Middle Rio Grande Regional Water Plan

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