required to consider the criteria of “conservation of the resource” and “public welfare” in rights transfer cases. Regimens such as drought management paradigms are constitutional; however, the state already has one of these that is ignored as such: priority administration. Most of the ruling is ignored. Permits have been let without any analysis of detrimental overall impacts and the legality of providing water to them. The actual amount of permitted pumping far exceeds the sustainability of the resource, especially in uplands. The resource and the state’s future are threatened by this neglect. “Cherry picking” one year wherein there is no “gap” shown is very unscientific and biased against finding strategies that work. To ask volunteer planners to accept this is patently wrong. Technical Water Assembly ‐ Bob Wessely Technical Water Assembly ‐ Bob Wessely Page 6 of 17
Middle Rio Grande Regional Water Plan Comments Last Updated 05/24/2016 Comment Page Paragraph or Section Number Number Number Comment 55 8 Section 4.1.1.6 Bounds v. State Engineer ‐ The NM Supreme Court found that the domestic well statute was constitutional and the OSE must grant a permit when receiving an application. However, the OSE can disallow or restrict pumping on the permit if, after required analysis, the pumping would impair senior rights by impairing sources. The most significant aspect of this ruling is the placing of groundwater pumping within the code of priority administration, whereby a senior right, ground or surface sourced, can call junior rights, including wells. The Court remarked that it is difficult to prove impairment when it comes to groundwater withdrawals, but as more is learned of the nature of the groundwater and aquifers, it could be much less difficult to do so. The OSE and ISC should be aware that a “calling war” could break out and cause chaos to water resource administration. Much caution should be shown when granting permits. This is another reason to stop avoiding adjudication of water rights in the region. The time to end justifying unseemly withdrawals by not conducting adjudication is here. The situation this creates makes the state vulnerable to outside interests. Taking destructive amounts of water from the resource must end. 56 Section 4 With the regional water plans supposedly being the basis for the State Water Plan, the regional planning process seems to have only selectively followed the requirements of the statutes. Please refer to NMSA 72‐14‐3.1 which contains an extensive litany of requirements for a State Water Plan (we chose not to relist that litany here). It’s less than obvious how the current regional water planning process will meet even a small fraction of those statutory requirements. The final version of this draft plan needs to take into account this statute more comprehensively. Present methodology used in the draft plan is very confusing and conflicts with common planning goals. To have three or four unadvertised tightly controlled meetings expecting large results is unrealistic. Not letting regions create and use their own data and water budgets is unreasonable. The current approach used by the ISC implies, perhaps incorrectly, their lack of consideration and respect for local planners when it force feeds data and budgets to the committee and does not allow consideration of the validity of doing this. It is insulting to volunteers who devote their valuable time to develop usable regional water plans, and amounts to deceit. This is not a proper process to achieve a product that goes beyond a project list (not a basis as called for in the statute) that would give some confidence in our ability to plan for the future. An example of this is the neglect of public welfare and the obsession of providing water we don’t have to proposed subdivisions. Another is the complete lack of recognition of climate disruption threats, which will upend any “planning” desires and could cause the collapse of the resource and economy. Another is the omission of water for the ESA (or for ecosystem services more broadly). Another is the tendency to favor large projects that exceed the known capacity of our water supply. Besides statutory statements, there are ethical and moral considerations: When we consider only immediate needs and desires, we run the danger of robbing future generations of a decent future‐‐ indeed, any future. By taking all we want, which is what we do now, and justifying it by legal shell gaming and obfuscation, we deny the intent of the law. It is time for us to start treating ourselves more gently and altruistically. Public welfare must be taken more seriously. New Mexico needs to turn to the values contained in its diverse and wise cultures. That is the resource we have ignored. We must develop a better sense of ethics and morals and begin to show mercy to future generations. Good and decent planning demands it. Comment Type (Technical or Process) Commenter Steering Committee Comments Technical Water Assembly ‐ Bob Wessely Process Water Assembly ‐ Bob Wessely 57 5 Section 5 Water planning needs to consider the water resource as a whole, as a living entity, instead of the fragmented way it is being treated now. There has been no control over development of the uplands, groundwater pumping, floodplain connectivity, etc., and the resource continues to deteriorate. Recharge to the river is diminishing because of this, and in the future will result in a dry riverbed and an impaired resource. Planners must have the foresight to address this. Process Water Assembly ‐ Bob Wessely 58 6 Section 5 Rio Grande Compact sidebar – There’s no indication of information change in the compact description from 2004. As indicated in above comment on Section 2, including unchanged information suggests this document is intended to be a replacement, rather than an update of the 2004 RWP Technical Water Assembly ‐ Bob Wessely 59 6‐11 Section 5 Many of the bullets contain no new information since 2004 ‐ for example, bullets 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 18. As Technical Water Assembly ‐ indicated in above comment 5 (on Section 2), including unchanged information suggests this document is Bob Wessely intended to be a replacement, rather than an update of the 2004 RWP Page 7 of 17
Page 1 and 2:
Middle Rio Grande Regional Water Pl
Page 3 and 4:
Table of Contents Executive Summary
Page 5 and 6:
List of Figures 1-1 Location of Mid
Page 7 and 8:
5-12 Leaking Underground Storage Ta
Page 9 and 10:
MCL MCLG MDWCA MRCOG MRGAA MRGCD MR
Page 11 and 12:
Executive Summary The Middle Rio Gr
Page 13 and 14:
Planning Method For this RWP, water
Page 15 and 16:
appropriations are available in the
Page 17 and 18:
channel aggradation. These changes
Page 19 and 20:
In 2014, the U.S. Environmental Pro
Page 21 and 22:
• Bosque and other riparian habit
Page 23 and 24:
1. Introduction The Middle Rio Gran
Page 25 and 26:
The organization of this update fol
Page 27 and 28:
2.1 The New Mexico Interstate Strea
Page 29 and 30:
2.2.1 Identification of Regional St
Page 31 and 32:
Table 2-1. Steering Committee Membe
Page 33 and 34:
Table 2-2. Middle Rio Grande Region
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Jicarilla Apache Nation Reservation
Page 41 and 42:
Sierra water planning region. Geogr
Page 43 and 44:
Table 3-1. Summary of Demographic a
Page 45 and 46:
4. Legal Issues 4.1 Relevant Water
Page 47 and 48:
In addition to Tri-State, several c
Page 49 and 50:
Socorro, Valencia, Bernalillo, Sand
Page 51 and 52:
Authority’s application sought to
Page 53 and 54:
equires the NMOSE to conduct hydrol
Page 55 and 56:
3. Allow for the declaration of dom
Page 57 and 58:
provided for another review procedu
Page 59 and 60:
Source: NMOSE, 2014a and 2014c La J
Page 61 and 62:
4.1.3 Federal Water Laws The law of
Page 63 and 64:
As discussed above, the three party
Page 65 and 66:
existing, and future uses). No adju
Page 67 and 68:
• Gather information on domestic
Page 69 and 70:
plan recognizes that water is easil
Page 71 and 72:
• Protect groundwater by preventi
Page 73 and 74:
not adequately consider all of the
Page 75 and 76:
4.2.2 Water Quality Laws 4.2.2.1 Fe
Page 77 and 78:
National Priorities List (NPL). 42
Page 79 and 80:
• The Jicarilla Apache Nation Cod
Page 81 and 82:
• Water users seeking to obtain w
Page 83 and 84:
• The Federal Emergency Managemen
Page 85 and 86:
water balance in the Middle Rio Gra
Page 87 and 88:
Table 5-1. Middle Rio Grande Climat
Page 89 and 90:
Sources: 1. WRCC, 2014 2. NWS, 2005
Page 91 and 92:
Jemez Springs Temperature (°F) 90
Page 93 and 94:
Jemez Springs Precipitation (inches
Page 95 and 96:
drought monitoring systems, and it
Page 97 and 98:
Climate Division 5 14 12 10 8 6 4 2
Page 99 and 100:
expected. To assess climate trends
Page 101 and 102:
Rio Chama La Jara JEMEZ RIVER NEAR
Page 103 and 104:
Table 5-4a. USGS Stream Gage Statio
Page 105 and 106:
Table 5-4a. USGS Stream Gage Statio
Page 107 and 108:
Table 5-4b. USGS Stream Gage Annual
Page 109 and 110:
Table 5-5. USGS Stream Gage Average
Page 111 and 112:
1,200,000 1,000,000 Jemez River nea
Page 113 and 114:
Rio Grande at Albuquerque, NM 2,000
Page 115 and 116:
Table 5-6. Reservoirs and Lakes (gr
Page 117 and 118:
Table 5-7. Dams with Dam Safety Def
Page 119 and 120:
Tsj Southern Rocky Mountain Colorad
Page 121 and 122:
In order to evaluate changes in wat
Page 123 and 124:
5,025 5,020 351852106344901 Aquifer
Page 125 and 126:
Source: NMED, 2014a and 2014c Note:
Page 127 and 128:
Table 5-8. Total Maximum Daily Load
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Table 5-9. Municipal and Industrial
Page 139 and 140:
Table 5-10. Groundwater Discharge P
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Table 5-11. Superfund Sites in the
Page 147 and 148:
Table 5-12. Leaking Underground Sto
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Table 5-13. Landfills in the Middle
Page 163 and 164:
Runoff, flooding, and debris flows
Page 165 and 166:
• The minimum annual yield for ke
Page 167:
Table 6-1. Total Withdrawals in the
Page 170 and 171:
P:\_NM15-203\RWPs_2016\12_MRG\Figur
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
• Riparian evapotranspiration: So
Page 178 and 179:
The Arrowhead Center at NMSU analyz
Page 180 and 181:
• The continued presence of Sandi
Page 182 and 183:
to 669,727 acres. Also, during that
Page 184 and 185:
For this regional water plan update
Page 186 and 187:
Table 6-4. 2010 Water Withdrawals f
Page 188 and 189: Table 6-4 2010 Water Withdrawals fo
Page 194 and 195: • Consumptive use occurs when wat
Page 196 and 197: estrictions (i.e., the water is phy
Page 198 and 199: demand in this sector. The amount o
Page 200 and 201: 6.5.2 Middle Rio Grande Projected W
Page 202 and 203: Table 6-5 Projected Water Demand, 2
Page 204 and 205: Within Bernalillo County, the high
Page 206 and 207: P:\_NM15-203\RWPs_2016\12_Middle Ri
Page 208 and 209: • Priority for Continued Implemen
Page 210 and 211: When the 2004 RWP was developed the
Page 212 and 213: Table 8-2. Key Collaborative Progra
Page 214 and 215: Table 8-2. Key Collaborative Progra
Page 216 and 217: Bartolino, James R. and James C. Co
Page 218 and 219: Hawley, J.W. 1986. Physiographic pr
Page 220 and 221: The Middle Rio Grande-Albuquerque R
Page 222 and 223: New Mexico Environment Department (
Page 224 and 225: S.S. Papadopulos & Associates, Inc.
Page 226 and 227: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2014
Page 228 and 229: Middle Rio Grande Region 12 RWP Mas
Page 230 and 231: Riley Middle Rio Grande Region 12 R
Page 232 and 233: Appendix 2-B Summary of Comments on
Page 234 and 235: Middle Rio Grande Regional Water Pl
Page 250 and 251: Appendix 6-A List of Individuals In
Page 252 and 253: Appendix 6-B Projected Population G
Page 254 and 255: Appendix 8-A Review of 2004 Strateg
Page 256 and 257: Appendix 8-A. Steering Committee Re
Page 280: Planning Region Middle Rio Grande M
Page 284: Regional Water Planning Update Proj
Page 288:
Regional Water Planning Update Proj
Page 291:
Regional Water Planning Update Infr
Page 295:
Regional Water Planning Update Infr
Page 299:
Planning Region Middle Rio Grande M
show all

Middle Rio Grande Regional Water Plan

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?