NM Governor Vetoes Gila River Development Bill, Stakeholders Tackle Alternatives

Home Browse Search

Landletter -- Thursday, March 22, 2007 Edition Page 1 of 2 g 4� It! P O ini,a 1-� version March 2, 20 7, 1JW : N.M. governor vetoes Gila River development bill; stakeholders tackle alternatives April Reese, Land Letter Western reporter New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson (D) vetoed legislation last week that would have funneled state funds toward controversial development projects on the Gila River. Meanwhile, a stakeholder group of water officials and local interests is studying options for protecting the state's last free - flowing river while meeting future water demands. The vetoed measure, which was included as a line item in a spending bill, called for allocating $945,000 to the Office of the State Engineer to support projects to tap the river's water resources. John Goldstein, a spokesperson for Richardson, said the governor vetoed the measure because it specifically allocated state funding for "development" of the Gila River. "His position has been that there hasn't been consensus reached yet in the local community," Goldstein said. "He felt the line item did not have that balance that he wanted to see." Environmental groups had urged Richardson to veto the measure. "This was a top veto priority of New Mexico's conservation community," said Sandy Buffett, executive director of Conservation Voters New Mexico. "it posed a serious threat to New Mexico's last free flowing river." Conservation Voters, New Mexico Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, Forest Guardians, Rio Grande Restoration and other groups supported an earlier version of the legislation that would have earmarked about $4 million in state money to support ecological studies of the basin, which is lacking in scientific data. The bill that crossed the governor's desk "left open the possibilities" of dam and diversion projects, said Jeanne Bassett, executive director of Environment New Mexico. "The governor's veto shows that the language was problematic, and underscores the need to look at the full range of water supply alternatives," added Allyson Siwik, executive director of the Gila Conservation Coalition. "I think given the language, he showed good judgment." Siwik's group is part of a collaborative effort aimed at examining various alternatives for meeting water demand in the Gila River basin. The stakeholder group, which includes county officials, state water officials, federal wildlife officials, environmental groups and other interests, is charged with determining how to ensure a sustainable water supply for the area while protecting the river basin's ecology. Scientists at Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, N.M., is crafting a computer model to help the group figure out how various water use alternatives might affect the river. The group was set up by the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission to carry out directives in the Arizona Water Settlements Act of 2004. The act codified an agreement between New Mexico and Arizona water users that allows development of up to 14,000 acre - feet of Gila River basin water on the New Mexico side of the border. The measure also granted New Mexico $66 million in federal funding to help with meeting water supply demands in the southwest corner of the state, either through a development project or through alternatives. Diversion or supply "There's a choice," Siwik said. "The state can put it toward a diversion project or it could be spent on other water supply projects." About 170,000 acre -feet of Gila River water flows into Arizona each year, where the river eventually joins the Colorado River. For 36 years, the state has been authorized to take 180,000 acre -feet out of the river over a 10 -year period but has failed to come up with a feasible diversion plan. Previous attempts by the state to claim its water share have failed, largely because of concerns about the ecological consequences http: / /www.eenews. net /Landletter /print/2OO7/O3/22/7 3/22/2007