Source to Sea Protection for the : Strategic Concepts for Rewatering a Thirsty Basin By Steve Harris, Rio Grande Restoration, 5-23-99 DRAFT

The great challenge for water managers in the Rio Grande is to somehow balance important environmental, economic and development goals for the basin's water and to integrate competing interests into a strategy that balances and sustains uses of the river and its water into the forseeable future. Today we are failing to answer this fundamental challenge, as witnessed by the fact that the ecological benefits of streamflow, in at least four segments of the river (see Table 1), have been sacrificed to diversionary uses. This suggests that the river is not being considered in its proper role as a water user and provider of essential services. The river has not yet been accorded real recognition or protection in the legal constructs governing the waters of the basin. The river has no effective seat at the table in our strategic forums. This concept paper, in suggesting a basin-wide strategy for protecting streamflows, is based on four assumptions: • That the present state of affairs on the Rio Grande is not sustainable • That water uses by the river and the natural environment should be balanced with consumptive uses. • That present consumptive uses can be balanced with environmental requirements. • That, contrary to tradition, water is actually for cooperating over. Rio Grande "Hydro-Reality-Check"

The basic environmental condition of the Rio Grande basin has been accurately described as "a state of drought, occasionally mitigated by periods of abundance". Measured against with its westerly- trending sister, the upper Colorado River, the upper Rio Grande produces 11 million acre feet less water, making it a river about 20% the magnitude of the Colorado. Before the present one million acres of irrigated agriculture were developed in the basin, the river flowed through great springtime surges from the melting of mountain snowpacks in the headwaters, receeded in the hot months of summer, then often filled again during the monsoons of July through October. At approximately 20 year intervals, the moisture from winter storms would fail to come, as it still does, quite often for periods of two to five years. On an annual average, less than 2.5 million acre feet were (and are) produced by the river's headwaters. Years of abundance, with up to twice this amount were (and are) balanced by years of scarcity, with as little as half the average quantity. Diversions of water for irrigation claim nearly 95% of the average annual flow of river. Water rights claims to the waters of the Rio Grande, many of which are legally unadjudicated, exceed the actual supply. The basin's water supply picture would be even bleaker without the addition of 96,000 acre-feet (96 kaf) of San Juan river water imported into the Rio Grande, groundwater subsidies through waterwater discharges and the 40 kaf salvaged by the Closed Basin Project in Colorado. Today, on the average, just 5 % of the river's production of water survives diversion (by about 25 lowhead diversion dams in place from Colorado to El Paso/Juarez) to appear as streamflow at Ft. Quitman, the division point between the upper and lower Rio Grande basins.

[Insert map showing upper basin features: compact accounting points, dewatering, major reservoirs] Rio Grande Restoration/ "Rewatering the Rio Grande"/ Page 2 Institutional "Stakeholders"

It is estimated that 89%of the basin's water resources are devoted to irrigation (Ellis, 1993). From about 1870, the basin's economic dependence on irrigation agriculture and that industry's dependence upon the waters supplied by the river, meant that security against the caprices of nature was intensely desired. In a watershed plagued with frequent shortages and wildly variable precipitation, the federal Reclamation Service addressed the need for water storage by constructing the . The basin's historical commitment to water development is emblematized by the project's central features, Elephant Butte (1912) and Caballo (1936) reservoirs, with the 2.5 maf storage capacity. Today, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation plays an essential role in the basin's water resources, managing the Closed Basin and Middle Rio Grande Projects, including El Vado Reservoir (1935) and Heron Reservoir (1965), along with the Rio Grande Project. Its sister agency, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, also manages two large reservoirs, whose primary purpose is flood control: Abiquiu (1954) and Cochiti (1975). Along its final 1200+ miles, the Rio Grande forms the border between Texas and Mexico. The bi-national treaty organization, the International Boundary and Water Commission maintains two large storage reservoirs, Amistad (1974) and Falcon (1954). Recognizing the fugitive nature of this river as a human resource and its susceptibility to capture by an upstream diverter at the expense of downstream users, enforceable agreements to apportion and share a limited supply were also needed. After decades of conflict, the US-Mexico Treaty of 1906 and the Rio Grande Interstate Compact of 1938 secured an allocation of the water among the major irrigation sections in the states of Colorado, New Mexico, Texas and Chihuahua. As a result, the flow of the Rio Grande in its upper basin is largely determined by water delivery prescriptions of the Rio Grande Compact and the three states' management strategies to satisfy these. Major irrigation districts further apportion water among farmers in the basin's major valleys. These quasi-governmental local districts include: Rio Grande Water Conservation District (, CO), the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District (Albuquerque, NM), Elephant Butte Irrigation District (Las Cruces, NM), El Paso County Water Improvement District #1 (El Paso, TX).

Table 1- Water Supply: Typical Year Deliveries Under the Rio Grande Compact-1992 Compact Division Point Type of station Volume of Water Del Norte + Mogote(CO) index 667 kaf Lobatos (CO/NM) delivery 240 kaf Chama (incl. San Juan/Chama) delivery 509 kaf Otowi (NM) index 1,204 kaf uncontrolled tributaries -- 361 kaf Elephant Butte ("Texas") delivery 796 kaf Total (Del Norte/Mogote, + Otowi, + uncontrolled tributaries, -Lobatos) 2.1 million acre feet

New surface water uses continue to increase demand on the river. The burgeoning cities of Albuquerque and El Paso are busily planning projects to help them convert from groundwater mining to "renewable" surface water uses. The river, already at a competitive disadvantage, will soon shoulder the burden of new depletions for urban uses to compound the weight of the massive agricultural uses it Rio Grande Restoration/ "Rewatering the Rio Grande"/ Page 3 supports.

Why Streamflow Protection? Why Now?

Dry rivers equate to dead fish. Already, the least hardy species that evolved in the river have disappeared. The most hardy are considered threatened or endangered and thus entitled to federal protection under the Endangered Species Act. Compliance with ESA will require water. Rio Grande Pueblos have "prior and paramount water rights" that have never been quantified. Sensing that a "trainwreck" is just over the horizon, tribal interests seem more determined than ever to assert their true position in the basin. It is but a matter of time before tribes seek to quantify their entitlements . The resolution of Pueblo nations' water claims will require water. Even New Mexico's ability to honor its water obligations under the Rio Grande Compact may be in doubt, as consumption of water increases. The institutional arrangements that arose in response to 19th century needs, recognized only the irrigation economy as a purpose for the water supplied by the river. Today's realities, little envisioned by early 20th century negotiators, include vastly larger urban drinking water demands, new industries, new social values, such as equity and self-determination for native american tribes and the now unmistakable decline in environmental quality. Today, we are at the threshold of an important decision: will we attempt to belatedly include the river in our water supply strategies? If this region insists upon clinging to the institutional status quo, the river simply will cease to live. Only a bold, intentional change in the way we do our water business will offer hope of preserving existing uses and balancing them with developmental aspirations and the river ecosystem that gives rise to us all. Whether we realize it or not, the decision we are making is between a living river and a dry ditch.

Table 2-Dry River: Upper Rio Grande Stream Segments Presently Subject to Dewatering: Reach Mileage Typical Min. Flow Recurrence frequency Season above Colo./N.Mex state line ~60 mi. 25 cfs 4 in 10 yrs. July-Oct. San Acacia to Elephant Butte ~60 mi. 0 cfs 1 in 2 yrs. July-Oct. below Caballo Reservoir ~40 mi. 0 cfs annual Nov.-Feb. below Ft. Quitman ~160 mi. 0 cfs intermittent May-Aug.

An honest effort to satisfy this full range of modern day water demands will require difficult institutional adjustments and shifts in the allocation of legal rights to use Rio Grande water. Securing beneficial streamflow regimes will, in large measure, depend upon some agreeable modifications in existing institutional arrangements and small but significant accomodations by the users of the waters of the Rio Grande to begin to satisfy the public interest in protecting the river- dependent natural environment from further degradation. Or else, we dry up the river and flood the courtrooms. Ironically, the basin's brightest hope is that so much of the Rio Grande's water is so inefficiently used; 85% of the basin's farms use the least water efficient methods available. If, as a basin, we could realize our water conservation potential, we could shift the savings to the environment, and other "new" uses. [INSERT TABLE 3-Full Utilization] Rio Grande Restoration/ "Rewatering the Rio Grande"/ Page 4 "Wet Water's for Drinkin', Paper Water's for Fightin' Over."

In the Western United States today, two kinds of water exist. Most citizens understand "wet water", the kind that flows downhill in response to the laws of God or nature or gravity. Wet water moves through the natural landscape in rivers and streams (and around the human landscape in ditches and pipes), sustaining a complex of living systems. Fewer understand about the second kind of water, which is "paper water". Paper water, it is said, "flows uphill to money", a nifty feat whose accomplishment requires lawyers. Paper water flows through courthouses and statehouses. What even the most brilliant water lawyers sometimes forget is that paper water only exists to help people share water with the greatest degree of security possible. Our paper water rights system has overallocated the river (assigned more rights than wet water) and given the region its knottiest problem. Wet water, like the air around us, is an absolute requirement of life on our beautiful, blue/ green planet, an entitlement that all creatures share. Paper water is too often a commodity to be captured and consumed, haphazardly, for short-term economic purposes. Our society could clearly be more deliberate in our use of water, more thoughtful of our neighbors, both natural and human. We could live within our means. Presently, water rights are unadjudicated in large sections of the river. It might be possible to let the market reallocate water, as some have suggested, if we could clarify everyone's existing rights. Only after the gordian knot of water ownership is untied may environmental water rights be secured in the marketplace. In the present context of legal uncertainty, immediate progress toward legitimate river restoration goals must be made with the voluntary cooperation of a broad range of affected institutions. But time in which to make the critical adjustments to our water management institutions grows short. In the event that we cannot place the river into the proper management context, society within the basin will likely be forced to sacrifice some or all of the environmental benefits the river has historically provided. Failure to maintain a functioning ecological base will make continued human occupation of the basin problematic. Much, then, is at stake. This paper suggests that a thoughtful combination of reservoir reoperations, water conservation and water rights acquisitions, applied in the broadest interests of the users and environment, can reverse the Rio Grande's unmistakable trend toward extinction. Streamflow Protection? How? Maintaining Rio Grande streamflow requires maintenance of a precarious, wet water balance. The river clings for its life to a small wet water surplus (see Table 2-"leakage") and the obligation of several states to provide agreed-to consumptive amounts to their downstream neighbors (Table 1). The wet water that accrues to the river today is entirely subject to tomorrow's consumptive uses.

It is also useful to note that: • The amount of wet water proposed for protection is less than 10 % of the Rio Grande basin's average water production. • A basinwide water conservation target of 10 % of existing uses is believed to be achievable, with sufficient incentives. A specific examination of this issue will be the subject of a separate paper. Securing the ~ 200 kaf of "system leakage" from future depletion will require a serious public commitment to provide water explicitly for the environment. The path of least resistance in our present "free market" view of the resource is to secure, by purchase, lease or other voluntary transfer, a Rio Grande Restoration/ "Rewatering the Rio Grande"/ Page 5

sufficient quantity of water for the river's minimum survival needs. Then, the river's own share of the river must be shepherded through a maze of diversions. This will require the commitment of water management officials to acquire data and monitor uses. It will also require some storage in the basin's reservoirs. I. Reservoir Storage Concepts- Goal: To dedicate a storage pool in major reservoirs, explicitly for environmental water. Assumptions: 1. The figures suggested seem to offer appropriate storage at a strategic locations. No examination was made of the relative politico-engineering difficulties of implementing any suggestion. 2. Congressional reauthorization of some, if not all, facilities would be required, to enable this storage. 3. Storage may, in some cases, need to be purchased. • Heron Reservoir- 10 kaf environmental storage • Abiquiu Reservoir- 50 kaf • Cochiti- 10 kaf (temporary, perhaps in recreational pool) • Elephant Butte- 50 kaf • Caballo- 10 kaf • Aquifers (see below)- 80 kaf Upper Basin target-210,000 acre feet • Amistad/Falcon 70 kaf Lower Basin target- 70,000 " "

Table 4-Strategic Reserves: Major Storage Reservoirs and Their Authorized Capacities. Facility Total storage Primary Use Authorization? Heron (San Juan Chama project) 400 kaf conservation only for project El Vado (MRGCD) 180 kaf irrigation storage flexible Abiquiu 500 kaf flood control 200 kaf storage Cochiti 490 kaf flood control not for storage Jemez Canyon 115 kaf flood control room in sediment pool? Elephant Butte (RG Project) 2,000 kaf conservation mainly for project Caballo 330 kaf conservation mainly for project International Amistad 3,300 kaf conservation/flood IBWC/CILA, TNRCC International Falcon 2,600 kaf conservation/flood IBWC/CILA, TNRCC Underground aquifer storage; capacities vast, but presently unknown: Closed Basin Project (conjunctive use)-San Luis Valley's existing groundwater "reservoir". Albuquerque Valley aquifer-City's water supply, planned as storage. Mesilla/Hueco Bolsons-El Paso regional water supply.

II. Water Acquisition Concepts- Goals: 1. To secure 8 % of Rio Grande basin water resources (~150 kaf), by purchase or donation. 2. To offset impacts of acquisitions on existing systems by making the most efficient possible use of water in cities and farms and applying conserved wet water to the environmental pool. Assumptions: 1. If not firmly acquired, existing wet water is subject to full consumption. 2. Some water purchased will be depleted and require further acquisitions along the course. 3. Many millions of dollars can be appropriated to purchase water and capital improvements for water conservation. 4. Some water purchased might be re-sold further downstream, to offset costs. For purposes of discussion, we suggest that these sources of water may exist: • Closed Basin Project-incl. purchase of Baca Grant water rights, when determined-30 kaf Rio Grande Restoration/ "Rewatering the Rio Grande"/ Page 6

• San Juan Chama Project-repurchase of project rights- 20 kaf • Middle Rio Grande Project (MRGCD) conserved/banked water- 40 kaf • Rio Grande Project (EBID, EPCWID) conserved/banked water- 40 kaf • leases, donations-same or other sources 20 kaf

III. River Operations Concepts- Goals: To utilize regulating capacity of reservoirs to time releases for greatest social benefit: protect existing beneficial uses, prevent desiccation of river and mimic the "shape" of the natural hydrograph. Assumption: Not all environmental water needs must be purchased. Delivery of downstream entitlements form part of the conceptualized future streamflow regime. Key strategies include: • Increase understanding of delivery systems and ability to manage flows. • Increase understanding of river-dependent natural systems to optimize streamflow regimes. • Model flows and measure all depletions. • Plan operations to conform to variations in supply.

Some Benefits of Source to Sea Streamflow Protection

Legal • Maintain New Mexico's ability to comply with Rio Grande Compact water delivery requirements, thus maintaining southern NM/Texas supplies. • Provide a reserve for settlement of Pueblo Indian water rights claims. • Provide drought protection of Mexico's entitlements (under Treaty of 1906). • Prevent forced curtailments of on-farm uses. • Reduce legal costs to water-using and water management institutions. • Protect Endangered Species (Rio Grande silvery minnow). • Prevent additional listings under ESA. Hydrologic • Recharge aquifers in all segments. • Maintain bank and bed storage reserves in all segments. • Enhance regional conjunctive use strategies: San Luis Valley, Albuquerque, El Paso/Juarez. • Maintain head in gravity-fed irrigation systems. • Provide sediment transport capability, enhancing flood protection: MRG Valley, Ft. Quitman segments. • Reduce or offset incidental depletions in all segments. Water Quality • Reduce threats to human health along US/Mexico border, attributable to water quality impairment. • Mitigate City of Albuquerque wastewater impacts. • Mitigate EBID/EPCWID return flow impacts. • Protect EPPSB Clean Water Act compliance during drought. Ecological • Provide overbank floods for riparian ecosystem restoration projects: Colorado Heritage River, MRG Bosque, Rio Grande Canalization Project, Ft. Quitman segments. • Protect National Wildlife Refuges (Alamosa, Bosque del Apache, Lower Rio Grande Valley). • Protect the Laguna Madre estuarine ecosystem. • Provide minimum flows for Big Bend National Park and Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River. Rio Grande Restoration/ "Rewatering the Rio Grande"/ Page 7 Economic • Enhance attractiveness of region for tourism industry. • Reduce water market pressures on small farmers. • Provide flows for river recreation (fishing, whitewater industries). • Reduce risk of severe fires in riparian bosques. • Promote sustainability of regional economy. Drought Contingency • Provide a drought buffer at Elephant Butte Reservoir. • Provide drought buffers at Amistad and Falcon Reservoirs.

A Last Word: The difficult task of balancing the Rio Grande's existing uses and development goals with the needs of a declining natural environment demands that the leaders of the basin devise new strategies to sort through the conflicts among competing water uses and integrate conflicting management institutions. Today, we see urban leaders confidently planning the future conversion, and ultimate consumption, of tribal water, agricultural water, the river's water. Individual water users recognize few connections to other user groups and to the river. Agriculture, already at the mercy of capricious markets, continues to build bunkers around existing water institutions, which includes their own massive diversions. Water management institutions are long on paper water administration tools, short on substantive knowledge about the wet water system. Like a fault line in an earthquake zone, great pressures are building around the Rio Grande's scarcity of water. The basin's headlong slide into the crack might be arrested gradually by application of good faith by many water users and the hard work of collaboration. The alternative, of course, is a cataclysm, the old fashioned rumble over water, a conflict with many potential losers. The living river would surely be one of the first casualties. Perhaps we will continue to hide behind the strict constructions of our water management institutions and argue that the proposals contained here won't work, that we can't afford to devote water to rivers. We must recognize that these are rationalizations that focus on our fear of losing things that water rights holders can't bear to lose. To be sure, there are risks to water users and other decisionmakers in the Rio Grande basin in shouldering this task, but there are much greater risks in failing to try.

References

CH2M Hill, "Albuquerque Water Resources Management Strategy" (City of Albuquerque Public Works Department-Water Resources), 1995)

Boyle Engineering, "El Paso-Las Cruces Regional Sustainable Water Project-Draft Alternatives" (NM-TX Water Commission), 1998

Brown, F. Lee and others, "The Value of Water" (City of Albuquerque RFP95-010-SV), 1996.

Crawford, Clifford and others, "Middle Rio Grande Ecosystem: Bosque Biological Management Plan" (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Interagency Team-Albuquerque), 1993

Daves, Gary and others, "The Water Future of Albuquerque and the Middle Rio Grande Basin" (Proceedings of 39th Annual NM Water Conference-WRRI Technical Report #290) 1994.

Dumars, C.T. and Nunn, C. , "Middle Rio Grande Water Policies Plan" (Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District), 1993.

Eaton, D. and Anderson J.M., "The State of the Rio Grande/Rio Bravo: A Study of Water Resource Issues Along the Texas/Mexico Border" (Univ of Arizona Press), 1987. Rio Grande Restoration/ "Rewatering the Rio Grande"/ Page 8

Ellis, Sherman and others, "Rio Grande Valley, Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas", (American Water Resources Association Bulletin, Vol. 29, No. 4), 1993.

Folk-Williams, John and Shupe, Steve, "Upper Rio Grande: A Guide to Decision-Making" (Western Network, Santa Fe) 1988.

Hamman, Mike and others, "Sangre de Cristo Water Division Five Year Workplan" (City of Santa Fe), 1997.

Hansen, Steve and others, "Middle Rio Grande Water Budgets, 1993-94" (Bureau of Reclamation), 1998.

Hansen, S. and Gould, J. "Understanding the Middle Rio Grande Basin's Renewable Water Supply vs. its Historic Use" (Supplemental handout to slide show of same title), 1998.

Harris, Steve, "Forgotten River: Rio Grande Streamflow and the Availability of Water for Restoration-Ft. Quitman to Candelaria" (unpublished manuscript), 1999.

Hernandez, Dr. John W., "A Report on the Efficacy of Forbearance as a Means of Providing Supplemental Stream-Flow in the Middle Rio Grande Basin (USBR), 1997.

Hydrosphere Resource Consultants, "Achieving Efficient Water Management: A Guidebook for Preparing Agricultural Water Plans" (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation) 1996.

Kelley, Pat, "River of Lost Dreams: Navigation on the Rio Grande", (Univ. of Nebraska Press), 1986.

"Rio Grande Water Quality Baseline Study, 1918-74" (WRRI Report No.064, appendix B), 1976.

"Report of the Rio Grande Compact Commission", 1992.

Meyer, W.R., "Water Budget Studies of Lower Mesilla Valley and El Paso Valley, El Paso County , Texas" (USGS), 1973.

Niemi, Ernie and others, "Water Management Study: Upper Rio Grande Basin" (Report to the Western Water Policy Review Advisory Commission), 1997.

NMISC, "Regional Water Planning Template", 1994.

Rivera, Jose, "Acequia Culture" (UNM Press) 1998

Schmandt, Jurgen, "Water and Development: The Rio Grande/Rio Bravo" (LBJ School of Public Affairs) , 1993.

Scurlock, Dan "An Environmental History of the Middle Rio Grande Basin" (U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report #RMRS-GTR-5) 1998.

Smalley, Jennifer, "An Overview of Water Planning in Four Western States" (Western Network, Santa Fe) 1993.

Turney, Patricia, "Rio Grande Depletion Analysis" (Proceedings of the NM Water Resources Association Conference on Rio Grande Basin Hydrology, Septeember 19, 1991) 1991.

U.S. International Boundary & Water Commission, "Flow of the Rio Grande and Related Data", (IBWC Water Bulletin 64), 1994.

USIBWC, "Equitable Distribution of the Waters of the Rio Grande": Convention Between the United States and Mexico. (IBWC, Treaty Series, No. 455), 1906.

USIBWC, "Utilization of the Waters of the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and of the Rio Grande": Treaty Between the United States and Mexico. (IBWC, Treaty Series, No. 994), 1944.

USIBWC, "Rio Grande Boundary Preservation-Hudspeth and Presidio Counties, Texas: Final Environmental Impact Statement", 1978. Rio Grande Restoration/ "Rewatering the Rio Grande"/ Page 9

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, "Legal and Institutional Framework for Rio Grande Project Water Supply and Use...a legal hydrograph", (USDI, USBR, Upper Colorado Region), 1995.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, "Draft Rio Grande Silvery Minnow Recovery Plan" (USFWS), 1998.

Wilson, Brian C., "Water Use by Categories in New Mexico Counties and River Basins, and Irrigated Acreage in 1995" (New Mexico State Engineer Office Technical Report 49), 1997 Rio Grande Restoration/ "Rewatering the Rio Grande"/ Page 10

Table 3-Full Utilization: Average Water Use of Farming Districts, Major Cities in Upper Rio Grande, 1980-90.

DistrictIrrigable acreage Annual consumption, surface water/groundwater San Luis Valley 645,000 acres 600 kaf 400 kaf Rio Chama, incl. SJC 75,000 200 kaf* 100 kaf* Middle Rio Grande 80,000 260 kaf - Mesilla Valley 85,000 239 kaf - El Paso Valley (U.S.) 47,000 139 kaf ? Juarez Valley 28,000* 60 kaf ? Hudspeth Co.(TX) 12,000 30 kaf* Irrigation Total Use 1,528 kaf

City Population(1990) surface water/groundwater Projected use 2020* Albuquerque metro 520,000 persons - 125 kaf 70 kaf/100 kaf Santa Fe metro 80,000 - 13 kaf 15 kaf/ 15 kaf Dona Ana Co., NM 135,000 20 kaf ? El Paso Co. 650,000 45 kaf 80 kaf 100 kaf/100 kaf Cd. Juarez. 1,200,000 - 80 kaf 60 kaf/165 kaf* Municipal Total Use 45 kaf 245 kaf/400 kaf Total consumptive use 1,600 kaf Incidental depletions 341 kaf "Leakage" past El Paso 166 kaf

TOTAL SUPPLY-Bottom line= ~2,100,000 acre-feet