9407 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

STATES' PERSPECTIVES Nothing is for sure, and I think that's probably part of the experience that we bring on these issues. THOMAS TuRNEY, STATE ENGINEER, NEW MExIco I, too, very much enjoyed the research on what happened with my state in 1922. The state of New Mexico at that time was a very, very junior state. We too gained statehood in 1912, so we were only 10 years old at the time. We were a very, very small state, with a very, very limited population along the Colorado River. When we went into the Compact, we wanted two things: one, to protect existing uses. We knew that there were about 42,000 acres of irrigated lands in New Mexico, and this is a very small amount of land compared to the hundreds of thousands of acres that were being developed in our sister states. It probably made up 2 to 3 percent of the total acreage that was being irrigated in the Upper Basin. But we also wanted protection of the water for future development, and we felt that the Compact was the only way to secure that protection. We had identified over 600,000 acres of land for potential development, which was on the south side of the San Juan River, the majority of it on Navajo Nation lands. The records say eventually, maybe in 25 to 50 years, that those lands would ultimately be developed for irrigation purposes. You asked the question, "Did New Mexico really obtain what it sought underneath the Compact?" I think that could be best answered "yes and no." Time will probably just play it out, show us more and more the wisdom of the Compact. Certainly it did form an umbrella under which waters of the Colorado River could be used, which is definitely beneficial to the state. We've received the benefit of low-cost hydroelectric power for decades. We've been able to develop New Mexico's water supply alllocated under the Upper Basin Compact. We've protected those existing uses along the San Juan River. The communities in New Mexico - Farmington, The Compact talks about beneficial consumptive use; that is something that specifically does it include? SYMPOSIUM PROCEEDINGS MAY 1997 o we continually have discussions about - what - Thomas Turney Bloomfield, Aztec - have grown and do have ad- equate water supplies for their immediate future. We've seen the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project being partially developed, about 60 to 70 percent. Unfortunately, in the lower part of the basin on the Gila River, we did not see the protection that we sought at the time of the Compact. However, the Compact has been able to form a framework under which we're entering into negotiations with both Jicatilla and the Navajo Nation. One part of the Compact, Article VII, talks about "nothing in this Compact shall be construed as affecting the obligation of the United States of America to the Indian tribes." This is one phrase in the Compact that has raised extensive discussion within our state. The Indian tribes feel that they were not a party to the Compact. They were not at the negotiating table. And they have suggested that their waters should not be taken out of the state's share, but rather that they have a distinct and separate water right. There have been several subsequent events that have altered the Compact's benefits. Arizona v. California certainly defined that in New Mexico we'd only be allowed the use of water in the amount that was then being currently used on the Gila River. We could not have any water for future usage. That has hurt us seriously. Now the towns of Deming and Silver City have grown significantly in recent years and we do not have an adequate water supply for them. Of course, under the Colorado River Basin Project Act, we did get 18,000 acre-feet of water which we could use to develop that area and we are entering into discussions on how to utilize those waters. However, the communities there are very, very concerned about raising their water rates so high that they can't afford water. One thing that has significantly come into play since 1922 is the Endangered Species Act. The baseline depletions that have been developed out of some of the Fish and Wildlife jeopardy opinions are such that we are looking at restrictions on develop- ment of the state's apportionment. Another issue that we're looking at is, around 1956, 1957, the state assigned about half a dozen of our permits to the Bureau of Reclamation or secre- tary, Department ofInrerior. We are questioning whether that was the best thing to have done. Under some sets of circumstances perhaps we should be trying to get those water rights back into the name of the beneficial user. And we are entering into discussions on those. Going back to 1922, what language would we have changed? Certainly we now know a little bit more about PIAs [Practicably Irrigable Acreage]. We