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
90 previously
submitted
comments
91 previously
submitted
comments
92 2 Section 1, 4th
bullet
93 Section 1, 4th
bullet
94 Section 1, 4th
bullet
95 1 Section 2,
Table 1
96 2 Section 2.1,
first paragraph
Comment
A December 4, 2015 set of issue papers submitted to the ISC by the Governance Study Group (sponsored
by the New Mexico Water Dialogue) regarding recommended improvements for regional water planning:
http://www.waterassembly.org/Archives/Water%20Assembly%20Documents/GSG10b‐
Whole%20NM%20RWP%20Governance%20Study%20Group%202015‐12‐04.pdf
A February 9, 2016 submission to the MRCOG Steering Committee and to the ISC at the first of three
“Public” meetings regarding the draft update to the Regional Water Plan:
http://www.waterassembly.org/Archives/Water%20Assembly%20Documents/MRG‐RWP‐
Update/wa436k‐Response%20to%20ISC%20MRGRWP%20Program.pdf
Contradicts one from the other. Why include all of the data is we are to use the AWS? Otherwise, why
not provide data for riparian evapotranspiration and other consumptive uses, readily available from BoR
and other agencies?
Comment Type
(Technical or
Process) Commenter Steering Committee Comments
Process Water Assembly ‐
Bob Wessely
Process Water Assembly ‐
Bob Wessely
Technical
Elaine Hebard
What would be useful would be to say whether there has been a change in the average data sets. Technical Elaine Hebard
What studies have been published since 2004 on riparian evapotranspiration and other components of Technical Elaine Hebard
the water budget in our region?
There is no need for this table to be in the regional plan, only the State Plan Technical Elaine Hebard Steering Committee agrees.
Include the Master Email list as an appendix to Section 2. Since the email list changed each time there
was a meeting, every invite list should be included.
Technical
Elaine Hebard
97 Section 2 Often the meetings were announced the day before if not the same day of the meeting. Process Elaine Hebard
98 Section 2.2.1 Detail the "extensive efforts" in putting together the steering committee for this region in an appendix Technical Elaine Hebard
99 Section 2.2.3 The description of Meeting #4 is incorrect. The group did not agree to move forward with the data Technical Elaine Hebard Meeting description changed by Laila Sturgis
provided by the NM ISC. I listened to the tape; this conversation never happened nor was there ever any
agreement to use the AWS data.
100 Section 2.2.3 Correct the description of Meeting #9, 5/12/15. The second sentence implies that the ICIP and WTB Technical Elaine Hebard Meeting description changed by Laila Sturgis
projects were reviewed at this meeting. They were not. Clarify that meeting participants were given a
draft of the table to discuss at the next meeting.
101 Section 2.2.3 Correct the description of Meeting #10. Remove the sentence that says "The ICIP list for this region is Technical Elaine Hebard Meeting description changed by Laila Sturgis
overwhelming and a helpful planning tool." First, the list should be a product of planning as opposed to
used as a planning tool. Secondly, this was not the reasoning of the group. See the emails sent last
summer, or the description of Meeting #11.
102 Section 2 The confusion over the PPP table comes in part from a presentation from Angela included in the 5/26/15 Process Elaine Hebard
meeting report that says "The goal of this regional water plan is to provide guidance to funding agencies
on how to prioritize project applications." However, Chapter 1, the Introduction, states "The purpose of
this document is to update the 2004 RWP to reflect new and changed information related to water
planning in the Middle Rio Grande region, as listed in the bullets below, and to evaluate projections of
future water supply and demand for the region using a common technical platform approach applied to
all 16 planning regions statewide. Accordingly, the following sections summarize key information in the
2004 plan and provide updated information regarding changed conditions and additional data that have
become available. Specifically this update:
Identifies strategies, including infrastructure projects, conservation programs, watershed management
policies, or other types of strategies that will help balance supplies and projected demands and address
the Middle Rio Grande region's future water management needs and goals.
Discuss other goals or priorities as identified by stakeholders in the region."
These are very different purposes. Without evaluating projects, programs and policies using a procedure
similar to that used in the current Plan, the Steering Committee would be hard pressed to provide
guidance as to what should be included and why. Considering the Update as a Progress Report allows
the use of the current evaluations and simply a review of what's been done and what should be
emphasized.
103 Section 2.3.2 This language is identical to that in the Taos plan, which did actually have an inclusive process. Technical Elaine Hebard
104 Section 2.3.2 Suggestion: make the May meeting a more advertised meeting at a more centralized location. Process Elaine Hebard
105 1 Section 4.1.1 Add this as sentence 2: "Additional material for the Río Puerco y Río Jemez Subregions can be found in
Section 11 of Chapter 12 together with its corresponding Appendix."
Technical Elaine Hebard
Page 10 of 17