A History of the Gila River Basin in New Mexico

A History of the Gila River Basin in New Mexico Events, Adjudications and Limitations Presented by: Tink Jackson District 3 Manager, OSE NM Gila River Watermaster

Court Cases • 1935 – First Court Case on Gila in NM • June 29 – Globe Equity Decree Entered • NM included only to the extent of the surface water of the Virden Valley • 1952 – Arizona sues California over Colorado River Supply • Grows to include settlement of rights on Gila between NM and AZ

California’s Motivation • AZ –v- CA • NM included at the request of California • California’s effort was to secure water for future uses from Colorado River • California claimed that Arizona could meet some of her needs with Gila water

New Mexico’s Concerns • New Mexico was both an involuntary and unwilling party. • Wanted to avoid the expense • BUT, Had a major interest in the outcome • NM was only using a small portion of water created within our boundaries • NM was allowing 270,000 acre-feet to flow downstream

Rifkind • 1955 – The USSC appointed the Honorable Simon Rifkind as Special Master • To determine water use and needs in both NM and AZ • 1957 – Rifkind Report limited NM to current uses at that time

Rifkind Reasoning • Rifkind was concerned with unpredictable flow of the Gila River • Considered the river over-appropriated • NM using less than 10% of water produced • Decided it was unreasonable to withhold water from senior users downstream for new “junior” appropriations in NM

Special Master’s Report • Present uses as determined by Rifkind came in way below NM’s claims • 1930’s report by SE showed approximately 30,000 acres irrigated in Gila Basin • Declarations filed by NM users were ignored • NM originally “offered” 10,878 acres

NM Response • Protested the Special Master Report • Steve Reynolds entered into negotiations with AZ to improve NM’s position - other states resisted NM/AZ process • State Engineer started looking for other options

Central Arizona Project • NM decided to work to secure the right to 18,000 acre-feet as part of the CAP Act • Acquiring was a more viable option than continuing litigation under AZ –v- CA • CAP water could be used to fill gaps and meet the future needs in the basin

The Rifkind Negotiation • The State Engineer did secure some benefit from AZ –v- CA negotiations • The parties agreed to allow a 15% increase in the amounts recommended by Rifkin if NM would complete the Gila Hydro-Survey in 4 years • NM ended up with 12,226 acres allowed • Still not enough to meet current uses

NM Adjudication - 1967 • 6th Judicial District Court adjudicated the rights in the Gila Basin in NM • Court found the limitations set by the USSC to be far below actual uses • Sections of the basin were therefore over-adjudicated from day one

Continued CAP Work • USSC decision opened the way for Colorado River water to be used in NM • CAP water could be used to offset the effects of increased uses in NM & make-up lost rights • Reynolds foresight provided for filling the gaps and additional development and growth lost in AZ –v- CA

The Real Deal • NM could not win!!! • We were outnumbered and out-gunned! • GSF hydro-survey completed to “match Decree” and not “find rights” – not today • Issues not addressed • Korean War (1951-1957) • Drought

Same Today??? • Northern New Mexico acequia’s are being adjudicated rights that have not been used since the 1800’s! • LRG groundwater rights not exercised since mid-1950’s are being adjudicated today (from the same time frame)

Who Was Affected • The residents of the Gila-San Francisco Basin were the only citizens in New Mexico affected by the Decree • The primary purpose of the CAP water was to offset those effects

The Problem • GSF is “frozen in time” • The continued transfer of agricultural rights to accommodate new growth is inefficient and reduces habitat for endangered species • Additional surface water must be provided to meet these needs

Why Not Ground Water? • Look at it as bank accounts • Surface water is your monthly income – it is “renewable” • Ground water is your savings account – it took YEARS to build that account up • Why let our pay check - the renewable source - go to Arizona while you drain your savings account?

The Environment • A do nothing approach does NOTHING to protect the environment • The diversion of water under the AWSA is only peak flows – not base flows • Storage facilities and conveyances could create additional habitat of significant proportions

A History of the Gila River Basin in New Mexico