Middle Rio Grande Regional Water Plan
2iUWd5b 2iUWd5b
Appendix 8-A. Steering Committee Review of the 2004 Strategies Page 16 of 24 2004 Strategy Name R4-1— Upgrade Agricultural Conveyance Systems (A-9) (cont.) R4-2—Level Irrigated Fields (A-10) 2015 rankings Complete a Progress b Priority c Strategy Description from Chapter 10.2 of 2004 Plan S 2 3 This savings in diversions would allow, when possible, stored water in upstream reservoirs to last longer in dry years, which would both help farmers and keep water in the river later in the irrigation season, and thus relieve some of the pressure for helping species and other environmental concerns. It is recommended that upstream reservoirs should be utilized to store saved water due to reduced diversion. This recommendation is seen to require some major funding and construction effort. Federal funding should be sought immediately. Work should commence as soon as funds are available. Because of existing and increasing Endangered Species Act pressure, progress on this recommendation is seen to be urgent. Irrigation efficiencies, studies, and programs as implemented in California should be studied as well. Y 5 3 Many farm fields in the region have been laser-leveled. This recommendation is to encourage farmers through incentive programs to laser level those fields that have not been leveled or that may require a change in grade to facilitate an improved delivery system. This recommendation is for local and state governments (or federal if possible) to implement incentive, regulatory, and/or public education policies to facilitate more efficient delivery of water to those fields. Lobbying of all agencies to broaden the incentive program should commence immediately. 2015 Steering Committee Comments Over 85% of MRG fields over 2 acres in size have been laser leveled as this technology has become more affordable. Continued maintenance using this technique is encouraged. a Y = Yes, N = No, S = started b Progress: 1 = Not effective, 5 = Very effective c Priority: 1 = Low priority; 5 = High priority Middle Rio Grande Regional Water Plan 2017
Appendix 8-A. Steering Committee Review of the 2004 Strategies Page 17 of 24 2004 Strategy Name R4-3— Establish a Local Marketing Infrastructure (A-11) R4-4— Acequia Efficiency Programs (A-60) 2015 rankings Complete a Progress b Priority c Strategy Description from Chapter 10.2 of 2004 Plan N 2 5 A marketing infrastructure should be developed for locallygrown produce, value added products and low- water use alternative crops. In particular, increasing production of lowwater alternative crops would reduce overall dependence on water. Research is required to identify the crops and the markets, and a plan for the transition. N 2 3 Acequia culture and rights can be at risk in the environment of increased marketability of water and water rights. It is recommended that special measures be taken to help preserve traditional acequia culture and rights. Traditional community acequias in this region typically require assistance to improve the efficiency of their irrigation networks. The recommendation is that funding for traditional acequias should be made available for purposes of increasing water efficiency within the local acequia system. Recommendations further include providing education to farmers, ranchers, newcomers, and delivery system operators about available support programs and ways to operate more efficient water conveyance systems. 2015 Steering Committee Comments The Recommendation focuses on low water use crops which are not very feasible. A regional sorting shed would benefit small farmers (feasibility studies are already done). Founded in 2006, the South Valley Regional Ass'n of Acequias' overall goal is to "protect the social, economic, political, and cultural development of our community." MRGCD and USDA have educational and loan programs. More funding is needed to help irrigators improve their efficiency. Also see the related discussion in R4-1. a Y = Yes, N = No, S = started b Progress: 1 = Not effective, 5 = Very effective c Priority: 1 = Low priority; 5 = High priority Middle Rio Grande Regional Water Plan 2017
- 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 236 and 237: Middle Rio Grande Regional Water Pl
- Page 238 and 239: Middle Rio Grande Regional Water Pl
- Page 240 and 241: Middle Rio Grande Regional Water Pl
- Page 242 and 243: Middle Rio Grande Regional Water Pl
- Page 244 and 245: Middle Rio Grande Regional Water Pl
- Page 246 and 247: Middle Rio Grande Regional Water Pl
- Page 248 and 249: 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 258 and 259: Appendix 8-A. Steering Committee Re
- Page 260 and 261: Appendix 8-A. Steering Committee Re
- Page 262 and 263: Appendix 8-A. Steering Committee Re
- Page 264 and 265: Appendix 8-A. Steering Committee Re
- Page 266 and 267: Appendix 8-A. Steering Committee Re
- Page 268 and 269: Appendix 8-A. Steering Committee Re
- Page 272 and 273: Appendix 8-A. Steering Committee Re
- Page 274 and 275: Appendix 8-A. Steering Committee Re
- Page 276 and 277: Appendix 8-A. Steering Committee Re
- Page 278 and 279: 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
Appendix 8-A. Steering Committee Review of the 2004 Strategies<br />
Page 17 of 24<br />
2004<br />
Strategy<br />
Name<br />
R4-3—<br />
Establish a<br />
Local<br />
Marketing<br />
Infrastructure<br />
(A-11)<br />
R4-4—<br />
Acequia<br />
Efficiency<br />
Programs<br />
(A-60)<br />
2015<br />
rankings<br />
Complete a<br />
Progress b<br />
Priority c<br />
Strategy Description from Chapter 10.2 of 2004 <strong>Plan</strong><br />
N 2 5 A marketing infrastructure should be developed for locallygrown<br />
produce, value added products and low- water use<br />
alternative crops. In particular, increasing production of lowwater<br />
alternative crops would reduce overall dependence on<br />
water. Research is required to identify the crops and the<br />
markets, and a plan for the transition.<br />
N 2 3 Acequia culture and rights can be at risk in the environment of<br />
increased marketability of water and water rights. It is<br />
recommended that special measures be taken to help<br />
preserve traditional acequia culture and rights. Traditional<br />
community acequias in this region typically require assistance<br />
to improve the efficiency of their irrigation networks. The<br />
recommendation is that funding for traditional acequias should<br />
be made available for purposes of increasing water efficiency<br />
within the local acequia system.<br />
Recommendations further include providing education to<br />
farmers, ranchers, newcomers, and delivery system operators<br />
about available support programs and ways to operate more<br />
efficient water conveyance systems.<br />
2015 Steering Committee Comments<br />
The Recommendation focuses on low water use crops<br />
which are not very feasible. A regional sorting shed would<br />
benefit small farmers (feasibility studies are already<br />
done).<br />
Founded in 2006, the South Valley <strong>Regional</strong> Ass'n of<br />
Acequias' overall goal is to "protect the social, economic,<br />
political, and cultural development of our community."<br />
MRGCD and USDA have educational and loan programs.<br />
More funding is needed to help irrigators improve their<br />
efficiency. Also see the related discussion in R4-1.<br />
a Y = Yes, N = No, S = started<br />
b Progress: 1 = Not effective, 5 = Very effective<br />
c Priority: 1 = Low priority; 5 = High priority<br />
<strong>Middle</strong> <strong>Rio</strong> <strong>Grande</strong> <strong>Regional</strong> <strong>Water</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> 2017