|
<br />JUL-15-SS 13.58 PROM.M.B.5.5.
<br />
<br />1 U I :::.-."10 ;.e"t -, t:It:1~-r
<br />
<br />t""MUC.
<br />
<br />,,,..
<br />
<br />~June 1999 FamilL/ Farm Water Review Page 2
<br />C\l
<br />....,
<br />(,;). TI!XAS. NIlW MI!XlCO
<br />
<br />CJConversion Of Agricultural Water
<br />
<br />
<br />TRANSFER OF AG WATER: Another of the
<br />important issues gripping the Rio Grande Project concerns
<br />the U,S, Bureau of Reclamation's policy regarding the
<br />transfer of agricultural water to any other use under the
<br />conversion contract Again, the question involves ownership
<br />of water rights,
<br />
<br />
<br />POST-PAYOUT QUESTIONS: As pre-1937
<br />Reclamation projects have completed payout of their
<br />allocated construction obligation to the United States,
<br />questions have arisen over what the districts and their water
<br />users are entitled to. Complicating the issue is a
<br />contemporary view of project water as a tool for solving
<br />problems of municipal, environmental and state water
<br />obligations under surface water compacts, The additional
<br />question of who must approve a sale and who is entitled to
<br />sell the water right or use of the water has arisen.
<br />
<br />EL PASO SITUATION: A recent example of how the
<br />United States is contractually approaching the question of
<br />how agricultural water from a single purpose Reclamation
<br />project may be converted into other uses can be found in EI
<br />Paso (TEXAS), The El Paso County Water Improvement
<br />District No, I is part of the Rio Grande Project The City
<br />of EI Paso has contracted with the United States and the EI
<br />Paso District to utilize Rio Grande Project surface water
<br />since the mid-1940s. The city has sought to increase its
<br />access to project water,
<br />
<br />CONVERSION CONTRACT: In March 1998, the
<br />U,S, and El Paso District entered into a 40-year conversion
<br />contract that redefined how a third party could access the
<br />Texas portion of Rio Grande Project water for uses other
<br />than irrigation. The conversion contract contains provisions
<br />regarding ownership of the project water right by the U,S,
<br />and the charges to be paid to the U,S, by the third party
<br />contractor which is seeking to change the use of project
<br />water, Previous contracts allowing the City of El Paso to
<br />use project water for municipal purposes have not had any
<br />provisions of this type, In the new conversion contract, the
<br />U,S. recites that contracts to separate project water from
<br />agricultural uses must be done in accordance with federal
<br />law under a 1920 Reclamation law, The United States is
<br />now sharing revenues received when project water is
<br />converted to municipal use in El Paso.
<br />
<br />. FEDERAL VS. STATE: The clash between federal
<br />and state primacy as a result has taken on a new twist in
<br />single purpose Reclamation districts, The control of the
<br />conversion of water traditionally used in agriculture in these
<br />old paid-out projects is being con tested by the Bureau.
<br />
<br />QUESTIONS: The project's agricultural community
<br />has many questions. They ask if El Paso's conversion
<br />contract ",ow represents the Bureau's policy for transferring
<br />agricultural water to any other use, Other questions include
<br />the justification for requiring a district to contractually
<br />admit that the United States is ihe owner of the water right.
<br />Why, they ask, does the Bureau now want a portion of the
<br />revenues when in the past it has not received any?
<br />
<br />"FEDERAL POLICY": In an Albuquerque Journal
<br />earlier this year, Reclamation Commissioner Eluid Martinez
<br />contended the Elephant Butte water rights lawsuit (RELATED
<br />STDIlY ON PAGE 1) "would set federal policy." He predicted
<br />there would be future conversions of water for urban uses
<br />in El Paso, Las Cruces (NEW MEXICO) and Albuquerque,
<br />
<br />Irrl6a/ed Igrlcullure'l
<br />ImpOr/aRCI TO K,. Mexico
<br />From 'The Westem Irrlgatlcn PIOjscf8 BeMmS Review, .
<br />en economic whHe paper sponsored by the Fllmlly F.tm
<br />AlII.nce to documsnt the entlca/lmparlance of Irrigated
<br />agricuhuf'S In the 17 Westem states.
<br />
<br />Direct and Indirect effects of in1gated agriculture in New Mexico
<br />Oncludlng support Industries) "".."...." $1,08 bHlion
<br />
<br />Direct and indirect effects of Irrigated agriculture in the 17
<br />Westem statei , , . . . ' , , . ' , . , , , , , , More "'an $60 billion
<br />
<br />New Mexico's agricultural exports, , , . , . . ' . , " $79 million
<br />
<br />New Mexico's harvested Irrigated c"",land ,. 572,933 acre.
<br />
<br />New Mexico'. crop production value, , , , , , , " $510 million
<br />
<br />Western U,S, crop production value ." , , , " $49.18 billion
<br />
<br />United Statas crop protection value ".", $120,278 billion
<br />
<br />Total value of ilTigated agricultural production within the stale of
<br />New Mexico .. .. .. .. , .. .. , .. .. .. , , , , . ,. $409 mIllion
<br />
<br />Weslem U,S, Irrigated crop production value , $31.29 billion
<br />
<br />U,S, irrigated crop production value """., $41.91 billion
<br />C
<br />TOORDBR YOUR COpy .flhe firsl..f.ils.kied -Weslern
<br />Irrigation Economic BcDefits Review," please seGd your name
<br />and address, and s check for $25, to the Family Fa""
<br />Amance, do lady Brennan, 13t21 Las..n Way, SaDta Ana
<br />(CALI'O'IM) 92705.
<br />
|