Shortage in the Midst of Abundance © August, 2009

Prepared by Sigmund Silber ssilber1@juno.com

Are we committed to being perpetually short of water or are we willing to forgo the perceived security of a perpetual water shortage and deal with the reality that New Mexico has enormous water resources?

I. Introduction and the Projected Shortfall if we Continue along our Present Course New Mexico has an impending shortage of water but the causes of the projected gap between supply and demand and the options for dealing with the projected shortfall may not be well understood.

As measured by precipitation per acre, New Mexico is the fifth driest state in the lower 48 states. But measured as precipitation per capita, we are in the upper quartile with about 50 acre-feet (af) of precipitation per capita. An acre-foot, the amount of water it takes to cover an acre with water to a depth of one foot, is almost 326,000 gallons of water, a considerable amount. An estimated two billion af of moisture passes over New Mexico in a typical year. Only about 6% of this moisture is converted into precipitation naturally and this percentage could be increased. From this 6% only about 3.5% becomes available for beneficial use, a low rate of capture which

1

TABLE OF CONTENTSPAGE

I. Introduction and the Projected Water Shortfall if we Continue along our Present Course 1II. Current Water Policy in New Mexico and the Institutional Framework that has Created, and which Perpetuates, the Shortage of Water 11III. New Mexico’s Abundant Water Resources 17IV. Impacts of our Current Water Policy 43

could be very substantially increased. Agriculture accounts for almost 85% of beneficial use but only about half the water is actually utilized by the crop. Agricultural water-use efficiency could be substantially increased. We have billions of acre-feet of deep water resources which we are reluctant to allow to be developed and byproduct water from oil and gas operations which we decline to utilize.

This raises the question of why a State which has such enormous water resources is in a permanent state of water shortage. Reasons include quirks in our river compacts that complicate the development of water resources, institutional arrangements that complicate implementing sound water policies, water policies that discourage both conservation and the development of water resources, and support by various stakeholders for policies that keep water scarce. The result of these policies is a shrinking of the agriculture sector in New Mexico which has negative impacts on rural communities and wildlife. This in turn negatively impacts our tourism industry and forces migration from rural areas into cities creating adjustment problems for the new residents of cities and their former communities. New Mexico may be able to survive a continual reduction in agricultural production while increasing population, but clearly such a strategy, if replicated throughout the West, will not be sustainable in a nation that already has a non-sustainable negative balance of trade.

Renewable Water Supply

In a typical year, just under 2B (billion) af of moisture passes over New Mexico of which perhaps 300MM (million) af of moisture forms clouds. From these clouds

2

we receive perhaps 100MM af of precipitation in New Mexico. Of that, perhaps 3MM af contributes to the water supply immediately as run-off into streams or, after a delay, as withdrawals from wells or in-flows to streams (called “stream gaining”) from shallow groundwater that has been recharged by the precipitation. There is reason to believe that withdrawals from shallow groundwater exceeds recharge by perhaps 100,000 (0.1MM) af a year (does not include over-pumping of the Ogallala Aquifer) and these estimates are made difficult by transmissivity delays from aquifer recharge zones to points of diversion and our lack of understanding of the extent to which shallow aquifers are fed by deeper aquifers.

To this is added stream flow that enters from the headwaters of the Rio Grande in Colorado and water that is diverted from the San Juan River into the Chama River which flows into the Rio Grande and thus is referred to as San Juan Chama Water. We have other stream flows entering from Colorado and delivery requirements to Texas, Oklahoma, Arizona and even Mexico. The combination of New Mexico water sources less stream related losses plus in-flows from Colorado less our delivery obligations outside of New Mexico results in a renewable water supply of 3.5 to 4.0 MM af per year (Table on Page 5). After being reduced by evaporative losses at Elephant Butte Reservoir, the remainder is available for beneficial use. This water budget could easily be expanded and better utilized as will be discussed in this paper.

Non-Renewable Water SupplyBecause much of New Mexico was created by the wearing down of highlands, we have an enormous

3

amount of water that has accumulated in sediments. Generally we pay attention only to the shallow aquifers which are regularly recharged by precipitation, but this is the smaller part of our accumulated water in sediments. New Mexico has accumulated deep and shallow brackish water resources that may well be in the range of 15B to 50B af with deep brackish water being perhaps in the range of 15B to 30B af. If used to supplement our water supply by 100,000 af per year or about 25% of the projected shortfall, the lower 15B af estimate of the size of the water resource in the deep sediments translates into a 150,000 year supply if the water is fully recoverable which of course it is not. But this helps to place the size of this resource in perspective.

It has been the policy of the State of New Mexico to ignore the accumulated water resource and work from either current precipitation or the relatively small amount of water that is available in our shallow aquifers. Thus we restrict ourselves to a water budget of about 4MM af. Recent interest in the water in the deeper sediments resulted in the New Mexico Legislature taking action which appears to be intended to prevent this very large water resource from being easily developed.

The above information is illustrated in the graphic on the next page. The very tiny little shaded area in the lower right (labeled Annual Water Supply) represents our 4MM af annual water budget (sitting within the slightly larger shape representing the 100MM af of annual precipitation). The rest of the right hand side of the diagram represents the moisture passing over thethe State of New Mexico, whose capture we refuse to

4

enhance. The larger middle and left side of the diagram represents the accumulated water resources that are available but which we do not choose to utilize. It is high time that the public perception of our water situation was more in line with the reality of our water resources. We are relying on only the minuscule amount of the water that is readily available without any serious effort on our part to expand our water supply other than extensive efforts to meet River Compact obligations. One objective of this pamphlet is to raise the question: “Why have we done this to ourselves?” and, “Why are we so determined not to allow anything to be done to improve the situation?”

5

According to the latest assessment by the Office of the State Engineer, current (2005) levels of withdrawal are estimated as being:

Category Net Withdrawals in Acre-Feet

Percentage of Beneficial Use

Percentage of Total Withdrawals

Public Water Supply

320,126

8.72%

8.10%

Private Wells for Domestic Use

35,796

0.98

0.91

Self-Supplied Commercial and Industrial

182,660

4.98

4.62

Irrigated Agriculture

3,075,514

83.78 77.85

Livestock 57,009

1.55

1.44

Total Beneficial Use

3,671,105 100.01% 92.92%

Reservoir Evaporation

279,293

7.07

Total Beneficial Use Plus Reservoir Evaporation

3,950,398 99.99%

Http://www.ose.state.nm.us/PDF/Publications/Library//TechnicalReports/TechReport-052.pdf

6

An acre-foot of water is enough to meet the annual water needs of four or five households. Crops generally require about three acre-feet of water over the growing season, some of which is provided by natural precipitation, the rest by irrigation.

Currently, in most years, New Mexico has relatively little difficulty obtaining the amount of water required for municipal/domestic and self-supplied commercial/ industrial use while meeting the needs of a substantial percentage of agricultural demand (See Footnote #1 at the end of this section), while also meeting its obligations to deliver water under the terms of interstate agreements which are called “Compacts” and a United States treaty with Mexico. These agreements are required because some of the water that flows in our rivers originates in Colorado and/or has historically flowed from New Mexico to other States and thus cannot be considered to belong exclusively to New Mexico. The most important of these Compacts, the Rio Grande Compact, regulates deliveries not only to Texas (and via Texas to Mexico) but to users in Southern New Mexico as well. Many are not aware that most of the water that is delivered under the terms of this agreement is actually consumed in New Mexico: 58% after the 60,000 acre-feet per year (afy) that is obligated to Mexico.

New Mexico is projecting roughly a 70% increase in population in the forty year period from 2005 to 2045. This projection is lower than previous projections and shows a declining trend in population growth over time. If believable, the population projections indicate that our growth in water requirements is tapering off.

7

http://www.ose.state.nm.us/PDF/Publications/TechnicalReports/BBER-WPR-Estimates-Projections-Aug2008.pdf

A 70% increase in population would create a roughly proportional increase in the consumption requirements for municipal and domestic use (these categories which are directly related to population growth are shaded in the table on page 6). The increase for those commercial and industrial users which have their own water supply (referred to as “self-supplied”) rather than depending on City and County water systems might be smaller as some of the components of that category are not population related.

Thus over the next forty to sixty years, we are facing a potential water budget gap or shortfall of 300,000 to 500,000 afy concentrated mainly along the Middle and Lower Rio Grande. Meeting the water needs of a growing population is the challenge that is facing New Mexico. Municipal and domestic conservation can realistically reduce this shortfall to 200,000 to 400,000 afy, and this shortfall, which is only 5 to 10 percent of our current annual water budget, can easily be met with available water resources without reducing the number of irrigated acres in New Mexico.

This shortfall is totally manageable if we adopt water policies that are designed to allow New Mexicans to have the water they need and protect our way of life.

8

Footnote 1. Surface Water Shortages

On pages 26 and 27 of OSE Report TR52 in Table 3.3 there is a list of surface water shortages. At first glance they appear to be substantial. However they are presented as percentages which make it difficult to understand the quantities involved. The author of this pamphlet believes that in many cases the owners of these water rights are no longer actively farming. Farming is an activity that, generally speaking, needs to be performed continuously year after year. Profitability is difficult to achieve even with continuous farming and the farmer has to be prepared to accept water from the acequia or other distribution system. It would appear that much of what is shown as being a surface water shortage may in fact be “dry water rights” i.e. water rights that are not currently being utilized on a regular basis. The land may have even been subdivided for development.

Having better information on actual surface water shortages would be very useful. Where there is a shortage and a surface water right is transferred and there is a reduction in conveyance and farm delivery losses related to the farm from which the water was transferred, these savings may in fact not revert to the State of New Mexico but may instead be utilized by the more junior water rights holder which would be appropriate.

The widely held assumption on over-appropriation probably is based at least partially on the “shortages” identified in Table 3.3 of the OSE TR52 Report. If these water rights are not regularly being put to beneficial use, they may no longer be valid water rights and our analysis of over-appropriation may be distorted by including water rights that adjudication will eventually show as having been forfeited. It would be useful to have the information in Table 3.3 refined so that we know better how to interpret this important set of information.

9

10

II. Current Water Policy in New Mexico and the Institutional Framework that has Created this Shortage and Perpetuates it. Is it Hydrophobia as Some have Suggested or just a Failure to Recognize and Respond to Opportunities for Improving our Situation?

In New Mexico, water consumption is regulated by the Office of the State Engineer (OSE). A related agency, the Interstate Stream Commission (ISC), deals with our obligations under Interstate agreements (Compacts). The New Mexico Department of the Environment (NMED) is responsible for water quality. The Oil Conservation Division (OCD) plays a role where oil and gas drilling takes place. The NM Department of Agriculture is noticeably absent in establishing or implementing water policy which is especially surprising considering that agriculture represents 85% of the beneficial use of water in New Mexico.

This division of responsibilities complicates dealing with water issues that involve both the right to use water and the need to maintain water quality. In theory, the OSE and ISC are also responsible for developing the water resources of the State of New Mexico but in practice they generally operate in ways that impede the development of our water resources although that may not be their intention.

The focus on meeting our increasing water requirements has been primarily municipal/domestic conservation combined with the transfer of water from its use in agriculture to municipal/domestic purposes. Municipal/domestic conservation has proven to be

11

effective and has substantial additional potential but it cannot be our only tool for meeting the water needs of a growing population. This would require cutting per capita consumption in half everywhere in New Mexico and that does not appear to be realistic. A reduction in per capita consumption of 20% would make a meaningful reduction/offset to the growth in water demand resulting from population growth. Some communities have already accomplished this and communities where rapid development is occurring should find this easier to accomplish or even exceed. Doing so would reduce the projected water budget gap to perhaps 200,000 to 400,000 afy or maybe even a bit less. Organized efforts to achieve municipal and domestic conservation are important and should be funded.

Conservation within the category called “self-supplied” commercial/industrial (they provide their own water and do not rely on public water systems) may also have some potential to better utilize our water resources but presumably many users in this broad and complex category already have a significant incentive to have employed conservation since water availability is often a major part of their cost structure. The relationship between water use and population growth is not linear for some of the users in this category e.g. mining. This category may also be important with respect to potential utilization of currently non-permitted water generated from other sources.

Conservation alone, as it applies to municipal/domestic and self-supplied commercial/industrial, is not likely to be able to provide all of the additional water required

12

for the projected level of population growth. In many places, the use of shallow groundwater cannot be increased substantially and then be expected to provide a sustainable supply. Thus shallow groundwater is not likely to play a major role in meeting the water needs of our increasing population. Recent court decisions will likely further restrict the role that shallow groundwater can play in meeting the needs of an increasing population.

The working hypothesis in New Mexico is that the water supply available and under the control of man is fixed (or declining) even though this clearly is not even remotely consistent with the facts. It is, however, an assumption that fits the agenda of many stakeholders. If one assumes the water supply is fixed, then one can understand the focus on protecting the system of prior appropriation from the creation of additional water rights since it is assumed that new water rights will simply create additional demand on the fixed-sized water resource. It should be clear from the information that I provide in this pamphlet that the assumption that our water supply is fixed is simply and substantially incorrect. Thus we might usefully focus a bit more on how to increase the water supply to provide an overall benefit to water users in New Mexico. This would be preferable to assuming that any increase in appropriations from new water resources would be a transfer from a legitimate water rights owner.

Private property needs to be strongly protected but the State of New Mexico should not be inadvertently adopting policies that result in maintaining a scarcity of water. Some stakeholders may prefer such policies

13

because they result in the market price of water rights being driven up and supported but this would appear to be contrary to the best interests of the majority. Such policies also encourage efforts to get around these policies and this creates expenses for those who are charged with implementing problematical water policies and also creates skepticism about the fairness of the overall water policy of New Mexico.

There is a general fear of developing new water sources in New Mexico. Some have labeled this “hydrophobia”. There are many aspects to this reluctance ranging from concern by some that having more water will encourage more rapid population growth to concerns about the possible negative impacts of developing new water resources. These concerns of course need to be addressed fully.

The increasing need for water related to population growth will force us to develop other water sources unless we are okay with continuing to significantly reduce agriculture in New Mexico. Irrigated acreage has already been reduced by 20% in the time period from 1980 to 2005. The notion that our existing water resources are problem free and safer than potential new water sources is a very romantic and unrealistic way of looking at things. When one actually considers the components of our current water supply, it becomes clear rather quickly that all water sources have problems. Domestic wells often provide water with concerning levels of impurities, can impair the flow of water to other wells and to our rivers, and are likely

14

to run dry in many areas as our shallow aquifers continue to be overused. The use of septic tanks, which is often associated with reliance on domestic wells, can result in serious pollution of the remaining groundwater.

The availability of surface water varies tremendously from year to year and is vulnerable to the negative impact of pollution on the level of precipitation and where the precipitation occurs. Location of precipitation can impact the percentage of the precipitation which becomes stream flow. San Juan Chama Water has its own set of risk factors related to population growth within the Colorado Basin. The quantity of winter mountain precipitation will likely be negatively impacted by the warming trend which is projected to continue and possibly accelerate and the timing of snowmelt is likely to change which has its own unique set of impacts. Precipitation levels are impacted by the long climate cycles which historically have, from time to time, resulted in major droughts. These cycles may have differing impacts on different parts of New Mexico and winter versus summer precipitation. Meeting the Pecos River Compact delivery obligations has been very expensive and meeting the Rio Grande Compact delivery obligations could ultimately be a problem that will be many times more costly than the Pecos River situation. Thus it behooves us to consider the pros and cons of alternative ways to increase our water supply.

15

16

III. New Mexico's Abundant Water Resources

Ways to increase New Mexico’s water supply include the following which are not presented in sequence of importance, cost, or ease of implementation. That is a future discussion. More information on many of these alternatives, including references to information sources used to prepare this material, can be found at:http://www.ose.state.nm.us/water-info/NMWaterPlanning/regions/jemezysangre/PCTC/PCTC-Report-2007-12-10.pdf

17

PAGE A. Increase the Capture of Precipitation 18 B. Increase Agricultural Efficiency 20C. Increase Precipitation 27D. Utilize Produced Water from Oil and

Gas Operations 32E. Develop our Enormous Deep and

Brackish Water Resources 33F. Increase the Use of Treated

Wastewater 36G. Reduce Forest-Related Precipitation

Losses 38 H. Find Ways to Reduce Deliveries of

Water to Texas, Oklahoma, Arizonaand Mexico 38

I. Recognize that our Streams and Shallow Aquifers are Delivery Mechanisms in Addition to being Sources of Water 39 J. Pay Attention to Opportunities to Conserve Water 41

A. Increase the Capture of Precipitation Beyond 3.5%

We lose about 96% to 97% of our approximately 100,000,000 acre-feet of average annual precipitation to evaporation or use by plants. We want healthy rangeland and forests so this precipitation, even if lost eventually to evaporation and transpiration, is valuable. Selectively capturing just one tenth of one percent of this 97% (i.e. 100,000 acre-feet of water) could make a huge contribution to improving our water situation going forward, reducing the projected water budget gap to perhaps 100,000 to 300,000 afy or less.

Water captured (sometimes referred to as “harvested”) from rooftops is permitted and encouraged and can be used for landscaping purposes and thus reduces the need for domestic well water or municipally supplied water. Rooftops are not the only surfaces from which water can be captured. Ground-based options are another alternative. An example would be collecting from naturally occurring depressions where standing water is temporarily present after precipitation events but which have no outlet to streams and, due to soil conditions, the water does not make it down to aquifers.

Water capture from natural or prepared ground surfaces is relatively inexpensive and thus is one of the few sources of additional water that is low enough in cost for agricultural use. But right now, this water falls into what might be considered the category of “illegal” water. Currently the State Engineer has not developed a permitting approach for ground-based capture of water. Clearly some water is being

18

collected from surfaces other than roofs and this water is used even though it is not legal to do so.

Issues

The principal argument against water capture (harvesting) is that some portion of the water captured may have otherwise found its way into a stream or the regional aquifer rather than having been lost to evaporation and evapotranspiration. Thus capturing this water might impair someone else’s water rights. One solution to this legitimate concern is to conduct water capture only in areas where it is known that most of the water captured would otherwise have been lost to evaporation or evapotranspiration. The State Engineer might require, as a condition for permitting, that somewhat more than the amount that might be expected to have reached a stream or the regional aquifer be required to be released to a nearby stream or injected into the regional aquifer. Thus the capture project would be a win win for all concerned.

Other than the extra work of administering a surface capture permitting program, it is difficult to come up with a legitimate reason not to pursue increased capture and utilization of precipitation. Saving the cost of a few additional employees at the OSE is not a good justification for shrinking our agriculture sector. Nor does it make sense to invest in new water approaches that cost $2,500 per acre-foot when a $100 per acre-foot approach is available essentially everywhere in New Mexico. Curiously, harvested water including roof capture water is not likely to be counted by the State Engineer in the official statistics of water supply as it is neither stream flow nor water pumped from wells.

19

B. Increase Agricultural Efficiency

85% of the water that is put to “beneficial use” is done so in the agriculture sector to irrigate about 875,000 acres. This is about 3.5 af feet of water per acre which is high considering that most crops require under 3 af and some of this is provided by summer precipitation rather than irrigation. With so much water being used, there must be opportunities for conservation which would allow, in some cases, more agricultural production from the amount of water currently being used or, in other cases, water becoming available for use outside of the agriculture sector without reducing the amount of food and fiber grown. According to data provided by the OSE, we lose about 600,000 af of water to conveyance losses. My rough estimate of other losses, from examining the OSE data, would be another 900,000 af of water. So about half the water in the water budget for agriculture is not consumed by the crop but is lost. Reducing these losses by 10% would eliminate the lower estimate of the projected water budget gap and reduce the upper estimate to perhaps 150,000 afy. It is reasonable to use some of this conserved water to actually increase agriculture production. We have the water resources to support such a strategy and the long-term benefits of doing so are substantial.

Issues

Legislation was passed in the 2007 Regular Session (SB461) to encourage conservation. This bill provided that:

20

3���� � � �� � � � � ������ � � � ��*� � ���� � � � ��������������������*� � �� � ��� � 4���� � =������� � � � ��������������� ����� � � � � ���� � � ��������� � � � ��� � ������������� ���������� �����6�������������� ����������*�������������������� ����������� ������������������� *��� ��� ���������������� ���3����������� ����� �������������������3������ *��� �������������������������������������� �4�������� �������� � ��� � � �������������� �� ����*��� ���� ���� �������� �� ����*��� ���������������*������������� �������� *��������������������� ����� ���������

6� � �� � ��� ����� � � � ���������� � ��� � ��� � ����� � ��������������������� ������� ������� ������������� ������������������������ ������������ ��� �������� � �� ��������� ����*��� � � ��*��������� �4������ ������ � �� � ��� �� ���� ����������������� ��������������������������� ����� ������*���� ��#���������� �3����� ���� � ������ � ������ �������1��� ��������������: �������*��5�#���������':5(��3������������� �� )���������������������������� ������� �� ����������������� �H��� �����������4 ��� �������:5���

��������������������������������������������������������������

��������� �4�������?�B,&$&�!:?�7���������������� � ���� � �� � ��� �������� � ��������� *�� � �������� � � � � ������� � ��������������� � ��������� � ��*� � �������� � �� � ����� ����*��� �� ����������������������� ���)���� ���������� � � � � ��� ������ ��������� � � � ������������������ ���� ����*���� �� �������� ������ ��� ������ ������#�������� ��� ����*��������� � �� *���� � ����? � '�( � � ����*��� � � ������� � ����� � � � � ������ � �� � ���������� � ��������������� �� �����������������J�����',(���� ���� � ��� � #������ � � � ����� � ����� � ����������� � ����� � ��� � ���� � ��������� � ���������� �����������K

�� *���� � �� � ����������� � � ������ � ��� � �� ���� � ���� ����� � � �� � �� � �������� �� � 3�� � :5� � ������� � �� � ������ ��� � � � ����������� � � ���� � �� � �������� � ������ � ������ ��������� ������������� ���� ������ ������������� ������ ���� � ��� � � ��� � � � � ������ � '���� � ��� � 7�������*�8������������ �(� � ������� � �� � � � � ��� � ������� � ����: �������*��6������� ��5�#���������':65(�������������������� ���� ������������������� �� ����������������� ������������������� ���������

6�� ������ �����*�������:65�� ������ ��� �������� �������������� ����������������*������ ����������������������������� �������������������� ���������������)������� � ��� � � �� � � � ��� � �� �� � 3��� � ������ � ����*������#��������� ���������� ����0����C���*����5�#���������'0C5(������������ ������ � ����� �������0C5�������������*��� � � � ��� � 4���� � � ���� ������ � � 3��� � �� ��������������� � � ������� ���� ������� � � � � � ������� ��� ��� ����:65�'����������������������������� ����������������*������������������ ������������������������� �(������ ������������ � ������� � � � � � ��*�������� � ���� � ������ � � � �������� �������������� �����0C5��C������������ ������������������ �� �� � ������� � � � 0C5 � � ����*��� � � ���� � � � :65�� ����*��� � � '����� � ��� � � ����� � � �� � � �� � � � �����������(�� ������������������������������ ���������������������������� ����������������� �� ��B,&$&�!:�

6� � ���� � � � ����*�� � ��� � �� ��� � � � ����� � ������ � � ��� *��� � ��� � 0C5� � �� � �*�� � ������ � �� ��� � � � ������'�������� � � � �� � ��� �<� ��� �C�*���� � �5�#�������� � L�<C5(�������� ������*�������� �������������������������������� �*������� � ������ *���� ����0C5�� � ���������������4�*������������� �*�������� ���������������� �� ����� ���������� ������ ����������������������*����

��������������������������������������������������������������

in reducing such conveyance losses. Generally there is no incentive to invest in reducing conveyance losses unless they are so severe that the quantity needed for the CIR just doesn’t make it to all the members of an acequia or other distribution system.

It is likely that any reductions in conveyance losses or losses on the farm prior to the water reaching the root system of the crop would not be considered the property of the irrigator under the provisions of 72-5-18C of the New Mexico Statutes. Thus this new law may in reality provide little if any incentive for irrigators to reduce their consumption of water.

When irrigators do reduce what are essentially farm delivery losses through techniques such as drip irrigation and the saved water leads to increased crop yields, the irrigators are often treated as if they were doing something improper. We should be delighted when the same amount of water leads to greater crop yields and prosperity for irrigators and the communities in which they live. One does have to acknowledge, however, the legal issues raised by the irrigator benefiting from water that was saved from the FDR. This water should legally be available to more junior water rights holders further along the distribution system or, if not utilized by junior water rights holders, revert to the State of New Mexico and thus be available to meet River Compact obligations. If not saved, however, this water is not available to anyone, although in some cases wildlife benefits from FDR losses.

We need to find a solution to this dilemma, perhaps some sort of arrangement for sharing savings in the

23

PDR and FDR with both the party responsible for achieving these savings and the State of New Mexico. The issue may be partially related to how funds foragricultural conservation are administered. When administered by an agency (namely the OSE) that is tasked to extract water out of agriculture, higher crop yields are not seen as indicating a successful policy. Perhaps loans and grants for agricultural conservation should be administered by the Department of Agriculture.

There are limits to how much we can reduce the actual consumption requirement (CR) of a particular crop. One can, of course, select different crops and there may be more water efficient varieties of the same crop. The timing of harvesting may be an area where the water requirements of a crop can be reduced. There is no point in having the plant grow larger than the optimum for harvesting. The larger opportunity in agricultural conservation, representing half of the water diverted to the agriculture sector, is reducing the conveyance losses incurred in getting the water to the farm (Project Diversion Requirement - PDR) and fromthe farm to the crop’s roots (Farm Delivery Requirement - FDR). The irrigator only owns the CIR.

As stated on the previous page, we need to find ways to encourage the irrigator or acequia/ditch manager to reduce losses that are generally considered to be part of the PDR and FDR and thus not part of the irrigator’s water right. So far, that has been essentially ignored. If we are not able to find ways to encourage irrigators and the operators of acequias and other water distribution systems to invest in projects that reduce

24

losses in the PDR and FDR, then the OSE or some other entity needs to take on that responsibility because reduction in losses in the PDR and FDR is by far the larger opportunity.

The current surface water conservation allowance law does not apply to those who irrigate with groundwater so perhaps that needs to be addressed. Presumably, pumping costs do provide an incentive for those irrigating with groundwater to be efficient and an irrigator can already sell off part of their groundwater rights if they figure out how to get by with less. There still remains the water rights, “use it or lose it,” dilemma for those irrigating with groundwater who wish to be more efficient and that needs to be corrected.

There is a soon to expire tax credit for agricultural water conservation investments 7-2-18.20. It, like 72- 5-18c, may also be constrained by the definition of the category of water conserved (CIR versus PDR or FDR) but more significantly it currently precludes the investor in water conservation approaches from putting the conserved water to beneficial use. This restriction appears to eliminate the motivation for making an investment in water conservation although this restriction may be being ignored to the extent that it does not involve a request to change the point of diversion.

Our inclination to be strict with respect to the agriculture sector (meaning implementing a perspective that water coming out of agriculture is the only acceptable outcome from government supported agricultural conservation investments) works against

25

achieving our goal of having sufficient water for all categories of water users in New Mexico. Efficiency in agricultural water use provides the option, on a statewide basis, to have more production with the same amount of water, the current level of production using less water, or having somewhat more production while using somewhat less water. We can choose to operate anywhere within that spectrum of choices if we use water more efficiently.

A macro perspective is required and false conclusions can be reached (and are being reached) by looking at the results on a farm-by-farm basis. An individual irrigator using conserved water to increase production enables the policy choices that I have described in the above paragraph, so it is something to be applauded not condemned.

There is, unfortunately, a perverse incentive to transfer water out of agriculture, especially surface water, by taking acres out of irrigation. The water rights holder owns and is allowed to transfer only the Consumptive Irrigation Requirement (CIR) which is the basis for the irrigator’s property right. When irrigated land is taken out of service, there are reduced losses related to the conveyance of water to the farm and losses on the farm prior to the water reaching the roots of the crop and being beneficially utilized. These reduced losses revert to the State of New Mexico. This arrangement might be considered as creating a constituency for policies that encourage a reduction in irrigated acres. It would be better to attempt to reduce these substantial losses in ways other than taking land out of irrigation. Footnote 1 on Page 9 provides more detail on this

26

situation in terms of acres which are not officially out of production but which may be for all practical purposes.

C. Increase Precipitation

As stated previously, currently only 6% of the moisture passing over New Mexico falls to the ground as precipitation. Many Western States and many countries around the world have projects to increase the levels of precipitation that take place by what is commonly called cloud seeding. Water from cloud seeding projects is among the lowest cost water available and is even less expensive to obtain than surface capture (harvested) water.

The basic scientific principle of most cloud seeding projects is to initiate the creation of ice in clouds when the moisture is colder than 32oF. In clouds with very pure moisture in very fine particles, freezing (glaciation) amazingly does not take place at temperatures above-40oC (which is the same as –40oF) without catalysts (called ice nuclei or IN) such as vermiculite which normally are not effective when the temperature is warmer than 5oF (-15oC). Certain other materials work at temperatures which are warmer than 5oF. The introduction of these artificial ice nuclei into portions of clouds where the moisture is below the normal freezing point of water (super-cooled) but not cold enough for glaciation to take place naturally is called cloud seeding.

Issues

Some worry that cloud seeding might reduce precipitation for communities downwind of where the

27

cloud seeding takes place. Studies have shown that winter cloud seeding leads to increased precipitation a considerable distance downwind from the seeding site and the amount of additional precipitation from cloud seeding in a reasonably sized cloud seeding program (perhaps three to five winter mountain cloud seeding projects each producing 20,000 additional acre-feet of precipitation) is very small compared to the annual flow of moisture over the State of New Mexico (just under 2,000,000,000 af). Thus there is not likely to be any significant impact on precipitation patterns resulting from winter mountain cloud seeding and the increased precipitation would be used and returned to the atmosphere in a very short period of time.

Precipitation in States to the east of New Mexico is based not only on the moisture that passes over New Mexico without being converted to precipitation but also moisture moving north from the Gulf of Mexico and moisture dropping down after it passes through the States to the north of New Mexico. One only has to observe that States to the east of New Mexico have very much higher rates of precipitation than New Mexico to understand that the flows of moisture in the atmosphere are very complicated. States to the east of New Mexico are not depending primarily on the moisture that passes over New Mexico without being converted to precipitation; just as New Mexico is not impacted by cloud seeding projects in California, Nevada and Colorado. It would be useful if universities providing degrees in hydrology would include at least a basic course in meteorology as the atmosphere is part of the hydrologic cycle.

28

An additional 100,000 af of winter mountain snowfall resulting in 60,000+ af of additional stream flow could make a big difference in meeting our projected water budget shortfall. Agricultural interests dependent on water from tributaries flowing off of our northern mountains would especially benefit. This additional stream flow may be needed to compensate for the negative impacts of the warming trend in our mountains and the impacts of SO2 pollution from coal-fired power plants (among other SO2 sources) which tend to reduce winter snowfall on the windward side of mountain ranges. Summer cloud seeding, when it was conducted in SE New Mexico, was designed to reduce the pumping (and cost and energy use of pumping) of water from the Ogallala aquifer, thus slightly extending the life of the Ogallala aquifer.

There are many approaches to cloud seeding and many different “seeding” agents. One of the most frequently used seeding agents is silver iodide which is effective at cloud-moisture temperatures which are too warm for the natural ice nuclei (IN) to be effective. This increases the percentage of moisture that is converted into ice and which then falls as snow in the winter and which melts and falls as rain in the summer.

Silver iodide is insoluble and thus has been found by many thorough investigations to not be harmful. Laboratory tests intended to show the toxicity of silver ions usually use silver nitrate which is very soluble and thus dangerous but silver nitrate is not used for cloud seeding. It is important to avoid confusing reports based on highly soluble and toxic silver nitrate with the impact of insoluble silver iodide. Such confusion occurs accidentally and perhaps even intentionally.

29

A major problem complicating the funding of cloud seeding projects relates to the determination of who owns the water, especially for winter mountain seeding where the objective is to create increased stream flow. The accuracy of determining the additional stream flow resulting from a cloud seeding project is not sufficient to establish a new appropriation so in most cases the beneficiaries of an investment in cloud seeding would be (a) the State of New Mexico with regards to meeting Interstate River Compact obligations, (b) lower priority water users along the stream system and (c) users covered by the River Compacts who may be located very distant from where the cloud seeding project would take place, possibly even in Texas. With respect to the junior water rights holders, it is not possible to predict in advance which of these junior water rights holders would benefit because that depends on the level of stream flow that would have resulted that year if cloud seeding had not taken place.

Entrepreneurial investment in cloud seeding projects designed to produce increased stream flow is not generally possible since ownership of the additional stream flow can not generally be determined. Such projects need to be funded by governmental entities and quasi-governmental entities such as irrigation districts. Where cloud seeding is conducted to suppress hail and thus hail damage (on the Great Plains), the property and casualty insurance companies have sometimes been willing to participate in the funding. Projects performed for and funded by ski resorts and operators of hydroelectric facilities are common. Projects designed to have precipitation fall directly on irrigated fields are usually funded by local

30

authorities. Water rights are not an issue in those cases but funding by groups of beneficiaries does not generally work because everyone benefits whether or not they are a member of the funding group.

There may however be a quirk in the agricultural tax credit provisions (Chapter 7-2-18.20) that might currently (it is due to expire at the end of 2012) enable private sponsors of summer cloud seeding projects to receive tax credits. In general, this tax credit is fairly unusable for a number of reasons one of which being that it currently requires that the conserved water not be put to beneficial use. With summer cloud seeding in SE New Mexico, the conserved water remains in the Ogallala Aquifer and the additional precipitation is used instead, so it satisfies the strange wording of the current law.

It would be useful for the Interstate Stream Commission (ISC) to develop a plan for cloud seeding in New Mexico. One complication that needs to be addressed is the reality that there are many users with rights to water from our major rivers. Projects (beyond demonstration projects) ultimately would need to be cooperative ventures with multiple parties along each major river system including perhaps the Rio Grande Project or separately, the State of Texas. Organizing such cooperatives over large distances is complicated and there is no institutional framework in New Mexico for accomplishing this. We have river-masters but their job is to allocate limited water, not work to increase the water supply or retain more of our existing water supply in New Mexico.

31

One particular reason why cooperation of users all up and down our major rivers is important is that there are aspects of both the Rio Grande and Pecos River Compacts that perversely result in problems meeting our Compact obligations when we have increased precipitation in our northern mountains without an increase in precipitation in Central New Mexico. For these two River Compacts, the key measuring points are the Otowi Gage on the Rio Grande and Fort Sumner on the Pecos. Thus it may be appropriate for users in the southern part of New Mexico and possibly also Texas to agree to accept a smaller share of the increased stream flow resulting from an investment in cloud seeding north of those two key measuring points or alternatively to share in the investment.

D. Utilize Produced Water from Oil and Gas Operations

Oil and gas wells typically pull up some water with the oil or gas that they wish to recover. This water, which is called “produced water” exceeds 80,000 af per year and has to be cleaned up to some extent and disposed of safely. This water is “illegal” water; it must be disposed of and it cannot be put to beneficial use. If the method of disposal happens by “accident” to produce a benefit, that is in some cases considered okay and public support for such approaches seems to be increasing. Disposing of this water is an expensive process and in some cases involves transporting the produced water to treatment facilities thus increasing the energy component of the process. Recently, some oil and gas wells are experimenting with distillation technology as this can be done on site and, under

32

certain circumstances, costs less than transporting the produced water to treatment facilities.

Issues

Currently, the State Engineer will not allow this purified distilled produced water to be sold because the oil companies do not have water rights covering produced water. The State Engineer requires that this water be dumped on the ground or given away. Where a disposal method actually produces a benefit as a side effect, this generally is permitted or legislation can be passed to permit it. Treated produced water is costly but this cost is already being incurred by the oil and gas companies. Why not utilize the treated water and encourage this safer and possibly less expensive method of disposing of produced water?

E. Develop our Enormous Deep and Brackish Water Resources

Deep (below 2500 feet) brackish water (slightly salty but nothing close to sea water) exists in very large quantities (perhaps 15 to 30 billion acre-feet) and until recently was unregulated by the State Engineer which meant that it previously could be easily developed. Legislation was passed in the 2009 Legislative Session to place this category of water resource under the jurisdiction of the State Engineer. This change in the law may result in this very large water resource (perhaps 4,000 to 8,000 times as large as our annual water budget) simply not being developed by other than those who previously filed a notice of intent to develop this water. Perhaps in the future, this law will

33

be changed again to make this huge water resource more practical to be developed or other ways will be found to allow this huge water resource to be developed.

Issues

Concerns include impacts on shallow aquifers and surface water, sustainability, subsidence, energy costs and safe disposal of the byproduct salt compounds of treating brackish water (not all deep water is brackish). A good first step would be to characterize this enormous resource and attempt to determine what part of this resource is hydrologically connected to surface water and shallow aquifers and what part of this resource is totally disconnected from the surface. The part that is totally disconnected can be developed without concern about impairment. The part that is hydrologically connected may be able to be developed based on agreements to protect and compensate any potentially impaired parties since the resource far exceeds the total current water supply of the State of New Mexico. Being hydrologically connected may also imply that in some cases our deep water resources are indeed being recharged.

Beyond the initial step of characterization of our deep water resources (brackish or otherwise), an advisory board might be constituted to consider how this resource might be best utilized, addressing all the concerns that have been raised but also looking at how one views a potential water resource when it so dwarfs our currently utilized water resources. This is a task that may exceed the current capability of the OSE/ISC

34

because this newly recognized water resource and its development has so many stakeholders and because there are many technological issues that would benefit from a broad spectrum of inputs. It took fifty plus years to develop San Juan Chama Water. It may take fifty to a hundred years to significantly develop our deep water resources. But without a plan, steps may be taken that preclude the optimal development of this extremely large resource so planning should begin now.

The new law provides that deep brackish water can continue to be used for a variety of purposes without obtaining a permit from the OSE in applications where potable water is not required including agricultural purposes and for industrial processes. This creates or expands a third category of water in addition to legal water and illegal water. I call this “quasi-legal water”.

Some very slightly brackish water may indeed be usable for agricultural purposes but it is unlikely that the cost of pumping from such depths would result in water where the cost was consistent with the value of water in agriculture so this is presumably a provision of the new law that is not likely to be used. However, might an irrigator who is the holder of legal water transfer those rights and substitute and utilize this quasi-legal water in its place? What if the irrigator chooses to upgrade this brackish water? Would that be allowed? Might an industrial user follow a similar strategy and sell their rights to water from an existing well and use deep brackish water instead possibly after cleaning it up to make it usable?

Deep brackish water is likely to be relatively expensive water, but it is very plentiful along the Rio Grande Rift

35

Valley. This means it is close to where New Mexico’s population is expanding, and thus the pipeline costs would be less than for developing shallow brackish water in other locations. Concerns about fossil-fuel based energy consumption of the required desalination might be addressed by the use of solar distillation or embedding solar or wind electrical generation projects in this type of large water-infrastructure project.

Because of the size of this resource and the legitimate concerns raised, it would be appropriate for the ISC to develop a plan for the long-term development and use of deep brackish water in cooperation with the broad range of impacted stakeholders and with appropriate funding from the NM Legislature. One option to be considered is the establishment of a State Water Authority to develop this resource. Imagine a severance tax on 15B to 50B af of water. Some of the suggestions for using this water as part of conjunctive use strategies might have merit in some situations and would be easier to justify for a government owned entity rather than an entrepreneur where constant and maximum production would normally be the goal.

F. Increase the Use of Treated Wastewater

Effluent from wastewater treatment plants may not be considered a new water source but current wastewater treatment plant technology means that we get 1.5 to 2 uses from the same water with the second use generally being landscaping or agriculture as the treated water is not of drinking water quality without further treatment. Even when used for a lower value purpose, this has the same impact as an increase to

36

our water supply since otherwise potable water would usually have been used for those purposes. As our population becomes more concentrated in cities along the Rio Grande, wastewater treatment becomes increasingly important and practical. Upgrading wastewater treatment to produce potable water has the potential to create closed loop systems where our municipal water requirements would be drastically reduced to levels that simply make up for water losses in the system. When treated effluent is returned to rivers, it may become part of the potable water supply further downstream if diverted and processed through a water treatment system.

Issues

Measures to encourage land-use planning that result in a high percentage of new residences being connected to wastewater collection systems would reduce the net per capita consumption of water and avoid the health risks of septic systems. Small developers prefer to rely on domestic wells as they believe that this reduces their development costs. Studies performed by the Santa Fe County Water Utility suggest that this assumption is not necessarily correct and a requirement that small developments be connected to municipal water and sewer services may not impose a significant burden on small developers.

There is an interesting interrelationship between conservation and wastewater treatment with conservation reducing the amount of feed to wastewater treatment plants. But wastewater treatment requires capital and energy and there are losses, so it is better to use less water than to use and recover it.

37

G. Reduce Forest Related Precipitation Losses

Substantial evapotranspiration and losses due to sublimation (the snow in the tree canopy returns to the atmosphere without first having to melt) takes place in forests.

Issues

Forest thinning is another controversial topic. The conventional wisdom is that forest thinning below very high altitudes perhaps, 9000 feet, will only produce increased stream runoff for a limited period of time, namely, the time it takes for vegetation to regrow in areas now receiving more sunlight. However, there may be new information on this. In the March/April 2009 Issue of “Southwest Hydrology”, there is an article written by the Valles Caldera Preserve Biologist Bob Parmenter in which he refers to a study conducted at the Preserve which examines the relationship between tree canopy densities and sublimation of snowfall which is a different issue than the impactof vegetation on the transpiration of snow melt.http://www.swhydro.arizona.edu/archive/V8_N2/feature2.pdf It might be useful for the various Regional Water Plans that have thick forests to consider this work which has been or which will soon be published by Wiley Books.

H. Find Ways to Reduce Deliveries of Water to Texas, Oklahoma, Arizona and Mexico.

There are many opportunities to negotiate agreements with States that receive water from New Mexico. More water may be allowed to be diverted in New Mexico in

38

exchange for New Mexico investing in the development of alternative water resources in those States. In some cases the quid pro quo may be simply that New Mexico agrees to allow other surface and groundwater that is currently flowing into those States to continue to flow unimpeded and not be developed for use in New Mexico (e.g. Gila River water and Salt Basin water).

Alternatively, those States might fund water projects in New Mexico in return for a share of the additional water that was developed. Some of the existing agreements hint at cooperation for increasing the amount of water that can be made available for all parties to share. We have been remiss at not responding to these openings for arbitrage and shared investment which have presented themselves and continue to present themselves.

Issues

When it comes to River Compacts, negativity tends to prevent us from taking positive actions to improve the situation. Those responsible for water policy in New Mexico need to be a bit more innovative and pursue cooperative projects with other States and even Mexico.

I. Recognize that our Streams and Shallow Aquifers are Delivery Mechanisms in Addition to being Sources of Water.

There are many exciting possibilities when we think of our streams and aquifers being delivery mechanisms,

39

not just water sources. Our shallow aquifers are in general over exploited. In many cases they can hardly be considered a sustainable source of supply let alone a source for increasing the water supply. Deep water (fresh or brackish) is 4,000 to 12,000 times the size of our renewable water resource, and it is not clear that the deep-water resource is not being continually recharged at a rate that exceeds a reasonable rate of withdrawal. Clearly, our annual stream flow and shallow aquifers have served New Mexico well for many years but it may be time to recognize that the relative size of the deep and brackish water reserve and other sources of new water means that it is time to consider our shallow aquifers at least partially as a delivery system in addition to being a source of water.

Issues

Viewing our surface and groundwater aquifers more as a delivery mechanism than a source of water is a new way of looking at things that may take some time to get used to. This will raise questions with respect to who has the right to utilize an aquifer as a distribution system. Our water professionals and water policy makers may find it difficult to adjust to this new way of looking at streams and aquifers as a distribution network in addition to and possibly even more important than their role as a source of water. But adjust we must as our population increases and we may need to supplement the existing cadre of those who have been influencing opinions and policy with respect to water with some new blood if we are to overcome our reluctance to see the water situation in New Mexico as being both very complex and a

40

situation that includes many opportunities for those who are prepared to go beyond the notion that our water supply is fixed and that conservation and population control are our only tools for dealing with the future.

J. Pay Attention to Opportunities to Conserve Water

Every drop of water saved is a drop that can be used for some other purpose. In some cases, where less water can be used to achieve the same result or water wasted can be reduced, the cost of conserved water can be very little, approaching zero. In other cases, conservation can be expensive for example substituting air cooling in a process that was designed to employ water cooling or where an initial conservation technique such as lining a ditch with concrete is being enhanced with plastic liners.

Sometimes deciding how to characterize a technique that improves our water budget is more of an accounting issue than something that is substantive. A good example of this would be roof capture which reduces the use of potable water for landscaping purposes. Is this conservation or the generation of additional water supply allowing for conjunctive use?

Issues

There are many approaches for what might be considered pure municipal and domestic conservation where the reduction in water use is not the result of

41

applying another source of water (e.g., roof or ground capture water or treated wastewater) to reduce the use of potable water. I have not focused on these pure conservation approaches in this pamphlet mainly because the public acceptance for the need to apply these approaches is already very high and also because the number of different approaches exceeds what can be described in a relatively short document. I do not want to give the impression that I do not recognize the importance of these conventional conservation approaches. They are clearly very important in enabling New Mexico to be sustainable. And in many cases, water conservation also results in energy conservation.

Summary

In this document, I have focused on what many would consider to be alternative water resources, obstacles to development of water resources, obstacles to implementing conservation measures, and the need to have broader cooperation up and down our major river systems and with our neighboring States and Mexico because these are the areas that are not, in my opinion, being given adequate consideration.

The table on Page 16 puts some of these alternative water resources in perspective with respect to their cost and potential size. Of interest with respect to gaining support for taking action to increase our water supply, there are opportunities in every single one of the sixteen Water Regions in New Mexico.

42

IV. Impacts of Our Current Passive Water Policy

Who benefits from policies that, in effect, discourage water development? Certainly those who own water rights benefit from shortages that drive up the value of their water rights. Is creating value for water rights holders an appropriate goal of New Mexico Water Policy? Most New Mexico citizens are buyers of water not sellers. Some may believe that keeping water scarce will reduce population growth. Most studies show that such a policy is ineffective. The cost of water from the highest cost sources will result in an annual cost per household of about $500. This is not sufficiently high to discourage many people from moving to New Mexico and the high cost water most likely will be blended with lower cost water to produce an average cost per household that is much lower. It is hard to see the causal relationship between a high price of water and either a decrease in birth rates or an increase in death rates.

What happens is simply that, as water rights prices increase beyond $3,000 per af (which is equivalent to an annual cost of $150 per af if the purchase of the water right was financed by a loan at 5%), selling water is more profitable than farming which results in more water and land being transferred out of agriculture. Reducing agriculture in New Mexico has many negative results. Often the land taken out of production is land that was a small farm rather than part of a large commercial farming operation. Thus many people are

43

displaced and communities are negatively impacted. In some cases where a farm is getting their water delivered by an acequia or other type of community water system, the loss of that water may create operational problems for that water system. Taking land out of agricultural use harms wildlife both on the land that was being farmed and nearby land which was receiving water from the irrigation of the adjacent farm.

Agriculture may no longer be a major contributor to the GDP of New Mexico, but tourism is, and tourism depends partially on the look and feel of New Mexico and also on the health of our wildlife. The vitality of small farming communities is a major factor in what appeals to tourists, so we withdraw water from the agriculture sector at our peril. We also need the agricultural production for our food needs. Doubling our population over a 40 to 60 year period while cutting our agricultural production by 20% would not appear to be a sensible way of achieving food security.

We need to find a better way. We also have to recognize that surface flows will become an increasing proportion of the drinking water supply for communities along the Rio Grande. Thus we need to consider how best to protect Rio Grande water quality. Restricting certain dangerous activities along the banks of the Rio Grande and its reservoirs may be something that needs to be considered in New Mexico. It is standard operating procedure in many places in the United States.

44

Our perception that there must always be a shortage of water is self-inflicted. It is my fond hope, and the reason for writing and distributing this pamphlet at my own expense, that someday New Mexico will be able to free itself from a mindset that appears as if the State Engineer and the New Mexico Legislature have declared that we must protect our water shortage….we love our water shortage….we would be very upset without our water shortage. Obviously that is not how they are thinking, but the combination of conflicting rules and deficiencies in institutional arrangements and lack of proactive initiatives could easily give that appearance to someone who was not familiar with the complexity of the situation. Certainly, other States with fewer water resources must wonder if New Mexico should be doing a better job at managing its water resources.

***

The author of this pamphlet is the Chair of the Technology Committee of the Region 3 (Jemez y Sangre) Water Planning Council, the Sierra Club Rio Grande Chapter Water Issues Chair and Sustainable Agriculture Issues Chair, founded the New Mexico Weather Modification Association, is on the Board of Directors and is the Treasurer of Earth Works Institute, and is involved in a range of environmental and land-use planning activities in the Galisteo Basin where he resides. Mr. Silber is a member of the New Mexico Food and Agriculture Policy Council. This article represents only his views and not necessarily the views of the organizations that he represents.

For further information contact Sigmund Silber at ssilber1@Juno.com Please feel free to copy and distribute all or part of this pamphlet. Acknowledgement would be appreciated.

45