WSP09398 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

i ~] Addressing the Basin's Problems groundwater from southern New Mexico into Texas. The request included drilling 60 wells and appropriating 50,000 acre-feet (at) of water annually in the New Mexico portion of the Hueco Basin,2 as well as drilling 266 wells and appropriating 246,000 af of water annually in the Lower Rio Grande Basin, south of Elephant Butte. The SEO denied the request because New Mexico water law prohibited out-of-state export of groundwater. El Paso's suit claimed, in part, that the SEO's action was an illegal constraint of interstate commerce. ".'. ~}: Eleven years later, on March 6,1991, the litigation ended with three parties-El Paso, New Mexico State University (NMSU) and Elephant Butte Irrigation District (EBID}-signing a settlement agreement.3 El Paso withdrew its application for groundwater from New Mexico and agreed to meet its future demand for water, giving preference (in declining order) to: (1) water conservation; (2) surface water; and (3) groundwater. EBID committed to work with El Paso to facilitate the delivery of Texas' portion of Rio Grande Project water" Both parties agreed to study the effects of the Canutillo well field located near the Texas-New Mexico state line on New Mexico water users. All parties involved in the settlement agreed to support year-round delivery of surface water to El Paso, to exchange necessary technical information, and, where warranted by study, to support construction of conveyance facilities to carry Rio Grande Project water to Texas from Caballo or downstream points. New Mexico parties will cooperate with El Paso to obtain federal support through grants, loans, appropriations, and/or federal matching for the conveyance project. All parties promised to strive towards efficient utilization of Rio Grande Project water to meet the groups' long-term needs, and to coordinate their respective water plans. '~...~ '-; '~~ 2 El Paso and Ciudad Juarez have pumped heavily from the Texas and Mexico portions of the Hueco aquifer for decades. 3 Motion for Voluntary Dismissal of Appeal in the Court of Appeals for the State of New Mexico. The City of El Paso vs. Eluid L. Martinez, Stare Engineer and Elephant But/e Irrigation District, et al. March 6, 1991. The New Mexico State Engineer, who was defendant, joined and concurred in the motion to end the litigation, but was not a party to the settlement agreement. . Although parties in Texas are entitled to 43 percent of the water from the Rio Grande Project, the water is used extensively by irrigators in the EBID before it reaches Texas, raising complaints about increased salinity and other water-quality problems, and concerns about the timing and reliability of deliveries to Texas. (,r')QQ4 '~/.... <.' V . 113