Information to Users

Application of a ground-water flow model to the Mesilla Basin, New Mexico and Texas

Item Type text; Thesis-Reproduction (electronic)

Authors Hamilton, Susan Lynne, 1964-

Publisher The University of Arizona.

Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.

Download date 26/09/2021 10:15:39

Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/278362 INFORMATION TO USERS

This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer.

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book.

Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.

University Microfilms International A Bell & Howell Information Company 300 North Zeeb Road. Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600

Order Number 1353852

Application of a ground-water flow model to the Mesilla Basin, New Mexico and Texas

Hamilton, Susan Lynne, M.S.

The University of Arizona, 1993

UMI 300 N. ZeebRd. Ann Arbor, MI 48106

APPLICATION OF A GROUND-WATER FLOW MODEL TO THE MESILLA BASIN, NEW MEXICO AND TEXAS

by Susan Lynne Hamilton

A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the DEPARTMENT OF HYDROLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE WITH A MAJOR IN WATER RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION In the Graduate College THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA

1993 2

STATEMENT BY AUTHOR

This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for an advanced degree at The University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library.

Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the copyright holder.

SIGNED: '•'uuQ-fi, ix rwm

APPROVAL BY THESIS DIRECTOR This thesis has been approved on the date shown below:

Thomas Maddock III Date Professor of Hydrology and Water Resources Administration 3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Research and development was supported in part by the Elephant Butte Irrigation District, under grant provided by them. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the author and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the Elephant Butte Irrigation District.

I would like to thank Dr. Thomas Maddock III for his insight, encouragement, and patience. Dr. L.G. Wilson and Dr. Martha Conklin gave me kind encouragement. I would also like to thank the members of the Elephant Butte Irrigation District for their input. Special thanks to Michael Riley for his unending patience and data collection abilities, to Peter Frenzel whose previous studies and instruction were invaluable, to Russ Livingston for encouraging Peter Frenzel's input, to all the public and private water entities in New Mexico and Texas who contributed data and knowledge, and to Mike Jones for his help in modifying the existing U.S.G.S. Streamflow-Routing package by D.E. Prudic. 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES 6 LIST OF TABLES 10 ABSTRACT 12 1. PROJECT OVERVIEW 13 1.1 INTRODUCTION 13 1.2 STUDY AREA 18 1.3 OVERVIEW OF PREVIOUS GROUND-WATER MODELING INVESTIGATIONS 20 1.4 BRIEF OVERVIEW OF GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS 23 1.5 SCOPE OF WORK 25 1.6 REPORT ORGANIZATION 26 2. DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA 27 2.1 LOCATION AND PHYSIOGRAPHY 27 2.2 AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT 30 2.3 CLIMATE 32 2.4 GEOLOGY 36 2.5 WELL-NUMBERING SYSTEM 41 2.6 CONVERSION FACTORS 45 3. SURFACE-WATER AND GROUND-WATER SYSTEMS 46 3.1 SURFACE-WATER SYSTEM 46 3.2 GROUND-WATER SYSTEM 63 3.2.1 Rio Grande Alluvial Aquifer System 64 3.2.2 Santa Fe Group Aquifer System 65 3.2.3 Water Use and the Aquifer's Response 3.3 GROUND-WATER/SURFAC^WATER INTERACTION 72 4. HYDROLOGIC MODEL AND SIMULATION 83 4.1 INTRODUCTION 83 4.2 THEORETICAL REPRESENTATION OF GROUND-WATER FLOW 86 4.3 MODFLOW 86 4.3.1 The Streamflow-Routing Package 87 5 TABLE OF CONTENTS- Continued 4.4 FINITE DIFFERENCE GRID 91 4.5 AQUIFER CHARACTERISTICS 95 4.5.1 Layer 1 95 4.5.2 Layer 2 96 4.5.3 Layer 3 96 4.5.4 Layer 4 100 4.6 BOUNDARY CONDITIONS 102 4.7 INITIAL CONDITIONS AND STRESS PERIODS 106 4.8 STEADY STATE 106 4.8.1 Stream Simulation 107 4.8.2 Stream Adjustment 112 4.8.3 Water Levels 114 4.9 TRANSIENT .. 117 4.9.1 Original Mesilla Valley Boundary Condition and Modifications 117 4.9.2 Pumping Stresses Designated in the Model 121 4.9.3 River, Canal, and Drain Simulation 126 4.9.4 • Stream and Canal Adjustment 137 4.9.5 Water Levels 141 4.9.6 Water Budget 152 4.10 SENSITIVITY.. 152 4.10.1 Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity of the Canals 154 4.10.2 River-bed Elevation 154 4.10.3 Canal-bed Elevation 156 5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 158 5.1 SUMMARY 1 158 5.2 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 164 APPENDIX A: Head Residuals for Select Layers and Select Years 174 APPENDIX B: Total Canal Diversions at Diversion Dams and Wasteway Discharge 186 APPENDIX C: Rio Grande Discharge at Cable Section below Leasburg and Mesilla Diversion Dams 249 APPENDIX D: Records of Selected Wells in the Mesilla Ground-Water Basin 264 REFERENCES 287 6 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1, Rio Grande Basin physiographic province and Basin divisions (modified after Frenzel and Kaehler, 1990) 14

FIGURE 2, Mesilla Basin boundary and study axea (Hawley and Lozinsky, 1992) 19 FIGURE 3, Physiography of the study axea (Peterson et al., 1984) 28 FIGURE 4, Irrigated acres in the Mesilla Valley for 1880-1980 (Frenzel and Kaehler, 1990) 31 FIGURE 5, Monthly mean averages of precipitation, pan evaporation, computed potential evapotranspiration, and soil-moisture deficiency at New Mexico State University (Wilson et al., 1981) 35 FIGURE 6, Major faults within the Mesilla Basin (Hawley and Lozinsky, 1992) 37 FIGURE 7, Stratigraphic column of the Santa Fe Group, Mesilla Basin, New Mexico and Texas (Frenzel and Kaehler, 1990) 39 FIGURE 8, Geologic cross sections of the Mesilla Basin (Hawley and Lozinsky, 1992) 40 FIGURE 9, New Mexico well-numbering system (Wilson et al., 1981) 42 FIGURE 10, Texas well-numbering system (Wilson et al., 1981) 44 FIGURE 11, Elephant Butte Reservoir operations, inflows and outflows for 1915-1989 50 FIGURE 12, Caballo Reservoir operations, inflows and outflows for 1938-1989 51 FIGURE 13, Map showing locations of Caballo and Elephant Butte Reservoirs (modified after Myers and Orr, 1985) 53 FIGURE 14, Map showing locations of Leasburg and Mesilla Diversion Dams (modified after the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Project Data Book Excerpt, 1983?) 54 FIGURE 15, Leasburg Canal diversions, 1920-1990 57 FIGURE 16, Eastside Canal diversions, 1920-1990 58 7 LIST OF FIGURES - Continued FIGURE 17, Westside Canal diversions, 1920-1990 59 FIGURE 18, Historic drain flow, Mesilla Valley 60 FIGURE 19, Annual discharge of the Rio Grande at Leasburg and El Paso Narrows (Frenzel, 1992) 62 FIGURE 20, Depth to water table, Mesilla Valley (Maddock and Wright Water Engineers, Inc., 1987) 70 FIGURE 21, Approximate altitude of the water table in the flood-plain alluvium in the vicinity of the Mesilla Diversion Dam, January and February 1976 (Wilson and White, 1984) 73 FIGURE 22, Location of control wells and observation-well groups at the aquifer-test site (Nickerson, 1989) 75 FIGURE 23, Aquifer zones and aquifer-test wells at the Canutillo Well Field hydrologic section (Nickerson, 1989) 76 FIGURE 24, Rio Grande stage and water levels in observation wells CWF-la, CWF-2a, CWF-3a, January 10-22, 1986 (Nickerson, 1989) 77 FIGURE 25, Canal losses versus gross diversions (1947-1976) 80 FIGURE 26, Diagram showing part of an aquifer with a stream over it depicting how conductance of the streambed is calculated for a reach (Prudic, 1989) 89 FIGURE 27, Leakage, QSTR, through a streambed into an aquifer as a function of head, h, in a model cell where SBOT is the streambed bottom, and HSTR is the stream stage. Slope is dependent on streambed conductance, CSTR (Prudic, 1989) 90

FIGURE 28, Model grid and Mesilla boundary (Frenzel and Kaehler, 1990) 92 FIGURE 29, Contour map of the elevation, in feet above sea level, of the bottom of Layer 1, Mesilla Basin, New Mexico 94 FIGURE 30, Hydraulic conductivity assigned to Layer 1 (Frenzel, 1992) 97 FIGURE 31, Transmissivity assigned to Layer 2 (Frenzel, 1992) 98 8 LIST OF FIGURES - Continued FIGURE 32, Transmissivity assigned to Layer 3 (Frenzel, 1992) 99 FIGURE 33, Transmissivity assigned to Layer 4 (Frenzel, 1992) 101 FIGURE 34, Mountain-front recharge and specified-head nodes designated in the steady state and transient models 104 FIGURE 35, Approximate area of applied irrigation water, evapotranspiration from irrigated/nonirrigated lands, and effective precipitation (modified after Frenzel, 1992) 105 FIGURE 36, Finite-difference grid on base map by Lee (1907) in pocket FIGURE 37, River reaches (nodes) and segments designated in the steady state model 109 FIGURE 38, Simulated steady state Rio Grande depth 113 FIGURE 39, Pre-1915 (steady state) model-derived potentiometric surface and measured hydraulic heads for Layer 1 116 FIGURE 40, Municipal and industrial pumping designated in the model (1915-1990) 125 FIGURE 41, Mesilla Valley River System: river, canals, and drains designated in the model in pocket FIGURE 42, Finite-difference grid on base map, north half Mesilla Valley in pocket FIGURE 43, Finite-difference grid on base map, south half Mesilla Valley in pocket FIGURE 44, River nodes and canal nodes designated in the transient model 131 FIGURE 45, Approximate 1992 distribution of water-righted acreage in the Mesilla Valley canal system 136

FIGURE 46, Simulated versus reported canal return flows 138 9 LIST OF FIGURES - Continued FIGURE 47, Measured versus simulated Rio Grande depletions, Mesilla Valley [cfs] 140 FIGURE 48, Simulated potentiometric surface and measured hydraulic heads for Layer 1, 1947 144 FIGURE 49, Simulated potentiometric surface and measured hydraulic heads for Layer 1, 1975 145 FIGURE 50, Simulated potentiometric surface and measured hydraulic heads for Layer 1, 1985 146 FIGURE 51, Simulated potentiometric surface and measured hydraulic heads for Layer 1, 1990 147 FIGURE 52, Simulated potentiometric surface for Layer 2, 1975 148 FIGURE 53, Simulated potentiometric surface for Layer 2, 1990 149 * FIGURE 54, Simulated potentiometric surface for Layer 3, 1975 150 FIGURE 55, Simulated potentiometric surface for Layer 3, 1990 151 FIGURE 56, River loss in the standard model versus river loss with the river bed lowered 2 feet (1990 simulation) 157 10 LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1, Crop production report, Elephant Butte Irrigation District, 1990 33 TABLE 2, Monthly precipitation and temperatures (Wilson et al., 1981) 34 TABLE 3, Conversion factors 45

TABLE 4, Monthly discharge of the Rio Grande at El Paso, Texas, 1897 to 1905 (acre-ft)(Lee, 1907) 47 TABLE 5, Elephant Butte Reservoir, ranked inflows, 1915-1990 (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 1990) 49 TABLE 6, Annual water allotments, 1951-1990 (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 1990) 56 TABLE 7, Spreadsheet for estimating net irrigation flux (modified after Frenzel, 1992) in pocket TABLE 8, Estimate of applied surface water to irrigated lands 122

TABLE 9, Layer 1 head residual errors for 1947, 1975, 1985, and 1990 143 TABLE 10, Model-derived water budget for select years (all units are cfs) 153 TABLE 11, Sensitivity of the model to changes in canal vertical hydraulic conductivity, end of 1990 (numbers in parentheses are values normalized to those obtained with a canal conductivity of 0.758 (standard)) 155 TABLE A-l, Steady state head residuals and error for Layer 1 175 TABLE A-2, Steady state head residuals for Layers 2 and 3 176 TABLE A-3, 1947 Layer 1 residuals 177 TABLE A-4, 1975 Layer 1 residuals 178

TABLE A-5, 1985 Layer 1 residuals 180 11 LIST OF TABLES - Continued TABLE A-6, 1990 Layer 1 residuals 181 TABLE A-7, 1975 Layer 2 residuals 182 TABLE A-8, 1990 Layer 2 residuals 184 TABLE A-9, 1975 Layer 3 residuals 185 APPENDIX B, Total Canal Diversions at Diversion Dams and Wasteway Discharge 186 APPENDIX C, Rio Grande Discharge at Cable Section below Leasburg and Mesilla Diversion Dams 249 APPENDIX D, Records of Selected Wells in the Mesilla Ground-Water Basin 264 12 ABSTRACT

Resolution of litigation between El Paso, Texas, and New Mexico over the water resources of the Mesilla Basin prompted a ground-water modeling study to address the common concerns of both parties. Participants requested development of a model which eventually could be used to simulate the ground water and surface-water system's response to lining a portion of the canal system and to changes in pumping stresses within the Mesilla Basin.

An existing U.S. Geological Survey ground-water flow simulation (Frenzel and Kaehler, 1990; Frenzel, 1992) was updated and revised through modification and incorporation of a new Streamflow-Routing (Prudic, 1989) package for use with MODFLOW (a three-dimensional finite-difference ground water flow model; McDonald and Harbaugh, 1988). The modified Streamflow- Routing package was used to simulate the complex Mesilla Valley river, canal, and drain system. Updating also included incorporation of information on pumping stresses; canal, river, and drain parameters; Mesilla Valley boundary fluxes; and stream/aquifer interactions. CHAPTER 1 PROJECT OVERVIEW 1.1 INTRODUCTION

It has been said that watersheds and aquifers ignore political boundaries. This phenomenon is often the reason for extensive regulation of surface-water and ground-water resources which are shared by two or more political entities. Regulation is often the result of years of litigation over who really owns the water, how much is owned, and how much is available for future use. Ground water models are sometimes used as quantitative tools which aid in the decision making process regarding appropriation and regulation of these scarce, shared, water resources. The following few paragraphs detail the occurrences in the Lower Rio Grande Basin which led to the current ground-water modeling effort.

New Mexico, Texas and Mexico have wrestled forever over the rights to the Lower Rio Grande and the aquifers of the Rio Grande Basin (Figure 1). As early as 1867, due to a flood event on the Rio Grande, Texas and Mexico were disputing the new border created by the migrating Rio Grande. During the 1890's, the users upstream from the Mesilla and El Paso Valleys were diverting and applying so much of the Rio Grande that the Mesilla and El Paso valley farmers litigated in order to apportion and guarantee the supply. In the recent past, disputes over who may use the ground-water resources of the region and the effect of surface- water uses on aquifer water levels resulted in litigation between El Paso, Texas, and New Mexico. EXPLANATION 10 6* 10 9* I AREA OF ALLUVIAL FILL— Indicate* only thai basin fill Is •IIUVIUB- not nectssarl ly saturated alluvlu*

BASIN BOUNDARY BASIN NOHBER--See list below COLORADO BASIN NEW MEXICO NUMBER BASIN NAME 1 SAN LUIS 2 ESPAROLA 3 SANTO DOMINGO 4 ALBUQUERQUE-BELEN 5 SOCORRO 6 LA JENCIA 7 SAN AGUSTIN 8 SAN MARCIAL 9 ENGLE to PALOMAS II JORNADA DEL MUERTO 12 MESILLA 13 TULAROSA-KUECO It HIMBRES IS HACHITA 16 PLAYAS 17 AH 1 HAS 18 LORDSBURG 19 SALT 20 EAGLE 21 RED LIGHT DRAW 22 PRESIDIO

COLORAOO

K. ELEPHANT 1 BUTTE RESERVOIR

TEXAS

LOCATION HAP t NEW MEXIC TEXAS UNITED STATES I POM MEXICO

0 10 MILES 1 l'l I'lM•0 KILOMCTCRS > 31

andHodlfitd other* froa (1980. Ullkint^ p. 3)' I L

Figure 1 : Rio Grande Basin physiographic province and Basin divisions (modified after Frenzel and Kaehler, 1990). 15

The El Paso versus Reynolds Case (Sax and Abrams, 1986) began on September 5, 1980, when El Paso filed suit against the New Mexico State Engineer. El Paso intended to overturn New Mexico's 1953 embargo statute which prevented drilling wells and transporting the water across state lines for use in an adjoining state. El Paso stated that the embargo statute violated the U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause. The book "Whose Water is It Anyway" by Linda G. Harris et al. (1990) detailed the events subsequent to the initial litigation as follows: 1. Sept. 11-12, 1980 : New Mexico State Engineer designated the Lower Rio Grande Basin and the Hueco Bolson as declared ground-water basins. Such designation required permits from the State Engineer to drill water wells. 2. Sept. 12, 1980: The City of El Paso applied for 266 well permits with a 246,000 acre- feet per annum ground-water appropriation from the Lower Rio Grande Underground Basin. 3. Sept. 18, 1980: The City of El Paso applied for 60 well permits with a 50,000 acre-feet per annum ground-water appropriation from the Hueco Bolson. 4. April 21, 1981:

The New Mexico State Engineer denied El Paso's applications for well permits on the grounds that the New Mexico Embargo Act forbids out- of-state transfer of ground water. El Paso appealed. 5. July 1, 1982: U.S. Supreme Court handed down the Sporhase case judgment (Sax and Abrams, 1986) which declared that ground water is to be considered an article of commerce, and that restricting ground-water transfer across state lines was in violation of the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court also ruled that an "arid state might deny an application if the withdrawal would be contrary to that state's conservation of ground water and detrimental to its public welfare." (Harris et al., 1990).

6. Jan. 17, 1983: U.S. District Court Judge Howard Bratton ruled for El Paso and declared that the New Mexico Export Statute violated the Interstate Commerce Clause. New Mexico appealed. 7. Feb. 22, 1983: New Mexico State Legislature repealed the old embargo statute and enacted a new statute which allowed the export of ground water under certain circumstances. In particular, the new Export Statute stated

that well application approval can occur only if the "applicant's withdrawal and transportation of water for use outside the state would not impair existing water rights, is not contrary to the conservation of water within the state, and is not otherwise detrimental to the public welfare of the citizens of New Mexico" (Harris et al., 1990).

8. Dec. 21, 1983:

"10th Circuit Court of Appeals voided Bratton's decision and sent the 17

case back to Judge Bratton for consideration under the new export law" (Harris et al., 1990). Judge Bratton transfered the case to the State Engineer for a hearing under the new export statute and denied El Paso's request to hold the statute unconstitutional on its face. 9. April 4, 1985: The New Mexico State Legislature codified an existing State Engineer

Regulation and passed a new law known as the "40 Year Rule". This law stated that "Municipalities, counties, state universities and public utilities supplying water to municipalities or counties shall be allowed a water use planning period not to exceed forty years...". (Harris et al., 1990). 10. Dec. 23, 1987:

Reynolds denied El Paso's well permit applications on the basis of the 40 Year Rule. El Paso appealed. 11. Feb. 1, 1989: El Paso's appeal is denied by the U.S. district court on the grounds that the case is already being tried in the state court. El Paso appealed to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

12. March 4, 1989: New Mexico District Judge Manuel Saucedo dismissed El Paso's appeal due to the failure of El Paso to properly appeal the case under New Mexico law. 13. November 1989:

The parties to the litigation began settlement discussions. 18

14. April 13, 1990: The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals denied El Paso's appeal and attempted to remove the case from the State court. 15. January 1990: El Paso's appeal in New Mexico State Court was still pending. Elephant Butte Irrigation District began an investigation of the ground water resources for purposes of litigation.

On March 6, 1991 El Paso and New Mexico negotiated a settlement, thus ending the decade long struggle over who had the right to the water of the lower Rio Grande Basin. In general terms, the Settlement Agreement stated that "both parties [will work] together to study, identify and address common concerns" (El Paso Water Suit Settlement Agreement, 1991). The current modeling effort was initiated in order to provide a model of the axea which could address a portion of both parties' common concerns. In particular, both parties requested development of a transient model that could simulate the ground water and surface-water system's response to lining a portion of the Rio Grande canal system, and changes in pumping in the study area.

1.2 STUDY AREA

The study area is in south-central New Mexico and extends into parts of Texas and the Republic of Mexico (Figure 2). The study area is bounded by the East and West Potrillo Mountains to the southwest, the Robledo Mountains to the northwest, the Dona Ana and Organ Mountains to the northeast, and 6. Jornada del Musrto uamuboN ANA

OOAT

S v''I' \LAS CRUCES

BISHOP , CAP

NEW IMEXICO / TEXAS

UT RILEY EL PASO COUNTY

PASO EL PASO MARROWS SIERRA 10ml OE JUAREZ 10km ClUDAD JUAREZ

aOLSON OE LOS UUERT09 NEW MEXICO EXPLANATION MAP AREA •ME SILiA VALLEY BOUNDARY OF MESILLA BASIN-At byfrvutfano ' r. IMO TEXAS MEXICO

Figure 2 : Mesilla Basin boundary and study area (Hawley and Lozinsky, 1992). 20 the Franklin Mountains to the southeast. The Lower Rio Grande enters the study area to the north at Selden Canyon above Leasburg Diversion Dam, New

Mexico, and exits the study area at El Paso Narrows, Texas, to the southeast.

1.3 OVERVIEW OF PREVIOUS GROUND-WATER MODELING INVESTIGATIONS

Updegraff and Gelhar (1977) estimated parameters for two lumped- parameter models of the Mesilla Valley. Updegraff and Gelhar (1977) developed two lumped parameter models and estimated input parameters by using a least squares technique. The least squares technique was applied to average monthly drain-flow data, average monthly water levels and dates of recession. The results of their analysis showed that a lumped parameter model can provide accurate predictions of average water levels in the Valley and average drain flows, and that if the "water levels follow a yearly pattern of recharge and recession, reasonable parameter and net recharge estimates can easily be obtained for the lumped-parameter ground-water model by using the least squares method".

Khaleel et al. (1983) authored the first modeling phase of the Mesilla

Basin by the New Mexico's Water Resources Research Institute. This initial two layer numerical model focused on the two dimensional flow of ground water within the deeper regional aquifer (the Santa Fe geologic group of the upper Tertiary/Quaternary). Although Khaleel et al. (1983) performed preliminary quasi three-dimensional modeling of the system, limited attention was given to the uppermost alluvial aquifer, the connection of the Rio Grande with the uppermost alluvial aquifer, and the interaction between the alluvial and regional 21 aquifer.

Gates et al. (1984) used a three-dimensional finite-difference ground-water flow model of Trescott and Larson (1976) to document the preliminary study of ground-water flow in the lower Mesilla Valley (Canutillo Well Field area). The purpose of the modeling effort was to evaluate the response of the Mesilla Basin aquifers to different development plans. In particular, the simulations were made to emphasize the response of medium and deep aquifers to pumping in the Canutillo Well Field. Also emphasized were simulations made to show the effect on water levels when elimination of Rio Grande seepage occurred. Unfortunately, the authors state that the model contains an error and several deficiencies that render quantitative results inaccurate.

Peterson et al. (1984) completed phase 2 of the Mesilla Basin modeling effort for the New Mexico Water Resources Research Institute. This model was designed to build on and improve the original model by Khaleel et al. (1983). The finite-difference model by Peterson et al. (1984) was designed to simulate multi-layered ground-water flow in the Mesilla Basin. The model source code was developed by the authors in an "ad hoc" manner which best represented the complex surface-water and ground-water processes occurring in the study area. The grid used is 28 rows by 24 columns with cells ranging from 0.75 x 1.0 mile to 2x2 miles. The transient simulation spans the years 1966 to 1983.

In 1987, Maddock and Wright Water Engineers, Inc. (1987) modeled the Mesilla Basin using the U.S.G.S. Modular Three-Dimensional Finite-Difference Ground-water Flow Model (MODFLOW). The purpose of this modeling effort 22

was to analyze the complete hydrologic system of the Lower Rio Grande Basin and investigate the effects of proposed pumping in the Mesilla Basin by El Paso. Objectives of the study included establishment of computerized data bases, quantification of stream-aquifer interactions, and "determination of the amount and patterns of drain flows and their relationship with shallow ground water levels". The aquifer system was represented by a local unconfined alluvial aquifer and a regional confined aquifer that could become slightly dewatered. The grid used is identical to Peterson et al. (1984). The steady state scenario was taken as 1976 and seven different pumping growth scenarios were investigated. This

study also employed a separate mixing cell model to investigate water quality changes in recent years and the likelihood of future ground-water quality degradation due to El Paso's proposed pumping.

Frenzel and Kaehler (1990) modeled the Mesilla Basin for the Southwest Alluvial Basins (SWAB) and Regional Aquifer-System Analysis (RASA) program of the United States Geological Survey. Although Frenzel and Kaehler (1990) used the U.S.G.S. modular program (McDonald and Harbaugh, 1984), they substituted a river package developed by Miller (1988) for the original river package. This river package modified how the model treated surface- water/ground-water interactions. Their alteration allowed for the accounting of stream flows, river tributaries and diversions, and the limitation of the river recharge to the aquifer by an amount specified by the user. The modified river package was not considered a true surface-water model and therefore did not include stage/discharge relationships or streambank storage. 23

The aquifer system was represented by five layers: an unconfined alluvial layer associated with the river and 4 confined regional layers. The grid used is 36 rows by 64 columns with cells ranging from 0.5 x 0.5 miles to 1.0 x 2.0 miles. The steady state scenario is taken as 1915, with the transient run from 1915 to 1975. Included in this report also a section by Anderholm on water quality and geochemistry.

The most recent modeling effort by Frenzel (1992) updates the 1990 model just described. Major improvements include elimination of the fifth layer of the basin, and improved transmissivity and hydraulic conductivity estimates (both changes based on recent hydrogeological interpretive studies of the Mesilla Basin by Hawley and Lozinsky, 1992). The boundary conditions representing the Mesilla Basin also are improved with incorporation of new estimates for evapotranspiration from irrigated agriculture based on the actual mixture of crops for the valley. Recharge and precipitation estimates were updated to include 7 more precipitation stations, and pumping stresses were updated for 10 years.

1.4 BRIEF OVERVIEW OF GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS

The previous ground-water modeling efforts relied heavily on other authors' studies which quantitatively and qualitatively described the geology, hydrology, and water resources development of the area. The following is a brief discussion (not exhaustive) about a few of the most often sited of these works:

Slichter (1905) was one of the first to report on ground-water conditions in 24 the Mesilla Valley. His report contained some information about well occurrence, pumping rates, and depth to water in the Mesilla Valley. Lee (1907) gave us a slightly more complete record of the geology, depth to water, hydraulic gradients and water quality for the shallow alluvial aquifer of the Mesilla Valley during "pre-development" years.

According to Peterson et al. (1984), "the earliest comprehensive reports on hydrogeology of the area are contained in U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Papers by Sayre and Livingston (1945), Conover (1954), Knowles and Kennedy (1958), and Leggat, Lowry, and Hood (1962). " These papers collectively discussed geomorphology, recharge and discharges to the valley alluvium, well pumping • rates and locations, well logs, geochemical data, water level fluctuations, water quality, and water level contour maps for the Mesilla

Basin or the Hueco Bolson to the southeast.

King et al. (1971) discussed both the geology and the ground-water resources of the Las Cruces area. A more recent comprehensive work on the hydrogeology of the region was done by Wilson et al. (1981). This report presented information on water well locations, aquifer properties, water quality, water level measurements, hydrogeolgic cross sections, contour maps for 1976, and transmissivity maps for the region.

Meyer and Gordon (1972) developed water budgets for the New Mexico- Texas region of the Lower Rio Grande Basin. According to Peterson et al. (1984), other authors who discussed the water resources of the study area include the following: Blaney and Hanson (1965), Dinwiddie et al. (1966), and Lansford 25 et al. (1974).

Myers and Orr (1985) provided information on the area's geology, aquifer characteristics, direction of ground-water flow and ground-water chemistry. Wilson and White (1984) detailed the results of pump tests in the Santa Fe aquifer near Las Cruces. Selected geohydrologic information for the Mesilla Basin was given in Nickerson (1986). Nickerson (1986) supplied information on river stages, well hydrographs for 1984-1985, and selected borehole-geophysical logs. In a more recent work, Nickerson (1989) conducted aquifer tests in the alluvium and Santa Fe Group near Canutillo, Texas.

The definitive work on the hydrogeology of the Mesilla Basin was just released by Hawley and Lozinsky (1992). These authors reevaluated the N thicknesses and hydrostratigraphic units of the basin. More detail on Hawley and Lozinsky's (1992) work is given in the section entitled Santa Fe Group Aquifer System.

1.5 SCOPE OF WORK:

The scope of work for the project included:

1. Review of technical reports pertaining to the hydrogeology, hydrology, and geology of the Mesilla Basin, New Mexico. 2. Updating the existing United States Geological Survey's ground-water model of the Mesilla Basin by incorporating information on pumping rates, canal and drain parameters, and stream-aquifer interactions. 26

3. Incorporation and modification of the new U.S.G.S Stream flow-Routing (Prudic, 1989) package for use in simulating the river, canal, and drain system. 4. Provision of an estimate of the ground-water condition in the modeled region before major development. 5. Development of a transient model that could simulate the ground-water system under alternative scenarios of development (i.e., different pumping, lined or unlined canals). 6. Use of sensitivity analysis to determine data needs for upgrading and improving modeling and management activities.

1.6 REPORT ORGANIZATION

Chapter 2 describes the location, physiography, and geology of the study area. Chapter 3 details the ground-water and surface-water systems . Chapter 4 introduces the ground-water flow model, the parameters used to update the existing model, and discusses the model's sensitivity to select parameters. The summary, recommendations, and conclusions are given in Chapter 5. References and Appendices are given at the end of the report. 27

CHAPTER 2 DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA

2.1 LOCATION AND PHYSIOGRAPHY

The Rio Grande Basin extends from the headwaters of the Rio Grande in the San Juan Mountains into northwestern Texas. The Rio Grande Basin system is composed of a series of smaller surface-water drainage basins and their associated ground-water basins (Figure 1). The Mesilla Basin, a ground-water basin of the Rio Grande Basin system, lies in south-central New Mexico and extends into both Texas and Mexico.

The Mesilla Basin (Figure 2) is surrounded by mountain ranges: the Robledo Mountains and the Rough and Ready Hills to the northwest, the Dona Ana and Organ Mountains to the northeast, the East and West Potrillo Mountains to the southwest, and the Franklin Mountains to the southeast (Figure 3). The highest peaks in the Robledo and Dona Ana Mountains are just under 6,000 feet above sea level. The Franklin and Organ Mountains form a continuous chain along the eastern boundary of the basin, with peaks mostly exceeding 7,000 feet (the highest peak, Organ Peak, reaches 9,012 feet above sea level). The smaller Aden Hills, Sleeping Lady Hills, and Portrillo Mountains defining the western edge of the basin rarely exceed 5,000 feet above sea level.

The Rio Grande enters the Mesilla Basin through the narrow Selden Canyon between the Dona Ana Mountains and the Robledo Mountains. Selden 28

tlMANAIION

IAJINJ AND • AKN l( MN AN IS VZ.

VAI IFT IOIOIt 0' SUIANO rtooo nAiN 'ACCS MU QHCA oO • MtlCS a. t

t \ m I l.t „ HI lit

Figure 3: Physiography of the study area (Peterson et al., 1984). 29

Canyon is approximately 10 miles long and several hundred feet wide at its base. From Selden Canyon the river traverses the Mesilla Basin diagonally for approximately 60 miles until it exits the Basin at El Paso Narrows. El Paso Narrows is a several hundred foot wide gorge approximately 4 miles north of El Paso which lies between the Franklin Mountains and the Sierra Del Cristo Rey Mountains. The Rio Grande flood plain and lands adjacent to the flood plain define the Mesilla Valley: a low-gradient narrow alluvial valley ranging in width from a few hundred feet to 5 miles near Las Cruces (Conover, 1954). The altitude of the Valley varies from 3,980 feet above Leasburg Dam (the northern end of the valley) to 3,729 feet at El Paso Narrows.

Steep bluffs rise up from the Mesilla Valley floor, and form the walls of the valley. To the west of the Valley the bluffs immediately level off and form the broad piedmont slope that extends for over 20 miles until it intersects the mountain fronts. This broad mesa is known as the West Mesa, and it encompasses approximately 750 square miles. The Jornada del Muerto is another broad mesa on the east side of the Mesilla Valley that extends 100 miles north from Las Cruces to San MarciaJ. To the east and south of the Valley, the bluffs level off slightly and quickly meet the base of the Organ and Franklin Mountains.

Population centers are scattered throughout the Mesilla Valley and along the Rio Grande. Las Cruces is the largest city in the study area, with a population of approximately 62,000 in 1990. Smaller communities include Dona

Ana, Mesilla San Miguel, La Mesa, Vado, Berino, Chamberino, Anthony, La 30

Union, Vinton, and Canutillo. The West Mesa area has not been greatly developed and is primarily used as grazing land.

2.2 AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT

Agriculture is the single largest economic activity in the study axea. Farmland extends the width of the Mesilla Valley from the northern most town of Radium Springs south across the New Mexico/Texas Border down to El Paso. Professor Neal Ackerly (1992) of New Mexico State University estimates that the total irrigable acreage of the Mesilla Valley was approximately 34,000 acres in 1985. During the years between 1985 and 1909, the number of farms and the size of the farms increased. The major cash crops during the period prior to 1919 were wheat, corn and alfalfa. In 1919, cotton was introduced in the area. "Within 10 years, cotton comprised 73% of all cultivated acreage in the region and far surpassed all other crops in terms of economic importance" (Ackerly, 1992). By the mid 1920's, the average size of individual farms began to stabilize. Frenzel and Kaehler (1990) reported on irrigated acreage within the Mesilla Valley for the years 1880 to 1980 (Figure 4).

As of 1990, approximately 81,000 acres of land in the New Mexico portion of the Mesilla Valley were irrigable. Of this total, approximately 62,000 acres were in irrigation rotation (including multiple cropped). Crops consisted of cereals, forage, vegetables, fruits, nuts, and miscellaneous field crops. Elephant Butte Irrigation District (EBID) crop production data for 1990 is shown in 1880 1900 1920 1040 1960 1980

SOURCES OF DATA: 1860-1905, Yeo (1928); 1906-17 and 1930-A6, Conover (195*0; 1917-24, Josephine Derryberry, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, oral commun., 1982;

1925-29, Debler (1932); 19^7-75, Wilson and others (1981); and 1976-78, Roger Patterson, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, written commun., 1983.

Figure 4: Irrigated acres in the Mesilla Valley for 1880-1980 (Frenzel and Kaehler, 1990). 32

Table 1 (Elephant Butte Irrigation District, Crop Production and Water Utilization Data for 1986 through 1990, 1992).

2.3 CLIMATE

The climate of the Mesilla Basin ranges from arid (low lying Mesilla Valley) to semi-arid (the higher elevations surrounding the basin). The climate is characterized by vaxiable and small amounts of precipitation, large variations in annual and diurnal temperatures, low relative humidity, and many days of sunshine.

The majority (approximately 50 percent) of the annual rainfall occurs from July through September. Weather patterns formed in the Gulf of Mexico or the Gulf of California are generally responsible for the brief, intense, thunderstorms that form during the summer "monsoon" season. Wilson et al. (1981) reported that the average annual precipitation in the vicinity of the City of Las Cruces and the New Mexico State University for the years 1851 to 1976 (1851-1890, incomplete record) was 8.39 inches. The average monthly precipitation and monthly average of mean daily temperatures, as reported by Wilson et al. (1981), at New Mexico State University for the years 1941 to 1970 are shown in Table 2.

Pan evaporation, potential evapotranspiration, soil-moisture deficiency, and precipitation at the New Mexico State University station are shown in Figure 5. The potential evapotranspiration was calculated by Wilson et al. (1981), using methods described by Blaney and Criddle. Wilson et al. (1981) Table 1: Crop production report, Elephant Butte Irrigation District, 1990.

PERCENT OF AREA IN ACRES IRRIGATION ROTATION

TOTAL IRRIGABLE AREA 81,597 NA

TOTAL AREA IN IRRIGATION 62,229 100 ROTATION

FORAGE 14,888 24

Alfalfa hay 8,819

Silage or Ensilage 5,028

Other 1,041

MISC. FIELD CROPS 22,463 36

Cotton 22,263

Other 200

VEGETABLES 8,662 14

Peppers 4,836

Onions 2,228

Lettuce 1,008

Other 590

NUTS 14,198 23

Pecans 14,195

Other 3

OTHER 2,018 3 34

Table 2: Monthly precipitation and temperatures (Wilson et al., 1981).

Jan Feb Mir Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Yr Precip. (inches) .44 .48 .33 .15 .23 .62 1.34 1.65 1.18 .68 .31 .48 7.89 Temp, (deg. F) 41.7 46.0 51.3 60.0 68.0 76.9 80.0 78.1 71.7 61.2 48.9 42.4 60.5 35

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC

Data from Gabin and Lesperance, 1977, p. 115 EXPLANATION

PAN EVAPORATION, ANNUAL AVERAGE - 93.76 INCHES PRECIPITATION, ANNUAL AVERAGE - 8.57 INCHES POTENTIAL EVAPOTRANSPIRATION, J»9.82 INCHES TOTAL (ALFALFA) SOIL-MOISTURE DEFICIENCY, IN.2

Figure 5: Monthly mean averages of precipitation, pan evaporation, computed potential evapotranspiration, and soil-moisture deficiency at New Mexico State University (Wilson et al., 1981). 36

state the following:

"Soil-moisture deficiency is the difference between precipitation and potential evapotranspiration. If precipitation exceeds potential evapotranspiration, moisture can enter the soil; if it exceeds the holding capacity of the soil, the moisture may percolate downward to recharge ground water. The latter seldom occurs in the study area, except perhaps on the flood plain and in mountain arroyos for a brief time after intense rainfall."

2.4 GEOLOGY

Rifting of the Rio Grande system began approximately 30 million years ago, however, the greatest volcanism and extensional deformation has occurred within the past 15 million years (Giacinto, 1988). High angle normal faulting associated with the Rio Grande Rift System created the horst and graben structures prevalent in south-central New Mexico. The Mesilla Bolson is exemplary of these graben structures. The East Robledo Fault and the East Potrillo Fault define the western boundary of the Mesilla Basin. Two other high angle faults located to the east of the Dona Ana Mountains and to the west of

the Organ Mountains define another graben - the Jornada del Muerto Basin (Giacinto, 1988). Figure 6 depicts the major faults within the area.

According to Frenzel and Kaehler (1990), five distinct geologic units ranging in age from the Precambrian to the Quaternary occur in the Mesilla Basin. These dominant stratigraphic units include the following (listed from oldest to youngest): Precambrian and lower Tertiary igneous and metamorphic Las> O V -4 ™»S\VY >« A A. /. vr*

NEW MBCICO TEXAS

NEW MEXICO

EXPLANATION

Mesilla Basin

Basin boundary Fault-hatchures on downthrown sideidashed 10 20mi where inferred or buried I I Cross section 10 20km

Figure 6: Major faults within the Mesilla Basin (Hawley and Lozinsky, 1992). 38

rock mostly present as the core of the Dona Ana Mountains, southern Organ Mountains and Picacho Peak; upper Tertiary and Quaternary sedimentary deposits of the Santa Fe Group; Quaternary extrusive igneous deposits which make up a portion of the rocks geomorphologically expressed as basalt flows and

cones; Quaternary alluvial, aeolian, and lacustrine deposits generally forming a thin veneer on the Santa Fe Group and geomorphically expressed as a piedmont terrace (known as West Mesa) west of the Rio Grande; and finally, late Pleistocene to Holocene alluvium occurring as flood-plain deposits and basin fill within the Mesilla Valley.

The Santa Fe Group is composed of several distinct geologic subunits exhibiting various lithologies due to differing depositional environments. The upper portion of the Santa Fe Group is composed of the Fort Hancock Formation and the Camp Rice Formation. The lower portion of the Santa Fe Group is composed of an unnamed transitional unit, the Hayner Ranch Formation, and the Rincon Valley Formation. The Santa Fe Group ranges in thickness from 2,500 feet near the Robledo Mountain fault, to 1,100 feet near the Mexico-New Mexico Border, to zero feet at the very fringes of the basin (Frenzel and Kaehler, 1990; Frenzel, 1992). A generalized stratigraphic column for the Santa Fe Group is shown in Figure 7., The lithology of the flood-plain alluvium grades upward from sandy and gravelly at its base to clayey at the top. Throughout the valley, this unit rarely exceeds 80 feet (Maddock and Wright Water Engineers Inc.,

1987). Figure 8 shows two cross sections of the Mesilla Basin (cross section strikes are shown on Figure 6). RADIO METRIC UNIT TIME SCALE VALLEY BASALTS CAMP RICE FORMATION %JrXT—

SELDEN BASALT (Seager and others, 1971)

HAYNER

RANCH

FORMATION (Seager and others, 1971)

20-

TRANSITIONAL UNIT

UPPER PART OF THURMAN FORMATION (Kelley and Silver, 1952) 25 L. UVAS BASALTIC ANDESITE

30 RHYOLITE TUFF

35-

PALM PARK FORMATION (Kelley and Silver, 1952) 40 Modified from Hawtey, 1978, p. 233

Figure 7: Stratigrapliic column of the Santa Fe Group, Mesilla Basin, New Mexico and Texas (Frenzel and Kaehler, 1990). NORTH BASIN -MESILLA BASIN —

- 10.000 h JORNAOA DEL MUtHTO

SOUTH BASIN W MESILLA BASIN

10.000 - 10.000

"—1 sSA \

2.5 WELL-NUMBERING SYSTEM

New Mexico and Texas have two different well-numbering systems. The

wells located on the New Mexico side of the Mesilla Basin have a well-numbering system based on the Bureau of Land Management's township-range subdivision of public lands. The New Mexico Meridian running north to south, and the New Mexico Baseline running west to east, divide the State into four quadrants. Townships above and below the New Mexico Baseline are designated North and South, respectively; Ranges to left and right of the New Mexico Meridian are designated West and East, respectively. Each 36 square mile Township and Range is subdivided into 36 sections, each measuring 1 square mile. Each section is further subdivided into quarter sections (160 acre tracts) numbered 1, 2, 3, 4 for the northwest, northeast, southwest, and southeast quarter section, respectively. Each quarter section is furthered subdivided into 40 acre tracts and 10 acre tracts which are also designated by the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4 for the northwest, northeast, southwest, and southeast. Figure 9 shows the location of New Mexico well 23S.1E.24.341 (a well in Township 23 South, Range 1 East, Section 24).

The wells located on the Texas side of the Mesilla Basin have a well- numbering system utilized by the Texas Department of Water Resources. This system is based on latitude and longitude. Texas is divided into 89 one-degree quadrangles. Each one-degree quadrangle is further divided into 64 seven and a half minute quadrangles. The seven and a half minute quadrangles are further divided into 9 two and a half minute quadrangles. 42

Well 23 S. I E.24.341

Figure 9: New Mexico well-numbering system (Wilson et al., 1981). 43

The first two letters of the well number designate the county the well is in, while the last two numbers represent which well was inventoried first within the two and a half minute quadrangle. Figure 10 shows the location of Texas well JR-49-04-501. too* *7» 01 02 09 04 »«• 1 07 06 06 09 LOCATION OF WELL JR-49-04-501 09 10 H 11 13 14 5" 49 l-d*gr** quodrongl* 29 24 43 XT it iff- [S7 T* 04 7'4-mlnuU quodrongl*

27 26 29 50 31 i2 SS" SS 5 2)i-mlnuU quodrongl*

47 ;; 01 W*ll number'Within 2).-mimjt» 44' 46 46 44 45 H" 4T 40 59 56 57 quodrongl** * V SI U r *r 69 96 st 66 69 60 JR Symbol for El Po*o County so» L 73 70 69 se 67 66 160 " t r "\ 76" Hr rr rr W b

7l/j-minute quodrongles 2S*-minut* quodrongl**

Figure 10: Texas well-numbering system (Wilson et al., 1981). 45

2.6 CONVERSION FACTORS

The conversion factors used in this report are taken from Chapter 11, Sections A through L, of the document entitled The Water Encyclopedia (Van der Leeden, 1990). A few of the conversion factors for area, volume, and flow rate are listed in Table 3.

Table 3: Conversion factors.

1 acre = 43,560 ft2 = 4046.9 m2 = .4047 ha

1 mile2 = 640 acres = 2.59 x 106 m2

1 acre-foot = 3.259 x 105 gal. = 43,560 ft3 = 1234 m3

1 cubic foot per second =449 gpm = .646 mgd =1.98 ac-ft/day =.0283 m3/sec 46

CHAPTER 3 SURFACE-WATER AND GROUND-WATER SYSTEMS

3.1 SURFACE-WATER SYSTEM

Prior to 1915 the Rio Grande was mainly a "flood-water stream" whose discharge continuously fluctuated. According to Lee (1907), tributaries within the region seldom contributed permanent flow to the Rio Grande and the river generally acquired the majority of its permanent flow from the mountains to the north and east. Flood events occurred due to annual snow melt in the mountains and local "monsoon" events. These occurrences had the effect of interspersing sudden large discharge events between months of no discharge. Slichter (1905) states that during the year 1904, the river was dry for several months prior to a disastrous flood on October 5 which caused the flood stage of the river at Las Cruces to exceed any flood stage observed in the past ten years. Lee (1907) further comments that for the years 1897 to 1905, the flow at El Paso ranged from 50,768 acre-ft to 2,011,794 acre-ft: a ratio of 1:40. Annual and monthly flows for the Rio Grande at El Paso recorded by the U.S. Geological Survey for the years 1897 to 1905 are shown in Table 4.

Elephant Butte Dam was built to overcome the increasing depletions to the Rio Grande caused by the settlements and irrigation developments in southern Colorado during the first decade of 1900 and to maintain some control over the violent fluctuations of the river. The dam was completed in 1916 Table 4: Monthly discharge of the Rio Grande at El Paso, Texas, 1897 to 1905 (acre-ft)(Lee, 1907).

Month. 1887. 1808, 1899. 1900. 1901. 1902. 1803. 1904. 1906.

January 18,754 30,129 12,012 8,110 278 8,291 615 972 35,020 February 10,774 33,655 11,330 5,680 4,502 5,772 1,289 387 43,309 March 4,427 20,044 7,071 460 3,669 635 22,602 0 188,489 103,537 07,944 8,807 300 0 7,901 49,468 0 107,911 511,088 140,192 10,33d 44,810 158,102 526 203,623 0 545,950 362,077 111,570 0 93,100 77,038 307 586,909 0 851,147 81,770 196,269 19,553 70 12,576 20 158,202 0 58,800 August 8,116 31,236 430 0 60,655 14,499 4,334 7,398 19,785 September 41,650 2,262 0 16,483 21,005 9,313 1,031 10,959 3,322 October 108,096 160 123 0 5,336 1,428 2,033 366,486 .4,225 November 67,359 119 119 0 12,813 298 298 48,397 25,458 December 41,812 5,718 2,828 738 7,993 1,775 2,440 38,182 37,478 Year 1,360,360 669,298 73,503 169,751 363,967 50,768 1,032,844 472,781 2,011,794

Total (or ntae yeara, 6,205,060; average (or nine years, 889,452. 48

(although the first storage occurred in 1915), and is located approximately 75 miles upstream from the Leasburg Diversion Dam at the northern-most point of the Mesilla Valley. Caballo Dam (located approximately 45 miles upstream from Leasburg Dam) was completed in 1938.

The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation compiled data on inflows and outflows to Elephant Butte Reservoir and Caballo Dam. The period of record for these inflows and outflows extended from 1915 to present for Elephant Butte Dam, and from 1938 to present for Caballo Dam. Table 5 shows the annual ranked historic inflows to Elephant Butte Reservoir for the years 1915-1989 (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Rio Grande Project NM-TX, Annual Operating Plan, 1990). A maximum Elephant Butte Reservoir inflow of 2,831,000 acre-ft occurred in 1941, while the minimum inflow of 114,100 acre-ft occurred in 1951. The 74-year average inflow is 872,588 acre-ft with a standard deviation of 537,969 acre-ft. This high standard deviation reflects the incredibly variable nature of annual precipitation events and runoff within the region. Figure 11 shows inflow to Elephant Butte Reservoir for the years 1915-1989. Outflows from Elephant Butte Dam averaged 723,147 acre-ft for the same years, with a standard deviation of 265,537 acre-ft. The lower standard deviation reflects the controlled releases of water due to irrigation scheduling downstream from Elephant Butte Dam. The drought years of 1954-1957, 1964, 1972, and 1977/1978 are clearly visible on Figure 11 (outflow of Elephant Butte Dam).

Inflows and outflows to Caballo Dam are shown on Figure 12. The average inflow to Caballo Dam for the years 1938 to 1989 is 667,792 while the Table 5: Elephant Butte Reservoir, ranked inflows, 1915-1989 (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 1990).

RANK YEAR INFLOW RANK YEAR INFLOW

1 1941 2,831,000 39 1945 814,400 2 1920 1,943,000 40 1962 745,900 3 1942 1,940,000 41 1930 731,000 4 1986 /5 1,810,600 42 1933 716,100 5 1916 1,649,000 43 1968 646,700 6 1919 1,579,000 44 1970 616,500 7 1937 /I 1,558,000 45 1989 597,000 8 1979 1,555,000 46 1928 591,000 9 1987 /6 1,513,300 47 1966 568,800 10 1985 /4 1,502,000 48 1960 551,600 11 1921 1,488,000 49 1961 544,500 12 1929 1,460,000 50 1939 524,400 13 1924 1,410,000 . 51 1931 490,000 14 1932 1,400,000 52 1972 459,900 15 1915 1,373,000 53 1976 458,300 16 1927 1,350,000 54 1947 433,700 17 1973 1,303,000 55 1925 419,000 18 1958 1,292,000 56 1943 418,200 19 1957 1,240,000 57 1978 417> 700 20 1923 1,224,000 58 1918 411,200 21 1980 >1,218,000 59 1967 402,800 22 1983 1,186,000 60 ' 1971 397,900 23 1984 1,127,000 61 1940 369,000 24 1938 1,054,000 62 1974 353,500 25 1949 1,054,000 63 1950 307,000 26 1917 1,050,000 64 1946 289,300 27 1926 1,050,000 65 1963 267,000 28 1965 1,036,000 66 1955 264,200 29 1935 1,028,000 67 1981 262,600 30 1944 1,024,000 68 1953 260,500 31 1952 1,003,000 69 1959 /3 247,500 32 1975 995,900 70 1934 244,400 33 1969 967,500 71 1977 224,400 34 1922 938,400 72 1954 215,600 35 1948 933,500 73 1964 169,000 36 1982 921,000 74 1956 136,300 37 1988 /2 907,000 75 1951 114,100 38 1936 866,900

NOTES: /I Probable Maximum (upper 10%) /2 Median /3 Probable Minimum (lower 10%) /4 278,700 AF of floodwater were stored in reservoirs upstream of Elephant Butte as of December 31, 1985 /5 160,000 AF of floodwater were stored in reservoirs upstream of Elephant Butte as of December 31, 1986 /6 202,000 AF of floodwater were stored in reservoirs upstream of Elephant Butte as of December 31, 1987 Elephant Butte Reservoir Operations 50 Inflow (1915-1989)

2.5'

c .2 £

0.5

111111111 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1965 YEARS

Elephant Butte Reservoir Operations Outflow (1915-1989)

2.5'

(A C .2 £

0.5'

1111 k 11 • i • 1111•11111111111111111 ii M 111111 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1965 YEARS

Figure 11: Elephant Butte Reservoir operations, inflows and outflows for 1915-1989. 51 Caballo Reservoir Operations Inflow (1938-1989) 2 , 1.8 1.6 1.4 5? (0 1.2 5 JO 1 s Li.z 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2

00- i i i i i i i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1938 1948 1958 1966 1978 1988 YEARS

Caballo Reservoir Operations Outflow (1938-19B9) I

II ' 5 0.8' o "J 0.6'

0.4-

0.2'

1958 1968 1978 1988 YEARS

Figure 12: Caballo Reservoir operations, inflows and outflows for 1938-1989. 52

average outflow for the same period was 655,534. Again, the drought years previously mentioned axe clearly visible.

The surface-water system within the Mesilla Valley consists of the Rio

Grande, a complex network of laterals and canals which supply water to agriculture in the Valley, and drains which remove groundwater and return it to the river downstream. The flows of the Rio Grande in the Mesilla Valley are controlled by releases of water at Caballo Reservoir. Caballo Dam releases are replaced by releases from Elephant Butte Reservoir (Figure 13). Two diversion dams, the Leasburg and the Mesilla, exist on the Rio Grande within the Mesilla Valley (Figure 14). The Leasburg Diversion Dam, located approximately 15 miles northwest of Las Cruces, was finished in 1908; while the Mesilla Diversion Dam, located 6 miles south of Las Cruces, was finished in 1916.

The Leasburg Canal is the main canal extending off the Leasburg Diversion Dam and was constructed to its present length of 13.7 miles by 1922 (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Project Data Book Excerpt, 1983?). The Leasburg Canal generally travels parallel to the Rio Grande on its eastern bank and is unlined. The main carriage facilities extending off the Mesilla Dam are the Westside and Eastside Canals. The Westside Canal parallels the Rio Grande on its west bank while the Eastside Canal parallels the Rio on its east bank. The Eastside and Westside Canals are unlined along the majority of their length. The Westside Canal reached its present length of 23.5 miles by the year 1920, and the Eastside Canal reached its present length of 13.5 miles by the year 1919. A network of unlined canals and laterals extending off the Leasburg, Eastside, 53

I07°30' J07°00' 106° 30'- — tsrr:

EftpboM Butte Resarvoir

Cobol/o Reservoir

HATCH NCON \ N 0IES0 b t m MTH > S> W& ° SIERRA RADtUfcU SPRIN

<]•-! kill I • ® CRUCE8 — NEW ^MEXICO*' * > j&£ n A\. AW,A

MESILLA <2\V

HT RILEY BASIN MAP TJ.EXAS U^R-V EAST AREA • <#/;V r 9 l^OTHlllO /hlJ/c EL PASO Base from MEXICO WiI son and DELEL NORTEPASO others, 1981 0 10 20 MILES 20 KILOMETERS

Figure 13: Map showing locations of Caballo and Elephant Butte Reservoirs (modified after Myers, and Orr, 1985). 54

SOCORRO COUNTY SIERRA COUNTY

Trvth *r CM ELEPHANT BUTTE DAM Figure 14: Map showing locations of Leasburg and Mesilla Diversion Dams (modified after the T I6S ARROYO CABALLO DAM U.S. Bureau of

PERCHA Reclamation, OIVERSIC N QAM GARFIELD Project Data Book FLUME SIERRA COUNTY Excerpt, 1983?). Cort.iid DONA ANA COUNTY Ties. HATCH SIPHON fUNCON S PHON Hoteh vRmcon tNCON VALLEY VAIN CANAL

"LEASBURG IVERSlON DAM '"•LUCERO ARROYO oikc T 215 ICiCHO

time CANAL rtCACH FLUME

WICMCHO IQUTH DAM LAS CRUCES T.2SS

MESILLA DIVERSION DAM

FAST Slot CANAL

L« M«M T.25S

WEST toe CANAL T ?65 s

NEW MEXICO sc*kCor«af» TEXAS L«UMW

MONTOYA T 205 SIPHON

f"~ I IRRIGABLE AREA AMERICAN CANAL UNITEQ STATES DIVERSION OA EL PASO MEXICO MEXICAN OtYERSiON OAMJ 55

and Westside Canals makes it possible to distribute Rio Grande water to all of

the irrigable acreage within the Valley. The Bureau of Reclamation has records of monthly and annual diversions at Leasburg Canal, Eastside Canal, and Westside Canal. Annual diversions for the years 1920 to 1990 are shown in Figures 15, 16, and 17.

Drains exist throughout the Mesilla Valley and are used to convey shallow ground water away from irrigated acreage. Principle drains in the valley include the Picacho, Del Rio, La Mesa, East, Nemexas, West, and Montoya. Drain flow eventually enters the river at various points downstream from Leasburg Dam along the Rio Grande. Drain flows in the principle drains for the years 1951 to 1986 are shown in Figure 18.

In a given year, the amount of water distributed through the canals and laterals to a farmer's land is based on the storage in Elephant Butte Reservoir and Caballo Reservoir. The Bureau of Reclamation takes into account current storage in the reservoirs, predicted inflow for the next year, and necessary carryover storage when determining the irrigation allotment for the year. An irrigation allotment (Table 6) was designated for the years 1935, 1947, and 1951 through the present (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Rio Grande Project NM-TX,

Annual Operating Plan, 1985). Typically, irrigation releases occur during the months of March through September. According to Wilson et al. (1981), approximately 88 percent of the average annual discharge at El Paso occurs during the irrigation season, while approximately 97 percent of the average annual discharge at Caballo occurs during the irrigation season. 56

Table 6: Annual water allotments, 1951-1990 (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 1990).

YEAR INITIAL INITIAL TOTAL RELEASE ALLOTMENT ALLOTMENT DATE AF/AC AF/AC

1951 06 MAR 1.00 1.75 1952 20 MAR 0.21 2.50 1953 10 MAR 1.00 1.90 1954 20 MAR 0.42 0.50 1955 20 MAR 0.21 0.42 1956 18 MAR 0.33 0.39 1957 20 MAR 0.10 1.17 1958 01 MAR 1.75 4.00 1959 02 MAR 3.00 3.50 1960 02 MAR 2.25 3.25 1961 10 MAR 1.25 2.45 1962 05 MAR 1.75 3.25 1963 05 MAR 1.85 2.00 1964 15 MAR 0.25 0.33 1965 20 MAR 0.17 1.85 1966 05 MAR 1.75 2.50 1967 27 FEB 1.25 1.50 1968 27 FEB 1.00 2.00 1969 27 FEB 1.25 3.00 1970 23 FEB 2.00 3.00 1971 26 FEB 1.50 1.75 1972 01 MAR 0.60 0.80 1973 09 MAR 1.00 3.00 1974 04 MAR 3.00 3.00 1975 24 JAN 1.00 3.00 1976 16 JAN 2.50 3.00 1977 03 MAR 1.00 1.25 1978 10 MAR 0.25 0.75 /I 1979 08 MAR 0.67 3.00 1980 17 JAN 0.67 3.00 1981 04 FEB 3.00 3.00 1982 27 JAN 3.00 3.00 1983 03 FEB 3.00 3.00 1984 09 FEB 3.00 3.00 1985 20 FEB 3.00 3.00 /2,/3 1986 01 APR 3.00 3.00 /3 1987 03 FEB . 3.00 3.00 /3 1988 20 JAN 3.00 3.00 1989 13 FEB 3.00 3.00 1990 12 FEB 3.00 3.00

AVERAG 25 FEB 1.62 2.35

NOTE: /l Beginning with year 1979, the Bureau of Reclamation set the allotment to the headings and each District set • their own allotment to lands. /2 Flood releases began on January 14. Irrigation releases to Project users began April 1. /3 Due to flood releases, no charges to allotment were nade 57

40fr

360-

300

260-

200-

160-

100-

1920 1926 1030 1036 10401940 1946 1960 1966 1900 1966 1070 1976 1980 1996 1990 YEAR

Figure 15: Leasburg Canal diversions, 1920-1990. 400-

900<

2S0-

SOO>

160*

100-

1961 1066 1970 1876 I960 1990 YEAR

Figure 16: Eastside Canal diversions, 1920-1990. Figure 17: Westside Canal diversions, 1920-1990. 60 Nwnexas Drain WMt Drain

Picaeho Drain LaMeea Drain

k/vvv" 1961 1966 1M1 IBM 1071 1976 1961 1966

Del Rio Drain E*«t Drain

Figure 18: Historic drain flow, Mesilla Valley. While the flow of the Rio Grande at Leasburg Dam reflects available water for release from Caballo Dam and return flows from canals in the Rincon Valley, "flow of the Rio Grande at El Paso reflects a combination of reservoir releases, canal waste, water returned to the river from the drain system, discharge to the river from the ephemeral tributaries and sewage discharge from Las Cruces and Anthony" (Maddock and Wright Water Engineers Inc., 1987). Discharge of the Rio Grande is measured at several locations along its route from Selden Canyon to El Paso Narrows. Flows for the Rio Grande above Leasburg Dam and at El Paso Narrows for the years 1915 through 1985 are shown in Figure 19. Rio Grande flows below the Leasburg cable section for 1916 through 1991, and Rio Grande flows at the cable section below the Mesilla Dam for the years 1985 through 1990 are listed in Appendix C (Elephant Butte Irrigation District, Rio Grande Discharge at Cable Section Below Leasburg Dam, 1992;

Elephant Butte Irrigation District, Rio Grande Discharge at Cable Section Below Mesilla, 1992). 62

2,000,000 2,600 1,800,000 2,400 cc 2,200 < 1,600,000 UJ >- 2,000 ccUi 1,400,000 Q. 1,800 1,200,000 UJ 1,600 a Leasburg GE 1,400 3 1,000,000 1,200 800,000 - C5uT 1,000 tc < 600,000 - oz V) o 400,000 El Paso Narrows

200,000 % v » v Vv' Depletion '

1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985

Figure 19: Annual dischaxge of the Rio Grande at Leasburg and El Paso Narrows (Frenzel, 1992). 63

3.2 GROUND-WATER SYSTEM

Productive aquifers in the Mesilla basin occur in both the late Pleistocene to Holocene-Rio Grande flood-plain alluvium deposits and the upper Tertiary and Quaternary unconsolidated sedimentary deposits of the Santa Fe Group. Nickerson (1989) states that the lithology of the flood-plain alluvium and the upper part of the Santa Fe Group is so similar that it is difficult to distinguish between the two. Generally, previous authors have divided the whole groundwater system of the Basin into three distinct zones based on differences in lithology, the response of borehole geophysical logs, chemical quality of water,

and the differences in the water levels under stresses. The shallow zone generally refers to the flood-plain alluvium deposits and basin-fill deposits within the Mesilla Valley and consists of a mixture of gravel and coarse sand. The intermediate zone of the Santa Fe Group deposits refers to alternate layers of fine to coarse-grained sand, silty clay, and some gravel. Lenticular deposits of silty clay occur throughout the sand deposits which have predominantly

medium to fine grain sizes. The deep zone of the Santa Fe Group aquifer consists of a more uniform fine to medium grain size sand with some silt and clay (Nickerson, 1989).

The intermediate zone has also been divided into the upper-intermediate zone and the lower-intermediate zone, or an equivalent of this, by some authors.

Frenzel (1992), reports there is new evidence that substantiates dividing the whole Mesilla Basin ground water system into the Rio Grande alluvial deposits and three hydrostratigraphic units within the Santa Fe group. This will be 64 discussed in the section entitled Santa Fe Group Aquifer.

3.2.1 Rio Grande Alluvial Aquifer System

"The Rio Grande Flood Plain Alluvium is an unconfined aquifer consisting of alternating and interfingering layers of clay, silt, sand, and gravel" (Wilson and White, 1984). The Rio Grande flood plain alluvium generally runs the width of the valley and is known to be approximately 80 feet deep. Generally, groundwater within this unit moves southeastward down the valley at a gradient of about 4 feet per mile. The majority of recharge to the flood-plain alluvium in the Mesilla Valley is through applied irrigation water and seepage from the Rio Grande and its associated canals and laterals (Peterson et al., 1984). A small amount of underflow probably recharges the alluvium at Selden Canyon (Frenzel, 1992).

The majority of discharge from the alluvial aquifer occurs through evapotranspiration of irrigated agriculture, flow to the extensive drain system, irrigated agriculture pumping, and municipal and industrial pumping. Slichter (1905) has also documented that a small amount of water exits the river alluvium as underflow at El Paso Narrows. Wilson et al. (1981) report transmissivities ranging from 10,000 to 30,000 ft^/day for a combination of the river alluvium and a portion of the top of the Santa Fe Group. Frenzel (1992) has determined that this would cause the river alluvium to have a transmissivity of between 8,250 and 28,250 ft^/day. This transmissivity translates to a hydraulic conductivity of 100 to 350 ft/day. 65

Frexizel (1992) estimates that under water table conditions the specific yield of this unit is approximately 0.2, and under fully saturated conditions, the specific storage may be about 1x10"® per foot of thickness. Nickerson (1989) estimated a hydraulic diffusivity of 175,000 ft2/day for the shallow zone (Rio Grande flood- plain alluvium) in the area of the Canutillo Well Field.

3.2.2 Santa Fe Group Aquifer System

The Santa Fe Group aquifer system is the major source of fresh ground water within the Mesilla Basin (Myers and Orr, 1985). The extent of the aquifer system within the Santa Fe Group is structurally controlled by high-angle normal faulting within the Mesilla Basin (Figure 6). Generally, the mountains associated with this faulting surround the basin and axe an effective barrier to ground-water flow, although small amounts of underflow may enter or leave the basin where topographic lows occur.

To the north, a ground-water divide exists between the Rough and Ready Hills and the Robledo Mountains. Most of the ground water beneath Faulkner Canyon, which lies between the Rough and Ready hills and the Robledo

Mountains, probably flows northward and does not enter the Mesilla Basin as underflow. A buried horst block between the Mesilla and the Jornada del Muerto Basins and underlying topographic saddle probably only allows a small amount of water to enter the Mesilla Basin from the Jornada del Muerto Basin, although more study needs to be done in this area. King et al. (1971) suggested that water sheds off the saddle and flows north and south to both basins. Another groundwater divide exists between the Franklin and Organ Mountains

under Fillmore Pass, although Frenzel (1992) suggests that a small amount of ground water probably leaves the Mesilla Basin through this pass. The southwestern boundary of the basin (i.e. the boundary with Mexico) has no real barrier to ground-water flow, and the quantity of underflow into the Mesilla

Basin in a east-northeast direction is unknown (Peterson et al., 1984).

The majority of recharge to the Santa Fe Group aquifer system occurs through mountain-front precipitation along the Franklin, Organ, Robledo, West Potrillo and East Potrillo Mountains, and the Aden-Sleeping Lady, Rough and Ready Hills complex (Peterson et al., 1984); and through vertical flow of ground water from the flood-plain alluvium in the Mesilla Valley region (Maddock and Wright Water Engineers Inc., 1987). The majority of discharge from the Santa Fe Group aquifer system occurs as municipal and industrial pumping in the

Mesilla Valley.

As mentioned earlier, the Santa Fe Group has thick sequences of clay and silt that create confined aquifer conditions in the basin fill (Peterson et al., 1984). Peterson et al. (1984) suggest that in the long term, this regional aquifer exhibits confined conditions, but in the short term, it exhibits leaky confined conditions. Other authors also tend to corroborate this.

The Santa Fe Group's hydrologic characteristics vary substantially from place to place due to the heterogeneity of its lacustrine, playan, fluvial and alluvial deposits. In their most recent work, Hawley and Lozinsky (1992) define the Santa Fe Group aquifer system as consisting of three hydrostratigraphic units which axe referred to as the upper unit, the middle unit, and the deep unit.

The upper unit is generally only saturated in the northern third of the basin, and consists of gravels with lenticular deposits of clay. This unit may be the most permeable based on larger grain sizes and less cementation. The middle hydrostratigraphic unit is less permeable than the upper unit due to a greater degree of cementation; this unit also consists of gravels and lenticular deposits of clay. The lower unit consists of a uniform fine sand and averages approximately 600 feet in thickness. In general, the basin fill deposits of the Santa Fe are deep under the Mesilla Valley and gradually thin toward the basin edges (approximately 400 feet thick at the basin edges). The maximum thickness of the Santa Fe Group basin-fill deposits is thought to be approximately 2,500 feet. The lower hydrostratigraphic group rests on a bedrock limestone conglomerate of the basin which is generally considered impermeable.

Frenzel (1992) estimated hydraulic conductivity's ranging from 2-68 ft/day, 1-100 ft/day, and 1-34 ft/day for the upper, middle, and lower' hydrostratigraphic units, respectively. The median hydraulic conductivity estimates fall at 25 ft/day for the upper unit, between 13 and 14 ft/day for the middle unit, and between 11 and 14 ft/day for the lower hydrostratigraphic unit.

Other authors (Nickerson, 1989; Myers and Orr, 1985; Alvarez and Buckner, 1980) comment on the transmissivity of specific areas based on pump tests and specific capacity tests. Nickerson (1989) reports transmisivities of 2,600 ft 9 /'day and less than or equal to 4,700 ft9z/day for the upper intermediate and deep zones of the Santa Fe Aquifer at Canutillo. Nickerson also reports 68 hydraulic conductivities of 26 ft/dy and less than or equal to 11 ft/day for the upper intermediate and deep zones, respectively. In this same report he presented a storage coefficient of less than or equal to 0.00043 for these two zones.

Myers and Orr (1985) studied aquifer properties in the West Mesa area. Pump tests performed at the northeast corner of West Mesa suggested a transmissivity of 5,900 ft^/day for a well screened at selected intervals from 710 to 1,210 feet below land surface. The authors concluded that this was probably conservative, and that transmissivities may be as great 6,800 ft /day. Specific

ty capacity calculations resulted in a transmissivity of 4,000 ft /day.

Spiegel (1972) estimated transmissivity of 10,000 ft^/day and a storage coefficient of 0.00002 for a well in the southeast corner of the northern section of West Mesa. The well was screened from 450 feet to 1,650 feet below land surface. Myers and Orr (1985) report that specific capacity calculations for this A well suggest a transmissivity of 14,000 ft /day and hydraulic conductivities (based on Spiegel's (1972) transmissivity estimates) of 12 to 16 ft/day.

Gates et al. (1984) reported a storage coefficient of 0.0007 for the medium-depth and deep aquifers under the flood plain within the Mesilla Valley based on Leggat, Lowry, and Hood's work (1962).

3.2.3 Water Use and the Aquifer's Response to Stresses

Ground-water pumping for agricultural, municipal, and industrial use occurs within the Mesilla Basin. Nonagricultural withdrawals prior to 1950 were 69 negligible. Estimates show that nonagricultural ground-water withdrawals have increased from around 6 cfs in 1950 (Frenzel and Kaehler, 1990) to upwards of 60 cfs in the late 1980's (New Mexico State Engineer's Office, 1992). Ground water pumping by agriculture, in order to supplement surface-water supplies or in lieu of surface-water supplies, constitutes a large volume of water extraction from the alluvial and Santa Fe Group aquifers within the Mesilla Valley. According to Frenzel and Kaehler (1990) in the late 1940's, there were approximately 70 irrigation wells in both the Rincon and Mesilla Valleys combined. Several hundred more wells were drilled in the Mesilla Valley during the prolonged drought in the 1950's. During 1963-1966, many more wells were drilled. By 1975 there were approximately 920 usable irrigation wells within the valley, most of which were drilled in the flood-plain alluvium. After 1975, however, a large number of deep wells were drilled in order to obtain higher quality water. Maddock and Wright Water Engineers, Inc. (1987) estimated that the average annual primary and supplemental irrigation pumpage for the period between 1971 and 1987 approximated 110,650 acre-ft/year.

Figure 20 shows the mean historic depth to ground water for 39 observation wells installed by the Bureau of Reclamation (Maddock and Wright Water Engineers Inc., 1987). These 39 wells reside in the Mesilla Valley and penetrate the alluvial aquifer. Maddock and Wright Water Engineers Inc. (1987) state that in yeaxs of normal surface water availability, the water table rises approximately 2 feet in response to irrigation recharge during the irrigation season, while the water table appears to recede 2 feet during the nonirrigation season. Other general trends commented on by Maddock and Wright Water Figure 20: Depth to water table, Mesilla Valley (Maddock and Wright Water Engineers, Inc., 1987). lo.o--

14.0"*

10. o-

111111111111111111 H -l-H-r-f h-h+.-h+H l-r+H-i-f- 1948 1900 1900 1900 1900 1970 1970 1900 1900

CALENDAR YEAR 71

Engineers Inc. (1987) included that during drought yeaxs, the water table lowered as much as 6 feet over the span of a few years. These authors also commented that inspection of a mass diagram relating the cumulative depth to the water table for the years 1951-1986 indicated a "sustained period of decline in the water table with a return to normal conditions in recent yeaxs". These same authors, however, also reported that a regression analysis of time-series data for mean annual water levels from 1946-1986 indicated no long term trend in alluvial

water levels in the Mesilla Valley.

Peterson et al. (1984) commented that piezometric head levels in the Santa Fe Group aquifer also fluctuated seasonally due to irrigation pumping, and that fluctuations in any given season can be much greater than fluctuations witnessed in the alluvial aquifer. Municipal and industrial pumping in the Las Cruces and Canutillo Well Field areas also creates cones of depression in both the phreatic aquifer and the confined aquifer; however, generally most authors appear to consider that the system was in a quasi-steady state (i.e., no long-term change in head levels) up through at least 1976. Long-term is emphasized because of the tendency for yeaxly fluctuations of irrigation recharge, percipitation recharge, and pumping stresses to simultaneously affect the subsurface water flow regime on a seasonal to yearly basis. Whether or not the aquifer system is presently in a quasi-steady state is up for debate. The basin- wide effects of ground-water withdrawals in the Las Cruces, Canutillo, and Santa Teresa areas along with irrigation pumping, will all affect the state of the aquifer. 72

3.3 GROUND-WATER/ SURFACE-WATER INTERACTION

Surf ace/ground-water interactions in the Mesilla Valley are extremely important. Previous authors (Maddock and Wright Water Engineers Inc, 1987; Wilson and White, 1984; and Peterson et al., 1984) all comment on the hydraulic connection of the Rio Grande and the flood-plain alluvium. Wilson and White (1984) show a contour map of groundwater elevations in the vicinity of the Mesilla Dam (Figure 21). This map clearly shows the river losing water to the aquifer and the drains gaining water from the aquifer. Peterson et al. (1984)

describe numerous seepage studies. These seepage studies tend to show that the Rio Grande gains water from the alluvial aquifer from Leasburg Dam to five or six miles below Leasburg Dam, and loses water to the aquifer below this. Current preliminary results of seepage tests along the Rio Grande also tend to substantiate this.

The U.S.G.S. conducted a seepage test along the Rio Grande from Radium Springs, New Mexico, to Vado, Texas, on December 17, 1991. Preliminary results of the Vado seepage investigation showed that the river is predominantly a gaining river from Radium Springs to near Picacho, New Mexico (approximately 13 miles). This investigation also suggests that the river is predominantly a losing river from Picacho, New Mexico to Vado, Texas (approximately 21 miles).

The U.S.G.S. conducted a similar seepage investigation on January 8 and 9, 1991, from Radium Springs, New Mexico to El Paso, Texas. Preliminary results of this seepage investigation indicated that the river is predominantly a I06°50 106° 45'

32°I5'

EXPLANATION

EBIO 2 ^ \ fiX. WELL OWNED BY THE ELEPHANT BUTTE ^ IRRIGATION DISTRICT ME5ILLA DIVERSION IRRIGATION WELL DAM EBID3 PUBLIC WATER-SUPPLY WELL

TEST HOLE

DOMESTIC WELL

OBSERVATION WELL(S)

X X UNUSED WELL A X TRACE OF HYDROLOGIC SECTION A-A', FIGUR

3850-0—WATER-TABLE CONTOUR--Shows approximate altitude of water table in the flood- plain alluvium, January and February 1976. Contour interval 5 feet. Datum Is sea level 2 MILES

KILOMETERS

32° 10' R. I E. ft.2 t.

Figure 21: Approximate altitude of the water table in the flood-plain alluvium in the vicinity of the Mesilla Diversion Dam, January and February 1976 (Wilson and White, 1984). CO gaining river from Radium Springs to near Picacho, and is predominantly a losing stream from Picacho, New Mexico, to El Paso, Texas.

Peterson et al. (1984) stated that reported losses from the Rio Grande vary from 0.27 to 4.8 cfs per river mile, depending on the river reach studied. Wilson et al. (1981) commented on two seepage runs made on February 12-13, 1974, and January 12-21, 1975. Wilson et al. (1981) stated that the average river loss along the reach starting at T. 23 S., R. 1. E., section 3 to the Mesilla Dam was measured at 2.5 cfs, while seepage loss averaged 1.0 cfs per river mile from the Del Rio Drain to the Montoya Drain above the narrows near El Paso. Based on the seepage tests performed by the U.S.G.S. mentioned above, the

U.S.G.S. reported preliminary seepage losses of 12.8 cfs from Radium Springs to Vado (approximately 34.5 miles) for the December 17, 1991, test, and seepage loss of 42.3 cfs from Radium Springs, New Mexico, to El Paso, Texas, (approximately 62.4 miles) for the January 8 and 9 test.

Nickerson (1989) performed an aquifer test in the Canutillo Well Field area that was analyzed to evaluate stream-aquifer interactions. This test, conducted from January 16-20, 1986, used an abrupt change in the Rio Grande stage to measure the response of ground water levels to changes in surface water. Figures 22 and 23 show the relationship between the Rio Grande and the observation wells in both map view and cross section. The Rio Grande stage and water levels in the observation wells CWF-la, CWF-2a, and CWF-3A are shown in Figure 24. Nickerson (1989) stated that "the rapid response of ground-water levels to the abrupt rise in river stage indicates significant hydraulic connection 75

EXPLANATION

o CONTROL WELL

OBSERVATION-WELL GROUP

A I—_J A9 LINE OF CANUTILLO WELL FIELD ^r—1/1 HYOROLOGIC SECTION (location shown on fig. 1)

CR-2 O m

CWF - 3 CWF- 2

CWF - I

CWF * 4

00 200 300 400 500 FEET 1 j. 0 9 0 100 150 METERS

KXPLANAT1 ON

WELL GROUP NAME cwr-J

WELL NAME—lndividual CONTROL WELL NAME well in group CVFOB \ .SI 191>156 CWF • 119 SI 17•2 00 SCREENED INTERVAL-- / SCREENED INTERVAL- In feet below land surface In feet below land surface

Figure 22: Location of control wells and observation-well groups at the aquifer-test site (Nickerson, 1989). HORIZONTAL DISTANCE FROM RIGHT STREAMBANK, IN FEET A' (NOT TO SCALE) S2I 104I - o RlVCR«STACC J rtcT 7 . STATION 5 PECT fc. fc \ ^ J.•00 -1 land surface 55 3 ^ _r ».aoa .cwr- iA CWF-4A SHALLOW ZONE SI SI•St - - *SI 45-50 SI S2-! Clayv CWF-4B-L -cwr•ic 31 IS|.|S« SI >7-200 SI IS1•I St SI I49-IS4 - SI - IS2-IS7 UPPER INTERMEDIATE ZONE

cwr-4cl. cwr.jc.. CVF-2C _CWF•IC SI 292.2*7 SI 291-29* St 2D-IH LOWER INTERMEDIATE ZONE SI 127-332 513 S ^ V V \ V clav \ \ \ \ \ V

CVF • 20S DEEP ZONE SI S10*900

CVF-ID CVF-4D1 SI 792-797' SI 7t2'7M cwr-CR2 si sas-i.oso TOP OF CONGLOMERATE

Datua ts sea level

Figure 23: Aquifer zones and aquifer-test wells at the Canutillo Well Field hydrologic section (Nickerson, 1989). a ,769

RIO L*GRANDE - • —

CWF • 1 A

3 ,765

. CWF- 2A

CWF- 3A

3 ,764

3 ,763 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2t 22 JANUARY 1986

Figure 24: Rio Grande stage and water levels in observation wells CWF-la, CWF-2a, and CWF-3a, January 10-22, 1986 (Nickerson, 1989). 78 between the river and the shallow zone (alluvium)".

Peterson et al. (1984) commented on infiltration losses from canals in the Mesilla Valley, and the relationship between the canals and the shallow ground water. Using the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation canal profiles, these authors determined that in nearly all sections of the valley, the water table is observed to lie several feet below the elevations of the canal bottoms. Peterson et al. (1984) claimed that this holds true for the nonirrigation season as well as the irrigation season, and that this is not surprising given the need for elevated canal bottoms to produce higher potentials, and the lowered shallow ground water due to numerous drains.

Conover (1954), and Wilson et al. (1981) both analyzed data to try and determine the relationship between gross canal diversions within the Mesilla Valley to canal losses and unaccounted for losses. Canal losses and unaccounted for losses include seepage loss, evaporation from the water surface, transpiration by plants along banks of the canals, and any other losses. Conover (1954) shows that reported canal losses and unaccounted for losses averaged 33.4 percent of gross diversions for the Leasburg unit of the Mesilla Valley and 39 percent of the gross diversions for the Mesilla unit of the Mesilla Valley during the period of 1930 to 1946. Conover (1954) also commented that it is probable that actual seepage losses are lower than reported. In a similar study, Wilson et al. (1981) reported average canal losses and unaccounted for losses of 42 percent of the gross headgate diversions for the period of 1947 to 1976. Wilson et al. (1981) claimed that a "greater percentage of losses occurs during periods of low Rio Grande supply". Richardson, as detailed in Peterson et al. (1984), estimated that yearly infiltration losses from the canals in the Mesilla Valley may amount to around 60 percent of the canal losses and unaccounted for losses reported by the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation.

This author performed a regression analysis on data related to canal losses/unaccounted for losses and gross diversions as reported in Wilson et al. Figure 25 shows gross diversions determined by Wilson et al. (1981) plotted against canal losses for the Mesilla Basin. Canal losses as acre-ft were computed as follows: Canal Loss [acre-ft] = (% loss reported by Wilson et al./lOO * headgate diversion reported by Wilson et al.) [acre-ft/acre] * Total Irrigable Acreage reported by Wilson et al. [acres]

The R-squared value shows that the regression line is a fairly good estimator of the data. It indicates that 87 percent of the observed variation between the two variables was accounted for by the regression equation. The correlation coefficient of 0.93 also indicates a good degree of interrelation between the variables. The regression analysis produced a weighted average canal loss of 40 percent for a given gross diversion in the Mesilla Valley.

Wilson and others (1980) extensively investigated regional recharge for Southwest Alluvial Basins. Although this study does not refer specifically to the Mesilla Basin, it does give insight into factors affecting canal seepage and typical seepage rates for differing types of canal-bed materials. Canal seepage is affected by soil characteristics, hydraulic properties of the canal, water quality, physical 80

500-

400-

E" _ 300 r squared = .87 Std Err Y Est = 14653 ac-ft

100 200 300 400 500 Gross Diversions (acre-ft) (Thousands)

Figure 25: Canal losses versus gross diversions (1947-1976). 81

condition of the canal, and depth to ground water. Wilson and others (1980) reported that Kratz investigated 46 irrigation projects in the United States and found that seepage plus evapotranspiration losses ranged from 3 to 86 percent, with an average of 40 percent. Seepage losses for unlined canals in the Southwest alluvial basins ranged from 0.25 ft^/ft^/day for impervious clay loam to 6 ft^/ft^/day for very gravelly soils.

This author could only find one mention of a seepage study done on the canals in the Mesilla Valley. This study was performed by the Bureau of

Reclamation in November 1923 and is sited in Conover (1954). The seepage run was conducted on the Leasburg Canal from Wasteway No. 1 to Elwood (approximately 11.59 miles). The average reported loss for this distance was 1.2 cfs per mile, with a range of 0.7 cfs/mile to 2.2 cfs/mile.

Maddock and Wright Water Engineers Inc. (1987) did an extensive investigation of drain flow and ground-water relationships. The annual flows of the drains varied considerably during the period 1951-1986. These authors reported that this "variation is well correlated with the available irrigation supply". During the irrigation season, the flow in the drains increases as recharge to the alluvial aquifer from irrigated agriculture increases. During the nonirrigation season, flow in the drains decreases. Maddock and Wright Water Engineers, Inc. (1987) also report that the water table typically rises

approximately 2 feet during the irrigation season, and during periods of drought when irrigation allotments are low, the water table may decline as much as 6 feet. Peterson et al. (1984) claim that Conover (1954), and Wilson and White (1984) graphically illustrate the correlation between surface-water diversions and drain flows. Water table contour maps of various locales in the Mesilla Valley show ridges in the water table below canal beds (due to seepage losses from the canal to the ground water) and troughs in the water table below drains. Flow then occurs from the ridges to the troughs, or from the canals to the drains (Figure 21). 83

CHAPTER 4 HYDROLOGIC MODEL AND SIMULATION

4.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter describes the conceptual and numerical models used to represent ground-water flow and surface/ground-water interaction in the Mesilla Basin, New Mexico. The current study implements a modification of the new Streamflow-Routing module (Prudic, 1989) which simulates surface/ground- water interaction, and incorporates information related to irrigated agriculture surface- water diversions, stream and canal channel geometry parameters, stream/aquifer interaction parameters, and pumping stresses. The present model simulation is based on previous model simulations of the Mesilla Basin prepared by the U.S.G.S. (Frenzel and Kaehler, 1990; and Frenzel, 1992), and uses this data where applicable. The original model simulation (Frenzel, 1992) extends from 1915 to 1985. For the present study, pumping data from the New Mexico State Engineer's office (1992) and various public or private entities was compiled and used to extend the simulation period to 1990. A brief discussion of the theoretical equations used to represent ground-water flow, the U.S.G.S model MODFLOW, and the Streamflow-Routing (Prudic, 1989) package follows.

4.2 THEORETICAL REPRESENTATION OF GROUND-WATER FLOW

The three dimensional flow of ground water through porous media can be described by a partial differential equation that was first used to describe heat 84 transport. This partial differential equation together with an initial head configuration for the ground-water system, and specification of flow and/or head conditions at the boundary of the aquifer system mathematically represents the physical ground-water flow system.

The partial differential equation which describes transient flow through a saturated, non-homogeneous, anisotropic porous medium of spatial domain D is as follows:

V • [K(x) • Vh(x,t )]-S,(*)——•= W(x, t) Ot and is subject to the initial conditions,

h(x,0) = HQ(x) within D, and boundary conditions

[K-Vh-h-cb(Hb-h)-Qb)\ =0 r along the boundary of the domain D, and where,

x is (x,y,z), the coordinate system in three dimensions which is assumed parallel to the principal coordinate directions of hydraulic conductivity,

[L];

t is the time, [T];

1 K is the hydraulic conductivity tensor, [LT ];

h is the elevation component of hydraulic head, [L]; 85

W is the volumetric flux per unit volume and- represents sources and/or sinks, [T-1];

— Ss is the specific storage of the aquifer material [L *]

h is the normal vector to the boundary r, [dimensionless]; Cfr is the capture coefficient which describes the capture from the boundary r, [T- *],

1) when cj equals zero, the boundary is a prescribed flux boundary, 2) when equals infinity, the boundary is a prescribed head boundary, 3) otherwise, the boundary is a head-dependent boundary;

3^ is a prescribed head, [L]; Qfr is a prescribed flow per unit surface area of the boundary r, [LT~ *].

The analytic solution to the flow equation, which also satisfies the initial and boundary conditions, will be head as a function of position and time. This time-varying head distribution is useful to characterize the flow system because it measures both the "energy of flow and the volume of water in storage, and thus can be used to calculate directions and rates of movement" (McDonald and Harbaugh, 1988). Unfortunately, the analytical solution to a system of groundwater flow equations is rarely possible except for very simplified flow 86

systems; because of this, an approximate solution to the flow equation is obtained by using numerical techniques.

4.3 MODFLOW

MODFLOW, the Modular Three-Dimensional Finite-Difference Ground- Water Flow Model developed by McDonald and Harbaugh (1988), uses the finite- difference numerical method technique to approximate a solution to the ground water flow equation, thus simulating flow within the aquifer. In this method, the continuous system described by the partial differential flow equation is "replaced by a finite set of discrete points in space and time, and the partial derivatives are replaced by terms calculated from the differences in head values at these points" (McDonald and Harbaugh, 1988). The finite-difference approach to solving the flow equation yields a set of linear algebraic equations which must be solved simultaneously to produce values of head at specific points (node points, which are at the center of each cell composing the finite-difference grid) and times.

MODFLOW consists of a main program and a large number of subroutines called modules. All modules which simulate a specific feature of the hydrologic system are grouped together into packages. The packages in Modflow have the capability of simulating the following different ground-water flow processes: areally distributed recharge, river/aquifer interactions, areally distributed head dependent evapotranspiration, drains, and pumping stresses. The user determines which packages axe applicable to the modeling project. 87

4.3.1 The Streamflow-Routing Package

The main objective of the current modeling effort is to more accurately represent flow in and seepage to/from the Mesilla Valley Rio Grande and its associated canals and drains. The U.S.G.S. Streamflow-Routing package developed by David E. Prudic (1989) was modified slightly and incorporated into Modflow in order to meet this objective. The Stream-Routing package tracks flow in streams that interact with the ground-water system. The package limits seepage from the streams to the amount of water actually available in the river, allows for diversions from streams or tributaries joining streams, calculates the stage of the river based on its discharge, and calculates seepage based on the calculated stage of the.river and the head in the aquifer. The package was modified slightly in order to simulate removal of farm water from each cell designated as a canal cell, and in order to allow specification of diversions as either a percentage of the incoming flow or as an absolute flow value.

The stream system is divided into smaller units designated as segments and reaches. A segment is defined as that portion of the stream which can have tributaries at its beginning and diversions at its end. Segments are composed of groups of reaches connected in downstream order. A reach corresponds to an individual finite-difference grid cell that represents a river (or canal, or drain) node.

The seepage to or from each reach of the stream is calculated by Darcy's Law as follows:

= CSTRj * (Bgl - Ha{) 88

where, Qj = seepage to or from the aquifer through the streambed in reach /, [L'/T];

Hsi = head in the stream in reach /, (L);

Ha{ = head in the aquifer underlying reach /, (L); CSTRj = conductance of the streambed in reach I (L2/T), where conductance is equal to the product of the vertical hydraulic conductivity of the streambed in reach /, the length of the stream bed in reach /, and the width of the stream bed in reach /, all divided by the thickness of the streambed in reach /.

Figure 26 depicts the parameters used in the calculation of leakage to or from an aquifer through a streambed in reach /. Figure 27 shows the relation between seepage through the streambed and the head in the aquifer model cell underlying the stream reach.

The Stream-Routing package calculates stage-discharge relationships

based on the Manning's equation under the assumptions of incompressible steady flow at constant depth and a rectangular stream channel. The Manning's equation is as follows:

Q = £ (AR^S1/2), where; Q = stream discharge, [L^/T];

n = Manning's roughness coefficient [dimensionless]; 89

Stream stage (head) •

Hydraulic conductiv-^ ~ Thickness of ity of streambed CK3 streambed Width of stream

Aquifer

Not to scale

Conductance of streambed (CSTR) KLW CSTR : M

Figure 26: Diagram showing part of an aquifer with a stream over it depicting how conductance of the streambed is calculated for a reach (Prudic, 1989). 90

QSTR

Positive QSTR indicates flow into aquifer

Slope =-CSTR

Negative QSTR indicates flow into stream

SBOT HSTR

Figure 27: Leakage, QSTR, through a streambed into an aquifer as a function of head, h, in a model cell where SBOT is the streambed bottom, and HSTR is the stream stage. Slope is dependent on streambed conductance, CSTR (Prudic, 1989). 91

A = cross-sectional area of the stream, [L^]; R = hydraulic radius, [L]; S = slope of the streambed, [L/L]; C— a constant- 1.486 for cfs or 1.0 for cubic meters per second, [L1/3/T].

If one assumes a stream channel with greater width than depth, the above equation can be solved for stream depth in a given reach.

4.4 FINITE-DIFFERENCE GRID

The original discritization of the finite-difference grid in the horizontal planar and vertical directions by the U.S.G.S (Frenzel, 1992) was not altered for this study. For a more complete description of the model grid and layer structure, the reader is referred to this U.S.G.S document. Figure 28 shows the finite-difference grid superimposed on a map view of the Mesilla Basin. The grid is oriented approximately parallel to the flow direction of the Rio Grande and extends approximately 54 miles in the northwest-southeast direction and 33 miles in the southwest-northeast direction. The grid has a higher degree of resolution in the areas where head gradients are expected to be higher due to greater stresses. Regions of high resolution occur at the location of the Canutillo Well Field, Las Cruces, and along the river and its flood plain (Mesilla Valley). Overall, grid spacing in the horizontal and vertical direction ranges from 0.5 miles to 2 miles. Cells in the Canutillo and Las Cruces areas are predominantly 0.5 miles by 0.5 miles, cells along the river but outside Las Cruces and Canutillo 92

** •.

,20

I 0

iiijssiiifii'iiiiiuiMHn IB11BMS5BI itnriHHW 1 0 15 20 30 35 ROW 5 MILKS 0 5 KILOMETERS

Figure 28: Model grid and Mesilla Basin boundary (Frenzel and Kaehler, 1990). 93

Well Field are predominantly 0.5 miles by 1 mile, while cells in the La Mesa area axe predominantly 1 mile by 2 miles. The grid varies in its horizontal extent for each of the 4 layers.

Vertically, the grid is subdivided into 4 layers that are based on well production zones and the "hydrostratigraphic" layers discussed in Hawley and Lozinsky's updated interpretation of the hydrogeology of the Mesilla Basin (Hawley and Lozinsky, 1992). The reader may refer back to the section entitled the Santa Fe Group Aquifer System for a discussion of Hawley and Lozinsky's work. Layer 1 generally represents the river alluvium and the shallow and upper parts of the Santa Fe Group. Layers 2, 3, and 4 represent the different hydrostratigraphic units of the Santa Fe Group only.

The bottom of the first layer is 200 feet below the 1975 water-table level (Figure 29). This layer represents the flood-plain alluvium, the upper unit of the Santa Fe Group from Selden Canyon to south of Las Cruces where the upper unit pinches out, and the shallow part of the middle unit of the Santa Fe Group from south of Las Cruces to El Paso Narrows. Layer 2 is approximately 400 feet thick and generally represents the shallow part of the middle unit of the Santa

Fe Group at the north end of the Valley, and the upper unit of the Santa Fe Group toward the south end of the Valley. Layer 3 is approximately 600 feet thick and generally represents the deep part of the middle unit of the Santa Fe Group and a portion of the Santa Fe lower unit. Layer 4's thickness varies from 200 to 1,030 feet and represents the lower unit of the Santa Fe Group. The thickness of layers 1, 2, and 3 diminishes toward the edge of the basin in order to 94

54.3

48.9

43.4

38.0

32.6

3630 J 27.2

3610 21.7

3590 16.3

10.9

5.4

0.0 0.0 3.3 MILES

SCALE 1 inch = 9.05 MILES I I I

Figure 29: Contour map of the elevation, in feet above sea level, of the bottom of Layer 1, Mesilla Basin, New Mexico. 95 more closely correlate with the shape of the basin.

4.5 AQUIFER CHARACTERISTICS

A complete description of a ground-water flow system must include designation of aquifer parameters. These parameters include some or all of the following (dependent on the type of aquifer, i.e., unconfined, confined, confined but may become slightly dewatered, or confined and may become unconfined) : hydraulic conductivity and specific yield of unconfined aquifers, transmissivity for confined and semi-confined aquifers, aquifer bottom elevations, or aquifer top elevations, and the vertical seepage factor for seepage between layered aquifers. The aquifer characteristics defined by Frenzel (1992), based on Hawley and Lozinsky's (1992) work, were used in this study and axe described below.

4.5.1 Layer 1

Layer 1, which represents the flood plain alluvium of the Mesilla Valley, and the uppermost layers of the Santa Fe Group geologic unit, is designated as an unconfined aquifer system. Hydraulic conductivity for Layer 1 ranges from less than 20 ft/day to less than 150 ft/day. Hydraulic conductivity of the Mesilla Valley generally ranges from 30 ft/day to less than 120 ft/day, with higher hydraulic conductivities of 120-150 ft/day at a region west of Las Cruces, and east of both Chamberino and La Mesa. The West Mesa area is assigned hydraulic conductivities ranging from 20-30 ft/day. 96

Figure 30 shows the distribution of hydraulic conductivities assigned to Layer 1. The specific yield of Layer 1 is constant and set at 0.2.

4.5.2 Layer 2

Layer 2, which represents the upper unit and shallow part of the middle unit of the Santa Fe Group geologic unit is designated as a confined aquifer which can become dewatered. The transmissivity assigned to model Layer 2 is shown in Figure 31. It ranges from less than 5,200 ft^/day to less than 12,000

A ftr/day. The majority of Layer 2 (all of the West Mesa area), is assigned a transmissivity of 8,000 ft /day, while a smaller region north of Chamberino and west of Las Cruces is assigned transmissivities ranging from 8,000-12,000 ft^/day. The region around Las Cruces and Dona Ana is assigned transmissivity values of less than 5,200 ft /day. The majority of Layer 2 has a storage coefficient of 0.0004.

4.5.3 Layer 3

Layer 3 is designated as a confined aquifer. Its transmissivity values range from less than 6,000 ft^/day to less than 8,400 ft^/day (Figure 32). A portion of the West Mesa area has transmissivities between 7,200 and 8,400

ey ft /day. Transmissivity in the Las Cruces region is assigned a value of zero. The storage coefficient for this layer is mostly 0.0006. 97

Picac T0R3UGAS MTN %

SHOP CAP MOUNTAIN

DONA ANA COUNTY :W MEXICO EL PAS OUUT",

NEW MEXICO it Pai"TK-- CHIHUAHUA i «t V ERS£ DEI (T.*§. American McX-UO PiSTC RE\ % D.vn

f.'A= fist A

0 5 1P IB MILES li'n'il 1 1 -| r1 1 5 10 IS KILOMETERS EXPLANATION

HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY. IN FEET PEA DAY GREATER THAN 20 AND LESS THAN 30

• LESS THAN 20 EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN 30 AND LESS THAN 120

EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN 120 AND LESS THAN 150 Figure 30: Hydraulic conductivity assigned to Layer 1 (Frenzel, 1992). 107°00' 106*30'

MODEL BOUNDARY-^

•j Ana

\ -A Cfucos XTORTOGAS MTN %

I0PCAP

illmore Pass

«*> -fi ~y \\ DOHA ANA ' ^ COUNTY W HEXICC f~1 \EL PASO 1 / % BOUNTY

NEW MEXICO E! Fdso CHIHUAHUA

SIERRA DE '•$. American NLA WEX T.- CRISTO REY U Dam

MAP AREA .

0 6 JB MILES 1»''M ' 1 i X 10 15 KILOMETERS EXPLANATION

TRANSMISSIVITY. IN FEET SQUARED PER DAY: 8.000

• LESS THAN $300 GREATER THAN 6.000 AND LESS THAN \0,000 EQUAL TO OP GREATER THAN S 200 AND LESS THAN 7.900 EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN 10.000 ANO LESS THAN 12,000 Figure 31: Transmissivity assigned to Layer 2 (Frenzel, 1992). 107*00' 106*30' ^ Racfium^ ^Sfc den MODEL BOUNDA^

Dona

nTOGAS vTN

B'S-.OP CAP MOUUTAI

riltmcw fat:

DONA AN COUNTY NEW F.IC'XI EL PA3C O'JNTV TEXAS

NEW MEXICO CHIHUAHUA

0 5 15 MILES I.W.I'1 5 10 15 KILOMETERS EXPLANATION

TRANSMISSIVITY, M FEET SOUARED PER OAY.

LESS THAN 6.000 GREATER THAN SJDOO ANO LESS THAN 7.200 C.000 H EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN 7500 ANO LESS THAN 1.400

Figure 32: Transmissivity assigned to Layer 3 (Frenzel, 1992). 100

4.5.4 Layer 4

Layer 4 is designated as a confined aquifer. Transmissivity of this layer is assigned to a greatly reduced region horizontally as compared to the other three layers in order to represent the shape of the basin at depth. Transmissivity values range from less than 6,000 to less than 14,000 ft^/day and axe shown in Figure 33. Storage coefficients vary greatly for this layer due to the great variation in thickness of the layer. A maximum storage coefficient of 0.00103 represents the thickest part of the aquifer. 101

107*00' 106*30'

Q^idium Spripgs SeSen Cany MODEL BOUNDARY Leasburg Dam GOAT

Dons Ana

Picac as Citices % < TOFWVGAS MTN

esilla ^cirk

L5HOPCAP MOUrJT A!

CIUMC illmore Pass

serine MESILU DONA ANA BOUNDA 50UNTY '.r.ony {as defined W MEXICC ior this study) rr % w ' vinton' °C-2 OFEXAS S? I I UOUf, ICanutillo RILE

struaffcws eeoow Vist NEW MEXICO tl rasci CHIHUAHUA /

sftRRA DE *2. American NEW MtY.CZ CRISTOREY % Dam

MAP AREA i

0 E 1.0 MILES Ii'IM '1 I 10 15 KILOMETERS

EXPLANATION

TRANSUiSSrVITY. MFEET SQUARED PER DAY:

LESS THAN 6.000 EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN 12.000 AND LESS THAN 14,000 EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN 6.000 AND LESS THAN 12.000

Figure 33: Transmissivity assigned to Layer 4 (Frenzel, 1992). 4.6 BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

The boundary conditions specified in the model consist of the following: 1) No-flow boundary delineating the extent of the Mesilla Basin. This boundary coincides with the structural boundaries of the basin. 2) Specified-head nodes representing underflow at Selden Canyon, El Paso Narrows, and Fillmore Pass (steady state and transient model runs).

3) Specified flux nodes along the boundary of the Basin and

representing mountain front and slope front recharge (steady state and transient model runs). 4) Head dependent flux boundajy representing evapotranspiration from nonirrigated lands (steady state and transient model runs). 5) Specified flux nodes representing a combination of effective precipitation on agricultural and nonagricultural lands and evapotranspiration from irrigated lands (transient model run). 6) Specified flux nodes representing recharge to the aquifer from the irrigated acreage in the valley (transient model run) . 7) Head dependent flux representing recharge to or discharge from the aquifer through drains, canals, and the Rio Grande (Rio Grande in the steady state; the Rio Grande, canals, and drains in the transient state).

8) Specified flux nodes to represent municipal and industrial pumping in the Basin (transient model run) . The first four boundary conditions were not altered from their original designations in the U.S.G.S. model (Frenzel, 1992). The last four boundary 103 conditions were either modified from the original model or were added to the original model. The first four boundary conditions will be discussed in the following few paragraphs, while the modified or added boundary conditions will be discussed in greater detail in the sections entitled Steady State and Transient.

The no-flow boundary delineating the extent of the basin for Layer 1 is shown in Figure 28. The locations of the specified-head nodes used to simulate underflow into the Mesilla Basin at Selden Canyon and underflow out of the Mesilla Basin at Fillmore Pass and El Paso Narrows axe shown in Figure 34. The locations of mountain front recharge nodes for the steady state and transient simulations are also shown in Figure 34. Mountain front recharge was designated from pre-1915-1985 in the original U.S.G.S model (Frenzel, 1992), however, because the current model simulates 1915-1990 and because mountain front recharge was not altered, mountain front recharge for 1985 was used for the years 1986 to 1990.

Head dependent flux nodes simulating evapotranspiration from nonagricultural lands were designated in both the steady state and transient model runs. The locations of evapotranspiration nodes for the transient run axe shown in Figure 35. The evapotranspiration surface closely correlates to land surface, the extinction depth (evapotranspiration from the water table ceases below this depth) was set at 12 feet below land surface, and the maximum evapotranspiration was set at 5.5 acre-ft per nonirrigated acre.

"Evapotranspiration from nonirrigated land was simulated for the entire valley, and to avoid overestimating it, the maximum rate of 5.5 feet was multiplied by a • Mountain Front Recharge X Constant Head

Figure 34: Mountain-front recharge and specified-head nodes designated in the steady state and transient models. 107*00' 100*30'

Q-^dium Sprigs Sel&en Canyi"* MODEL BOUNDARY4 Leasburg "*/•,** Leasburg JPe. Dam kN V * M GOAT V'j.f °4> 4- \ ^V? X Picachol *Las Cruces > ifi' X TO™GAS MTN

Mesilla Dan BISHOPCAP MOUNTAIN

«P' Eillmore Pass *0' WEST ISerino . ESILLA BASIN,. DOfiA ANA BOUNDARY t-A COUNTY (as deiined ;w MEXICO for this study) EL PASO ?• "BOUNTY I / ® ^XAS o•£* La UnionI IVinton *5' I I T. MOUNT MESA ICanutillo %

El Paso Narrower Moadow VittJ NEW MEXICO ' UNITED STATES CHIHUAHUA ~ "MEXICO "Anapra

V> •^SIERRA DE •£. American NEWWEXCC CRISTOREY ^ Dam % l.'it 4E=4 t. \

S 10 J5 MILES h^M- 111 •' S 10 15 KILOMETERS

Figure 35: Approximate area of applied irrigation water, evapotranspiration from irrigated/nonirrigated lands, and effective precipitation (modified after Frenzel, 1992). 106

factor equal to the nonirrigated acreage divided by the total valley acreage"

(Frenzel, 1992) for 1915-1985. The maximum evapotranspiration rate from nonirrigated lands for 1985 was used as the maximum evapotranspiration rate for the years 1986-1990.

4.7 INITIAL CONDITIONS AND STRESS PERIODS

Steady state and transient model simulations were performed in order to

represent annual average conditions in the Mesilla Basin prior to development (pre-1915) and after development (post-1915). The steady state simulation represents what was considered average conditions in the Mesilla Basin prior to 1915 and is based on Lee's work of 1907. The transient simulation extends from 1915-1990 and is an update of U.S.G.S. modeling effort of 1990 and 1992 (Frenzel and Kaehler, 1990; Frenzel, 1992). Stress periods, or pumping periods, for the

transient model are as follows: 1915-1919, 1920-1926, 1927-1940, 1941-1947, 1948- 1950, 1951-1953, 1954-1957, 1958-1960, 1961, 1962-1963, 1964, 1965-1966, 1967- 1968, 1969-1971, 1972, 1973-1975, 1976, 1977-1978, 1979-1980, 1981-1982, 1983- 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990.

4.8 STEADY STATE

Prior to the construction of Elephant Butte Dam in 1915-1916, hydrologic stresses in the Mesilla Basin were negligible ( i.e., the canal system consisted of small community ditches, drains had not been constructed, and pumping was minuscule) and the aquifer system was in steady state (no average change in 107

aquifer storage). The steady state simulation represents average annual conditions prior to the construction of Elephant Butte Dam. As already discussed, the original U.S.G.S model (Frenzel, 1992) included mountain front recharge, specified-head cells, and evaporation from the Mesilla Valley. Flow in the Rio Grande was also simulated in the original model using the U.S.G.S. RIV2 river package.

The RIV2 river package allows for flow routing and limits the maximum amount of water that can recharge the aquifer to an amount specified by the

user, "and within this limit, the maximum leakage to the aquifer is the discharge available in the river" (Miller, 1988). The RIV2 (Miller, 1988) package does not calculate stage dischaxge relationships, however, and therefore uses constant values for the stage in the river. The current steady state simulation incorporates the new Streamflow-Routing package by Prudic (1989) which simulates stage-discharge relationships for the Rio Grande.

4.8.1 Stream Simulation

Figure 36 shows the finite-difference grid on a 1907 base map of the Mesilla Valley. It should be noted that the base map of Lee (1907, plate X) has a elevation datum error of approximately 42 ft; that is, the elevations shown axe approximately 42 feet below the accepted elevations. It should also be noted

that the original base map appears to have a scale error in the legend- 1cm on the map represents 1 mile, not 5 miles. The following discussion gives the parameters used in the model after model adjustment had occurred. 108

The river is divided into eight segments and 123 reaches. Segment 1 starts below Selden Canyon in cell 20;63 and Segment 8 ends at El Paso Narrows. Segments 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 are meant to simulate the meandering and braided Rio Grande below the New Mexico-Texas State Line. The segments and reaches are shown in Figure 37. Discharge was specified at the beginning of Segment 1, 3, 4, and 5. Segments 2, 6, and 7 continued the flow from upstream segments. The segments below the New Mexico-Texas State Line deviate slightly from those used in the original U.S.G.S model. The previous model used a slightly artificial routing for the Rio Grande below the state line. The current study uses a more realistic routing for the river in this area.

Incoming discharge to Segment 1, below Selden Canyon, was specified as 850 cfs (based on Frenzel, Listings of Model-Input, 1992). Information on flows for braided areas below the state line was not available, therefore, it was decided that the sum of the flows at the beginning of Segments 2, 3 and 4 should equal the flow of the river at the last reach in Segment 1. This has the effect of taking the available Rio Grande flow and spreading it out over the area where braiding and meandering is occurring. In accordance with this, the sum of incoming flows in Segments 2 and 3 added up to two-thirds of the river flow exiting Segment 1, and incoming flows at Segment 4 were specified as one-third of the river flow exiting Segment 1. Flow was specified as 140 cfs in Segment 3, 210 cfs in Segment 4, and 136 cfs in Segment 5.

The width of the Rio Grande in areas that were not braided (Segments 1 and 8) was taken as twice the width of the channelized river that occurs 54.3 109

MILES

i>e

MILES 33.2

# Segment 1 x Segment 2 O Segment 3 • Segment 4 > Segment 5 O Segment 6 • Segment 7 | Segment 8

Figure 37: River nodes designated in the steady state model. 110

after the construction of Elephant Butte Dam (river in the transient simulation). The width of the transient river was designated as 150 feet, therefore the width of the steady state river was specified as 300 feet. This value is in accordance with a statement made by Wheeler (Ackerly, 1992) in 1879: "...at Fort Selden the width (of the Rio Grande) is 368 feet and the greatest depth but 2.2 feet". Even so, this estimate may be much in error, given a steady state river whose

annual flow prior to 1905 varied at a ratio of 1:40. The widths of the river in Segments 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 were taken as 133 feet, 67 feet, 100 feet, 67 feet, 33 feet, and 133 feet respectively. The ratio of these widths to the overall width of 300 feet is proportional to the ratio of flows entering these segments to flow exiting Segment 1. The designated widths have the effect of keeping a relatively stable stage in the Rio Grande in the area of braiding.

A slope for the river bed was designated for each river reach (finite grid cell). The slope of the river in the first 61 reaches was determined as the change in river-bed elevation within a cell to the actual length of the river in the cell. A five point running average of these slopes was used in order to smooth out local anomalies. Slopes for the first 61 reaches ranged from .00039 to .0012 with an average of .0007. Seven different average slopes were used for the remaining seven segments. The average slope for each segment was determined by taking the difference in elevations at the beginning and end of the segment and dividing by the length of the river for the same segment. Beginning and ending elevations were determined from Lee's (1907) map as were length's of the river in each cell. The average slopes for segments 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 were designated as

0.00043, 0.0006, 0.00057, 0.00035, 0.00065, 0.00065, and 0.00037, respectively. Ill

A river-bed elevation was designated for each river node of the finite- difference grid. The river-bed elevations for Segment 1 were designated as 2 feet below the original steady state heads designated in the U.S.G.S. model (Frenzel and Kaehler, 1990). Some adjusting of river-bed elevations was necessary for Segments 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, given the different routing of the river in these segments. The elevations of these segments was determined by using the average slope of the riverbed for each segment as discussed previously, and backing out the river-bed elevation for each reach using the length of the river in each cell. The river-bed elevation of 3,962 feet was used for the river at Selden Canyon. The river-bed elevation of 3,723 feet was used for the river near El Paso Narrows.

Conductance of the stream bed for each river reach was the same as that used in U.S.G.S. models (Frenzel and Kaehler, 1990; Frenzel, 1992). Frenzel and Kaehler (1990) state that "CRIV (conductance) (used in their study) is in effect an empirical quantity that may not be directly related to the hydraulic conductivity of the streambed...". Conductances ranged from 0.697 ft^/second to O 0 15.3 ft /second with an average of 5.13 ft /second. More information is necessary on the width of the river and the river-bed conductivity to more accurately quantify the conductances for the steady state. The conductances used in this study produced a contour map that agrees well with the original model's steady state simulated heads, and measured heads.

The above parameter estimates are meant to represent an approximation to the average annual conditions in the Mesilla Basin prior to the yeax 1915. 112

4.8.2 Stream Adjustment

Unfortunately, very little information exists on the stage of the river at

differing points along the Rio Grande prior to 1915. As mentioned earlier, Wheeler (Ackerly, 1992) stated that the river's greatest depth was but 2.2 feet. Wheeler also mentioned that "it is remarkable for its shallowness; but more than this is the fact that within a couple of years the river bed between Mesilla and Fort Bliss has been found for a distance absolutely without running water". Other descriptions of the Rio Grande by Nelson and Holmes (as mentioned in Ackerly, 1992) describe the accumulations of sediment which "raise the bed of the stream to such an extent as to cause it to overflow its banks, widen its channel, or form an entirely new channel". Given these descriptions, and the documented variable flow of the Rio Grande at El Paso, a river depth which averaged around 2 feet was considered acceptable. The depth of the Rio Grande produced by the steady state model as described above is shown in Figure 38.

The stage varies from 1.39 feet to 2.3 feet. This was considered an acceptable representation of the river. The initial runs of the steady state model used an average slope for the length of the riverbed. The slopes, riverbed elevations, and river routing, were adjusted as described above in order to produce a stage that was closer to 2 feet overall while still maintaining parameters that fell within reasonable physical limitations.

The average annual flow of the Rio Grande at El Paso, Texas, for 1898 to 1904, as shown in Lee (1907), would approximate 560 cfs. The modeled steady state flow at El Paso Narrows is 569 cfs. Given that flow in tributary 113

4.fr<

a.*

*5 & 2.S- Q©

1.6-

0.6«

'in ii i ii i inn iinimi i IIIII III IIII i IIII i II i II i ii iiII i II 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 M 1 1 1 11 1 22 2 2 2 2 2 S 3 3 9 4 4 6 t6Se 6 6 1 7 7 lltl( Segment (downstream order w/i segment)

Figure 38: Simulated steady state Rio Grande depth. 114

channels of the Rio Grande is unknown below the New Mexico-Texas State Line, actual flow at Selden Canyon which would cause a flow of 560 cfs at El Paso Narrows may vary greatly from the simulated river flow input at Selden Canyon. This must be taken into account when comparing the model derived flow and the simulated flow at El Paso Narrows. Also, it should be recognized that specified flow at Selden Canyon was based on flows at El Paso Narrows for only the years 1898-1904, not all the years prior to 1907 when Lee's (1907) map was published. Given the nature of the simulation (i.e., representing years prior to 1915), no other measurable parameters could be used as calibration parameters.

4.8.3 Water levels

Frenzel (1992) and Frenzel and Kaehler (1990) compiled information on locations of wells and measured head data for the Mesilla Valley and outside the Mesilla Valley for use in the comparison of measured heads with simulated heads. The measured head data for Layer 1 within the Mesilla Valley was taken

from Lee (1907, Plate X); outside the Mesilla Valley and for deeper layers, measured heads in wells from later dates were used. Frenzel and Kaehler (1990) state the criteria for selection of wells as follows:

"The perforated interval was primarily within the interval represented by one model layer; the water level was measured, not reported, and represented near-static conditions; and the water level represented pre-development conditions as closely as possible—early dates for Layers 2 and 3 beneath the

valley, and any date (preferably 1975 or 1976 from data in Wilson et al., 1981) 115 for areas distant from the valley." For the current study, these same wells and measured head data were used for comparison with the simulated steady state heads.

Figure 39 shows a contour map of simulated steady state heads and measured head data for Layer 1 of the model. Table A-l shows the difference in measured and simulated heads, the mean error, the mean absolute error, and the root mean square error for Layer 1. A difference of 15 feet between simulated heads and measured heads was considered acceptable for Layer 1. The differences ranged from -11.5 feet (simulated heads 11.5 feet higher than measured heads) to 11.7 feet (simulated heads 11.7 feet lower than measured heads). The mean error is -0.719 feet and the root mean square error is 5.3 feet.

Unfortunately, information on heads in Layers 2 and 3 for the pre- development period is negligible. Table A-2 shows the difference in measured and simulated heads for Layers 2 and 3. The differences ranged from -15.4 feet to 4.7 feet and -22.4 to 3.8 feet in Layers 2 and 3. 54.3

48.9 • Measured hydraulic heads (location of well is ... latitude and longitude) + Measured hydraulic heods {location of well is plotted at the center of the finite difference grid ceil within which it falls) 107 43.4

38.0

32.6 38-

3830 27.2

3815 3814 (827 38 381 21.7 3803 _ 3807 3796 379

16.3 3787

10.9

3801 3783, 377/ 5.4

0.0 0.0 3.3 6.6 10.0 13.3 16.6 19.9 23.2 26.6 29.9 33.2 MILES SCALE 1 inch - 6.78B MILES

Figure 39: Pre-1915 (steady state) model-derived potentiometric surface and measured hydraulic heads for Layer 1. 117

4.9 TRANSIENT

Construction of Elephant Butte Dam regulated the flows of the Rio Grande and channelized the Rio Grande. The Bureau of Reclamation installed drains within the Valley, and expanded and improved existing canals in the years following completion of the Dam. Pumping within the Mesilla Valley also began to gradually increase. As mentioned earlier, the transient model simulation covers the period from 1915-1990.

Modifications to the original model include a modification of the Mesilla Valley boundary condition which previously represented effective precipitation to agricultural and nonagricultural land, evapotranspiration from agricultural land, and net diversions from the river. The Mesilla Basin boundary condition was also updated from 1985-1990. Modification of the previous Mesilla Valley boundary condition required modification of the amount of water applied to agricultural land. Municipal and industrial pumping in the basin was updated from 1985 to 1990. Most importantly, the transient model run incorporates a modification of the U.S.G.S. Streamflow-Routing package (Prudic, 1989) for simulation of the Rio Grande, the canal system, and the drainage system.

4.9.1 Original Mesilla Valley Boundary Condition and Modifications

The original transient simulation by Frenzel (1992), includes a complex boundary condition for the Mesilla Valley. The boundary condition represents effective recharge to agricultural land and nonagricultural land. The boundary 118

condition is calculated as follows:

(Dnet[ac-ft] - Eag[ac-ft] + EPag[ac-ft] + EPnonag[ac-ft])/model cell area representing Mesilla Valley [acres] = MF[feet] where,

Dnet *s amount of irrigation surface water applied to the irrigated agriculture in the Valley and seepage from canals. Dnet = Canal diversions at the Leasburg and Mesilla Diversion Dams minus water returned to the river or drains from the canals minus evaporation from the canals (4,000 acre-ft).

Eag is evaporation from irrigated agriculture in the Valley. Eag = Evaporation rate for the mixture of crops in the Valley for a given year times the irrigated acreage in the valley for the same year.

EPag is effective precipitation on agricultural land. EPag = .9 times the growing season precipitation times the irrigated acreage in the valley divided by 12.

1S EPnonag effective precipitation on nonagricultural land. EPnonag = .2 times the annual precipitation times the nonirrigated acreage in the valley divided by 12. 119

MF = model flux. Represents the depth of water in feet to be applied on the Mesilla Valley for one year.

The above boundary condition was updated from 1985-1990. The evapotranspiration rate for 1985 used in the original model was used for 1986- 1990; the project irrigated acreage was updated using New Mexico acreages reported by Elephant Butte Irrigation District (Elephant Butte Irrigation District, Crop Production 1986 through 1990, 1992) and Texas acreages reported by El Paso County Water Improvement District (El Paso county Water Improvement District No. 1, Crop Acreages 1986 through 1990, 1992); the effective precipitation on agricultural land and nonagricultural land was updated using reported growing season precipitation and annual precipitation at Las Cruces (International Boundary and Water Commission, Rainfall Data, 1986 through 1990). All calculations to determine the boundary condition from 1985 to 1990 are based on Frenzel (1992).

The original boundary condition was modified by removing that portion of the model flux that represented net diversions. The modified model flux was then applied to the Mesilla Valley. This had the effect of removing and isolating the portion of water that was actually applied to irrigated acreage, and the portion of water that seeped through the canals. These two terms were then available for designation elsewhere in the model and are described below. Table 7 shows the original parameters and the modified parameters.

Because evapotranspiration from irrigated land is accounted for in the 120 above calculation, the actual amount of water applied to the irrigated agriculture is input into the model. Conover (1954) and Wilson et al. (1981) both gave estimates of the percentage of gross diversions that actually were delivered to farms for the Mesilla Valley for the years 1930 to 1976 based on Bureau of Reclamation records. Water applied to agricultural land was determined as follows:

w. _ (PD/100)[dimensionless]*(TD)[ac-ft] MBA [acres] where; PD = percent of the gross diversion delivered to farms; TD = total diversion at Leasburg, Eastside, and Westside Canals; MBA = model block area representing the Mesilla Valley; WA = depth of water applied to model blocks representing the Mesilla Valley agricultural land.

Conover (1954) and Wilson et al. (1981) listed the percentage of water delivered to farms in the Mesilla Valley for the years 1930 to 1976. For the years 1915- 1930, and 1976-1990, the water delivered to farms was estimated. For the years 1915-1930, water delivered to farms was based on an estimated percent return flows and percent canal losses. Percent return flows were estimated at 33 percent, and percent losses were estimated at 40 percent (based on the regression analysis mentioned earlier). Correspondingly, farm water deliveries were calculated as 100 percent minus percent canal losses, minus percent return 121 flows. Farm water deliveries for this period were thus designated as 27 percent. For 1976-1986, percent return flows ranged from 3 percent to 21 (U.S. Geological Survey, Data on Rio Grande Return Flows, personal communication (unpublished document), 1992), and percent losses were estimated at 40 percent (based on regression analysis). Correspondingly, farm water deliveries were again calculated as 100 percent minus percent canal losses and percent return flows. From 1987 through 1990, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation reported return flows (Elephant Butte Irrigation District, Total canal Diversions at Diversion Dams and Spillway Discharge, 1992) were used along with an estimate of 40 percent canal losses to determine the percent water delivered to farms. As in the U.S.G.S. model (Frenzel and Kaehler, 1990), applied irrigation water was turned off in the Las Cruces area from 1940 on, in order to better approximate water levels in this area. Table 8 lists the parameters used to determine the amount of applied irrigation water that should be specified in the model. Figure 35 shows the area where irrigation water was applied.

4.9.2 Pumping Stresses Designated in the Model

Nonagricultural (municipal and industrial) pumping data for the years 1915-1985 were originally compiled by Frenzel and Kaehler (1990) and Frenzel (1992). Pumping data for 1985-1990 was updated using values recorded at the New Mexico State Engineer's Office (1992) or was estimated. Approximately 200 pumping wells were included for each of the years 1985 through 1990. As in the U.S.G.S. model (Frenzel, 1992), Layer 3 was deactivated in the vicinity of the Las Cruces well field in order to better approximate water levels in this area; 122

Table 8: Estimate of applied surface water to irrigated lands.

A B C D E F O 1 J

YEARN IRRIGATED CROSS HEADOATE PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT MODEL STRESS ACRES DIVERSION DIVERSION CANAL CANAL WATER RECHARGE PERIOD MESILLA (Lcubuig, WHOLE LOSSES RETURNS DELIVERED MODEL VALLEY PwHirtf, VALLEY WHOLE WHOLE TO FARMS RECHARGE Wouide) VALLEY VALLEY WHOLE (2) P) VALLEY (2) [(((Q/ioo)' ICffl) D'Byil4000)/ (%of («of («of 31536000)] (acres) (•e-ft) (tofUtc) beidgale) beadgalc) hodgate) (ft/fcec) (ft/tec)

1915 44000 382616 8.70 40 33 27 3.90E-08 (I) 433E-08 1916 44000 404550 9.19 40 33 27 4.12E-08 (1) 1917 44000 459400 10.44 40 33 27 4.68E48 (1) 1918 44000 439848 10.00 40 33 27 4.48E-08 (1) 1919 44000 439848 10.00 40 33 27 4.48E-08 (1) 1920 46000 383645 834 40 33 27 Z88E-08 4.60&08 1921 46000 S51628 11.99 40 33 27 4.14E-08 1922 46000 622164 13-53 40 33 27 4.67&08 1923 46000 684192 14.87 40 33 27 5.14E-08 1924 46000 765313 16.64 40 33 27 5.75E-08 1925 46000 690430 15.01 40 33 27 5.19E-08 1926 46000 593835 12.91 40 33 27 4.46E-08 1927 75000 600226 8.00 40 33 27 4.51E-08 5.65E-08 1928 75000 621239 8.28 40 33 27 4.67E-08 1929 75000 555237 7.40 40 33 27 4.17E-08 1930 76373 556005 7.28 39.7 27.8 32J 5.03E-08 1931 76722 544337 7.09 40.8 28.8 30.4 4.60E-08 1932 76709 554480 7.23 43.8 23.1 33.0 5.09E-08 1933 77061 541350 7.02 41.7 253 33.0 4.97E-08 1934 68605 515787 7.52 41.0 18.7 40.2 5.77E-08 1935 62175 337925 5.44 39.8 13.8 46.4 436E-08 1936 74813 478596 6.40 37.0 12.7 503 6.69E-08 1937 77610 460520 5.93 31.1 13.4 55.4 7.10E-08 1938 73499 488290 6.64 35.6 16.0 48.4 6.58E-08 1939 74034 543713 734 35.4 12.9 51.8 7.83E-08 1940 75377 500061 6.63 31.5 13.1 55.4 7.71E-08 1941 78861 384307 4.87 35.6 14.6 49.8 533E-08 6.94 E-08 1942 81217 525160 6.47 34.8 233 41.9 6.12E-08 1943 82645 537107 6.50 31.6 20.2 48.2 7.20E-08 1944 82845 507783 6.13 34.4 . 15.2 503 7.11E-08 1945 83271 547930 6.58 33.1 12.7 54.2 8.26E-08 1946 83911 503550 6.00 37.7 9.1 53.2 7.45E-08 1947 84401 471520 5.59 38 8 54 7.08E-08 1948 83197 469050 3.64 37 9 $4 7.05E-08 722E48 1949 84686 482360 5.70 36 10 54 7i5E-08 1950 84567 473282 5.60 33 11 S6 737E-08 1951 84210 277680 330 41 10 49 3.78E-08 4.01E-08 1952 84785 292514 3.45 37 11 52 4.23E-08 1953 85672 295568 3.45 39 12 49 4.03E-08 1954 78738 177845 126 40 31 29 1.43E-08 2.06E48 1955 78633 138876 1.77 49 9 42 U2E-08 1956 74775 146668 1.96 57 9 34 139E-08 1957 75369 279152 3.70 45 6 49 3JOE-08 1958 76647 405046 5.28 36 12 52 5£6E-08 SA1&08 1959 76775 396110 5.16 38 13 49 5.40E-08 1960 76614 399750 5.22 43 7 50 5J6E-08 1961 76654 347523 4.53 46 6 48 4.64E-08 4.64E-08 1962 78085 387875 4.97 39 7 54 5^3E-08 5.14E-08 1963 78742 356110 4.52 36 19 45 4.46E-08 1964 P) 123

Table 8: Estimate of applied surface water to irrigated lands (nonrliidftri). ABCDEFOI J

YEARN IRRIGATED CROSS HEADGATE PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT MODEL STRESS ACRES DIVERSION DIVERSION CANAL CANAL WATER RECHAROE PERIOD MESILLA (Leasburg, WHOLE LOSSES RETURNS DELIVERED MODEL VALLEY VALLEY WHOLE WHOLE TOFARMS RECHARGE Wetlside) VALLEY VALLEY WHOLE P) P) VALLEY P) [(((G/100)' [OBJ D*Byil4000)/ (%of (%of (ttof 31536000)] (.era) (•oft) (•c-ft/ac) beadgate) beadgate) beadgate) (fl/BC) (flAee)

1965 74874 228326 3.05 40 6 54 3.43E-08 3.98E-06 1966 72719 319999 4.40 38 11 51 4.54E-08 1967 70471 311302 4.42 49 3 48 4.16E-08 4.61B06 1968 74370 378910 5.09 48 4 48 5.06E-08 1969 75634 441710 5.84 47 3 50 6.14E-08 5.57E-OB 1970 75877 423611 5.58 41 5 54 636E-08 1971 74293 342780 4.61 52 4 44 4.20E-08 1972 71744 214060 2.98 51 4 45 2.68E-08 Z68E-06 1973 74803 361110 4.83 40 4 56 3.62E-08 5.78E-06 1974 75141 398418 530 41 4 55 6.10E-08 1975 75197 373568 4.97 40 6 54 5.61E-08 1976 75182 431029 5.73 40 6 54 6.47E-08 6.47E-08 1977 74093 229685 3.10 40 4 56 3J8E-08 3.00E-08 1978 72203 152685 2.11 40 3 57 2.42E-08 1979 73322 301540 4.11 40 15 45 3.77E-08 433E-08 1980 74687 381978 5.11 40 14 46 4.89E-08 1981 75345 338227 4.49 40 17 43 4.05E-08 4.10E-08 1982 71035 364251 5.13 40 19 41 4.15E-08 1983 67500 377698 5.60 40 4 56 5.88E-08 5J2E-06 1984 70481 356057 5.05 40 8 52 5.15E-08 1985 69273 370420 5.35 40 15 45 4.64E-08 4.64E-08 1986 63504 456479 7.19 40 21 39 4.95E-08 4.95E-08 1987 62651 490435 7.83 40 15 45 6.14E-08 6.14E-08 1988 63577 431950 6.79 40 9 51 6.13E-08 6.13E-08 1989 64711 419208 6.48 40 22 38 4.43E-03 4.43E-08 1990 64812 363428 5.61 40 27 33 3J4E-08 334E-08

(1) First stress period only hat recharge to recharge mode! blocks North of Anthony. Total model block area for this stress period b 84000 acres, instead of 114000 acres.

(2) Percent losses, returns, and deliveries to farms for 1930 through 1946 are average* of Leasburg division returns and Mesilte division Returns taken from Cooovei(1954,Table 4, p.139). Percent losses, returns, and deliveries for 1947 through 1975 are taken from Wilson et aL (1961, Table 10, pp. 506-508).

Percent returns, losses, and delivered to farms for yean 1930 to 1946 are rallmnlfid based oo regression analysis for losses disairicd in text; high return flows in the Mesilla valley during the few years immediately following construction of Elephant Butte Dam; and deliveries equal to 100 percent minus returns and minus losses.

Percent returns for 1976 through 1986 are taken from U.S.G.S. estimates (personal communication, U.S.G.S. Albuquerque). Percent losses for 1976 through 1986 are estimated from regression analysis mentioned in text. Percent deliveries to farms for 1976 to 1986 are equal to 100 percent minus returns and minus losses.

Percent returns for 1987 through 1990 are based on meter records of wutewayi in the Mesilla Valley (United States Bureau of Reclamation, 1992). Percent losses are based on regression analysis in text Percent deliveries to farms are equal to 100 percent minus returns and minus losses.

(3) Data for 1955 wed for 1964. 124

consequently, pumping from Layer 3 in the vicinity of Las Cruces did not occur. Pumping data for 1915-1990 is shown in Figure 40.

Pumping totals for each well or well-group are reported to the New

Mexico State Engineer's Office in gallons or acre-ft/month. The reported values for each month were summed to produce the total water production for the year. This value was converted to cfs and input into the model for each well. For well- groups, the total production for the year was converted to cfs, and distributed equally between the individual wells, within the group. Very few pumping totals were estimated. For some smaller domestic use wells, 3 acre-ft or less was used as an estimate for some years prior to 1989. Pumping values for Las Cruces (City of Las Cruces, 1992) were reported as both an hour meter reading and a totalizer reading for 1986, and only totalizer readings for the years 1987-1990. For all years, totalizer totals were used, however, in 1986, hourly readings were used where totalizer readings were zero or the meter was broken. Also, for February of 1987, hourly readings replaced totalizer readings. The city has had some problems with agreement between the two meter readings, and with meters reading zero when production has occurred (City of Las Cruces, personal communication, 1992). Pumping values for the Santa Teresa well field for all years except July through December of 1990 were not available. An estimate of 2,000 acre-ft/yr (Maddock and Wright Water Engineers Inc., 1987) was used for the years 1986-1990. Reported average daily production for 1984 or 1985 was used as an estimate of total pumping from 1986 to 1990 for a few wells within the Valley. •& 40-

20-

1B1S-1910 1077-104/1 104A-1(mn 10U-1IK7 IQfll 1984 1987-1968 1972 1976 1979-1980 1983-1684 1688 1690 1920-1626 1641-1647 1651-1953 1958-1860 1962-1963 1965-1968 1969-1971 1973-1675 1877-1878•1978 19811881-1962-—.1962 1885 1687 1989 YEARS

Figure 40: Municipal and industrial pumping designated in the model (1915-1990).

Cnto 126

The perforation depths of the wells were used to determine the aquifer layer from which the well pumped. Perforation depths between 0 and 200 feet, 200 to 600 feet, and 600 to 1,200 feet, corresponded to production from Layers 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Pumping for wells which penetrated more than one layer of the aquifer was distributed according to the formula

J>K transmissivity of an individual layer, *s total pumping rate for the well, and ^2 Tj j ^ is the sum of transmissivities of all layers penetrated by the well (Anderson and Woessner, 1992). When perforation depths were not reported, the depth of the well was used as the control. If the depth was not greater than 200 feet, pumping from Layer 1 only was designated. If the well depth was greater than 200 feet, pumping from the layers included in the well depth was again distributed according to the formula presented in Anderson and Woessner (1992).

Locations of wells were determined by converting Township Section and Range data to UTM. The locations of the majority of wells were reported as quarter quarter quarter section (within 10 acres), however, some wells were reported to within only the quarter quarter section (within 20 acres); this slight error in the location will be propagated to UTM coordinates, but this can not be avoided.

4.9.3 River, Canal, and Drain Simulation

Parameter's specified for the river, drains, and major canals within the Mesilla Valley include the following: 127

1. Segment's and reaches for the river, major drains and canals; 2. Flow entering each segment - designated as an absolute flow or a percentage of upstream segment flow; 3. Conductance of the bed of the river, drain, or canal in each reach; 4. Elevation of the top and bottom of the bed of the river, drain, or canal in each reach;

5. Slope of the bed of the river, drain, or canal in each reach; 6. Width of the river, drain, or canal in each reach; 7. Roughness coefficient for the bed of the river, drain, or canal for each reach;

8. Water taken out of each segment and delivered to farms.

For modeling purposes, the complex Mesilla Valley canal and drain system was greatly simplified. The Mesilla Valley river, canal, and drain system is divided into 45 segments. Each segment represents a portion of the river, a major canal or lateral, and a major drain or portion of a drain. Two "fake" segments (46 and 47) represent wastewater outfall from Las Cruces and Anthony. The canals and drains designated in the model are shown in Figure 41.

The canal and drain segment numbers are shown as a numeral inside a circle or triangle respectively. The river segments axe designated by a numeral inside a pentagon. Segments representing wastewater outfall from Las Cruces and Anthony are designated by a numeral inside a hexagon. Figures 42 and 43 show the finite-difference grid on a map view of the north and south halves of the Mesilla Valley. 128

Annual reported diversions from 1915-1990 (excluding 1919 and 1964) for Leasburg, Eastside, and Westside canals were averaged for each stress period and specified as the inflow to Segments 3, 14, and 15 (Elephant Butte Irrigation District, Total canal Diversions at Diversion Dams and Spillway Discharge, 1992). Diversions for 1919 were not available; therefore 1918 data was used in place of 1919 data. Diversions for 1964 appeared to be in error (this is the only year when gross diversions from the Valley exceeded the incoming river flow at Selden Canyon); therefore, data for the year 1955, which represented a drought year much like 1964, was used in place of 1964 data.

Reported diversions for Picacho, Las Cruces, Mesilla, Three Saints East, Three Saints West, La .Union East, and La Union West were not available for any years. Diversions for these canals were specified at the beginning of the canal segment and were specified as a percentage of the flow exiting the segment upstream from the canal. Determination of these percentages was based on the acres serviced by the canal (Elephant Butte Irrigation District, Computer printout, 1992; El Paso County Water Improvement District No. 1, Computer printout, 1992) to the total acres serviced for the Unit (i.e., Leasburg, Eastside, and Westside), and on the total canal area relative to the area of all the canals in the Unit. Thus, this approach has the effect of relating the diversion to the farm acreage serviced, canal losses, and return flows. The approach is discussed in the subsequent paragraph.

When a fractional diversion is used, the fraction is calculated by using the minimum requirements of relevant downstream segments. Consider a case where 129 an upstream segment supplies a junction that branches to a downstream diversion and a downstream tributary. We wish to calculate the fraction f of incoming water that will be assigned to the diversion. The modified Streamflow- Routing package will assign 1-f to the tributary.

Let Ql' be the flow necessary to provide exactly the requirements of the diversion for farm water, return flow and losses. Similarly let Q2' be the required flow for the tributary. These flows are Ql' [L3/T] = FW1[L3/T] + Retl [L3/T] + LI [L3/T] Q2' [L3/T] = FW2 [L3/T] + Ret2 [L3/T] + L2 [L3/T] where; FWl is the farm water associated with the diversion [L3/T]; FW2 is the farm water associated with the tributary [L3/T]; Retl is the return flow associated with the diversion [L3/T]; Ret2 is the return flow associated with the tributary [L3/T]; LI is the loss associated with the diversion [L3/T]; L2 is the loss associtated with the tributary [L3/T].

Here FWl, Retl, LI, etc. can be calculated from known or assumed percentages of headgate diversion, together with farm areas and canal areas. The fraction f assigned to the diversion is f [dimensionless] = (FWl [L3/T] -f Retl [L3/T] +

LI [L3/T])/(FW1 [L3/T] + Retl [L3/T] +L1 [L3/T] + FW2 [L3/T] + Ret2 [L3/T] + L2 [L3/T]). In the preceding discussion, we have assumed a simple junction with two downstream segments. If either of these segments has additional downstream junctions and diversions, all of the downstream 130

requirements must be taken into account in calculating f. It is a straightforward procedure to begin with the farthest downstream segment and work upstream to each junction with the calculation of fractional diversions. Reported flows (Conover, 1954; Wilson et al, 1981; U.S. Geological Survey, Data on Flow Past Leasburg, personal communication (unpublished document), 1992) for the Rio Grande for 1915, 1920-1966, and 1968 to 1986 were averaged over a given stress period and were specified as inflows for Segment 1 (flow of the River above Leasburg Diversion Dam). Estimated flows, based on the flow of the Rio Grande below Wasteway 1 and la, diversions at Leasburg, and Wasteway la flow, were designated for years 1987-1990 (Elephant Butte Irrigation District, Rio Grande Discharge at Cable Section Below Leasburg Dam, 1992; Elephant Butte Irrigation District, Total Canal Diversions at Diversion Dams and Spillway Discharge, 1992) Figure 44 depicts the transient river and canal grid nodes. Flow entering drain segments was specified as zero.

The conductance of the river and canals was determined by using the following formula:

r _ KLW .

where, C = Conductance of the canal or river bed [L2/t]; K = Vertical hydraulic conductivity of the canal or river bed [L/t];

L = Length of the canal or river in each reach; [L] W = Width of the canal or river; [L] M = Thickness of the canal or river bed. [L] 131

54.3

MILES

33.2 MILES

River Node Canal Node

Figure 44: River nodes and canal nodes designated in the transient model. 132

Maddock and Wright Water Engineers Inc. (1987), and Peterson et al. (1984) list the conductance of the canals and river as ranging from 20,000 ft^/day to 60,000 ft^/day. A conductance of 20,000 square feet per day corresponds to a vertical hydraulic conductivity of 0.379 ft/day, while a conductance of 60,000 ft^/day corresponds to a vertical hydraulic conductivity of 1.14 ft/day. For this study, the vertical hydraulic conductivity was specified as 0.758 ft/day (twice the value of 0.379 listed above), the length of the canal and river in each reach was determined from Figures 42 and 43, the width of each canal was taken from schematic cross sections of the canals (Ackerly, 1.992) at approximately mile intervals while, the width of the river was specified as 150 feet everywhere. The widths of the canals were reported as the width of the top of the canal and the width of the bottom of the canal. Since the program assumes a rectangular shape to the canals, and not a trapezoidal shape, the width input into the model was the average of the top and bottom widths of the canals for each segment. The thickness of the canal and river bed was taken as 5 feet. Specified conductances ranged from 0.1 to 2.1 ft^/second for the river (for the smallest and longest length of the river in a cell, respectively), with an average of 1.1 ft 0 /second; and from 0.007 to 0.46 ft 0 /second for the canals, with an average of 0.18 ft^/second.

The calculation for drainbed conductance was based on Frenzel and Kaehler (1990). The drainbed conductances were determined by using the average drain inflow rate for the years 1923-1950 (1.4 cfs per mile) and the average difference between the water table and the drains (3 feet). The average drain inflow rate is multiplied by the length of the drain in each reach and 133

divided by the average difference between the water table and the drains to yield the conductance of the drain for each reach. The length of a drain in each reach was determined from the map shown in Figure 42 and 43. Conductances for the drains range from 0.1 to 0.58 ft^/second, with an average of 0.34 ft^/second. Calculating the drain discharges in this way has the effect of forcing the drains to approach their average drain flow, and has little to do with the conductivity or geometry of the drain.

Elevations of the river bed were taken as 2 feet below the original heads specified in Frenzel and Kaehler (1990). These elevations were spot checked at several points on topographic maps and headings of canal profiles (Canal Profiles, 1961-1965) but could be .in error by 2 to 3 feet. Elevations ranged from 3,954 feet near Leasburg Dam to 3,726 feet at the southern-most river cell. The elevation of the river-bed bottom was taken as 5 feet below the top of the river bed.

Elevations of the canal beds in each reach were determined from canal profiles surveyed in 1961-1965 (Canal Profiles, 1961-1965). The cell positions on the profiles were determined, and the average of the elevations at the beginning and end of a cell was used as the average elevation for the cell (reach).

Elevations of the drains were determined using drain profiles surveyed during the years 1958 through 1959 (Drain Profiles, 1958-1959). Average elevations for the drains in each reach was determined in the same manner as the canals. The canal and drain profiles appear to have a datum error of 42 feet (Frenzel and Kaehler, 1990). Therefore, 42 feet was added to all elevations determined for the canal and drain beds. The bottom elevation of the canal bed and drain bed was 134 taken as 5 feet below the elevation of the top of the bed in each reach.

The slope of the river was calculated as the change in elevation of the river bed in each reach divided by the length of the reach as shown on Figure 42 and 43. A five point running average for the slope was used to smooth out local anomalies. The slopes of the canals and drains in each reach were determined from the canal and drain profiles, respectively. The change in elevation of the canal bed within a reach was divided by the length of the canal in the reach. Drops along the canals were accounted for. The drain profiles showed cleaning grade slopes for the length of the drain. These slopes changed along the length of the drain. The cleaning grade slope determined for each reach of the drain was input into the model.

The Rio Grande width was specified as 150 feet throughout its length. All drain widths were specified as 25 feet. A different canal width was specified for each canal segment based on the widths of the canals given in Neal Ackerly's (1992) report. The designated widths were discussed earlier in the paragraph about calculation of canal conductance.

The Manning's equation roughness coefficient for the river, drains, and canals is based on the roughness coefficients listed in Prudic (1989). A roughness coefficient of 0.03, 0.035, and 0.025 was specified for the river, the drains, and the canals, respectively.

Farm water was removed from each reach in each segment. The total amount of farm water taken out of all the canals in the Valley approximates the amount of water applied to the farm land. The amount of water taken out of 135 each segment was determined by calculating the acreage serviced by the canal (Elephant Butte Irrigation District, Computer printout, 1992; El Paso County Water Improvement District No. 1, Computer printout, 1992) and multiplying that acreage by the acre-feet of water delivered to an acre of land in the Leasburg, Eastside, and Westside Units. The acreage serviced by all canals and laterals was determined for 1992. Figure 45 shows the approximate 1992 water- righted acreage serviced by the canals and laterals designated in the model. The acreage serviced by each of these canals was adjusted for all years prior to 1990 based on the ratio of the total irrigated axea for the year to the 1992 water righted acreage. Unfortunately, this approach inherently assumes that the ratio of irrigated acres between different canals and different units (i.e., Leasburg, Eastside, Westside Units) has remained constant; obviously, with increasing urban development in localized areas, this is not the case. This was considered the only available approach given the available compiled data. RIO GPANDE SYSTEM TOTAL: 02,547

MESILLA DAM TOTAL« 52,966 LEASBUBG DAM TOTAL:29,581 (INCLUDING DEL RIO: 729) UESTSIOE CANAL EASTSIDE CANAL LEASBUBG CANAL UNIT TOTAIL: 36,543 UNIT TOTAL: 15,694 UNIT TOTAL: 29,581

LA UNION MAIN LAT. 3 SAINTS MAIN LAT. PICACHO LAT. FCSILLA LAT. LAS CPUCES LAT. 1,597 2.936 5,039 11.061 TOTALIS.426

LA UNION WEST LAT. LA UNION EAST LAT. 3 SAINTS LAT. 9,119 2,363 8,065

Figure 45: Approximate 1992 COREIFCD LA UNION 3 SAINTS WEST LAT. 3 SAINTS EAST LAT. distribution of 1,284 1,307 3.992 water-righted acreage in the Mesilla Valley canal system.

CO a> 137

4.9.4 Stream and Canal Adjustment

The input parameters described above represent the final values input into the model. This study modified the original U.S.G.S. model (Frenzel, 1992) in the Mesilla Valley area of the model grid, and therefore, adjustments to the initial parameter inputs centered on the river and canal system. The effects of several values of vertical hydraulic conductivity for the canals and river were investigated. Values significantly lower than the value chosen for the standard (discussed under the section entitled river drain and canal simulation) gave unreasonably high canal return flows. Values significantly higher than the standard value caused some canals to go dry. The hydraulic conductivity value of 0.758 ft/day seemed to produce the best balance of canal returns and losses and overall river depletion (here river depletion means the river flow at Leasburg minus the river flow at El Paso Narrows). The effects of extreme values of vertical hydraulic conductivity for the canals are discussed in more detail in the section on sensitivity.

Figure 46 shows the comparison between simulated canal return flows and reported return flows. Return flows are given as a percent of the gross diversion in the Mesilla Valley (combined diversions at Leasburg, Eastside, and Westside). Reported return flow percentages were averaged over the years representing a given stress period. Simulated return flows were also averaged over the stress period indicated. Overall, simulated return flows are higher than reported return flows. Simulated return flows are lower than reported return flows in stress periods 7, 11, 12, and 18. Stress periods 7, 11, 15, and 18, generally represent 138

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 IB 18 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Stress Period

Simulated —f— Reported

(1) Reported return flows from Conover (1954), Wilson et al (1981), U.S.G.S. (1992), and the U.S.B.R. (1992).

Figure 46: Simulated versus reported canal return flows. 139

drought years. Simulated return flows were expected to be higher than reported due to the fact that the model does not specifically account for evaporation from

canal or river surfaces, evapotranspiration by plants along canal banks, or canal bank storage; and due to the fact that a canal conductance was chosen that produced an overall canal loss lower than canal losses and unaccounted for losses reported in Conover (1954) and Wilson et al. (1981). Wilson et al. (1981) and Conover's (1954) reported losses represent a combination of evapotranspiration from plants along the canal, evaporation from canal surfaces, canal bank storage, unaccounted for losses and actual seepage losses. Richardson (as stated in Peterson, 1984) has estimated that perhaps 60 percent of these losses are attributable to seepage losses.

The simulated average canal loss for the ten year period from 1965-1975 was calculated as 159 cfs. The total length of canals represented in the model is approximately 116 miles. This gives an average canal loss of 1.37 cfs/mile. The simulated average river loss for the ten year period 1965 to 1975 was 72 cfs. With a river length of approximately 60 miles, this gives an average river loss of 1.2 cfs/mile. For the end of 1985, the river loss was 83.1 cfs or 1.39 cfs/mile, and canal loss was 165.1 cfs or 1.42 cfs/mile. Simulated river loss for the end of 1990 was 87.6 cfs or 1.46 cfs/mile, while simulated canal loss for the end of 1990 was

170.5 cfs or 1.47 cfs/mile.

Figure 47 depicts simulated and measured Rio Grande depletions. Depletions represent the river flow above Leasburg Dam (Wilson et al., 1981; U.S. Geological Survey, Data on Flow Past Leasburg, personal communication 140

500- 480- 460- 44> 420-

1 11'-L1 'Jl 'I L1 I I I 11 I I II I 1 I I I I I I I 11 I I 111111 11111111 I I III11111II 11 I 1111II III I 191518181821182418271B3018331636183919421S4519481951185418571B601963190610601672197510761081106410071000 Year

Simulated Measured

Figure 47: Measured versus simulated Rio Grande depletions, Mesilla Valley [cfs]. 141

(unpublished document), 1992) minus river flow at El Paso Narrows (International Boundary and Water Commission, Data on Flow of the Rio Grande, 1932 through 1990; Wilson et al., 1981). Generally, simulated depletions axe lower than measured depletions after 1951. Simulated depletions match the trends in measured depletions fairly well after 1951, and do not match trends well prior to 1942 (measured depletions prior to 1942 are not shown). Too much significance should not be attached to the simulated versus measured depletions, however, for the system tends to be self- compensating. Increases in canal conductances (correspondingly, seepage) causes a compensating increase in drain flows. This has the effect of lowering return flows to the river from the canals and increasing drain flows to the river. Overall this produces a depletion for the river which may not vary significantly.

4.9.5 Water Levels

Measured head data and simulated head data were compared for the years

1947, 1975, 1985, and 1990. The wells and head data given in Frenzel (1992) and Frenzel and Kaehler (1990) for the years 1947, 1975, and 1985 were used as comparison with simulated head data for these years. Well data for 1990 was compiled from U.S.G.S. depth-to-water records (U.S. Geological Survey, Records of Selected Wells in the Mesilla Ground-Water Basin, 1992; Appendix D).

The U.S.G.S. reports data on depth to water in 168 wells throughout the Mesilla Basin (mostly in the Mesilla Valley). This well data was used for comparison of simulated heads at the end of 1990 with measured heads mostly 142

dated February of 1991 for the Mesilla Valley. Measured heads dated after 1985 t were used for areas outside of the valley. Screened intervals were used to determine the production zone layer. Figures 48, 49, 50 and 51 show simulated versus measured heads for Layer 1 for the years 1947, 1975, 1985, and 1990; respectively. Tables A-3, A-4, A-5, and A-6 list the difference in measured head and simulated head (residuals) for these same years for Layer 1. Table 9 lists the mean error, the mean absolute error, and the root mean squared error between simulated water levels and measured water levels for Layer 1 for the years 1947, 1975, 1985, and 1990. Figures 52, and 53 show simulated heads for Layer 2 for the years 1975 and 1990. Figures 54 and 55 show simulated heads for Layer 3 for the years 1975 and 1990. Tables A-7, A-8, A-9, list the difference between simulated and measured heads for Layer 2 (1975 and 1990), and Layer 3 (1975 only).

Except for, 1985, overall simulated heads are higher than measured heads. The measured head data for 1984-1985 was only available in areas outside of the Mesilla Valley, and these areas tend to be in the least agreement due to lack of data on aquifer properties in these areas. Errors for 1947 are high and reflect the generally poor agreement between the simulation and measured data in years prior to 1950. The simulated data generally is in closer agreement with measured data in later years. Cones of depression are evident in the Canutillo and Las Cruces Well Fields. 143

Table 9: Layer 1 head residual errors for 1947, 1975, 1985, and 1990.

1947 1975 1985 1990 Mean Error (ft) -2.9 -2.2 1.4 -1.7 Mean Absolute Error (ft) 11.5 5.5 6.7 4.5 Root Mean Squared Error (ft) 19.3 7.8 9.4 6.5 I 144

54.3

_ -3840- Simulated potentiometric contour. 48.9 Contour ii' feet. Datum Is sea level. • 3817

43.4 *3812 Well- Number denotes measured hydraulic head in feet above sea level. laSSST '3887 38.0 • 3807 •

• 3858 32.6

• 3785 3824 • 3817 a 27.2 • 381

21.7 • 3804

• 3780 • 3808. 3790 3792 ••

16.3 • 3708

• 3772

10.9

• 3812

5.4

• S7J

0.0 0.0 3.3 MILES SCALE 1 Inch - 7.757 MILES

Figure 48: Simulated potentiometric surface and measured hydraulic heads for Layer 1, 1947. 145

54.3

_ -3840- Simulated potentiometric contour. 48.9 Contour interval is 10 feet. Datum is sea level.

43.4 •3812 Well- Number denotes measured hydraulic head in feet above «ea level.

3877

38.0 3877

32.6 3835

CO y 27.2

,3812 3822 21.7 3801 3798

3811 'Sw. * 16.3 3783 . 3770 3780

I7M » 10.9

1748 5.4

0.0 0.0 3.3 MILES SCALE 1 inch - 7.757 MILES

Figure 49: Simulated potentiometric surface and measured hydraulic heads for Layer 1, 1975. 146

54.3

-3840- Simulated potentiometric contour. 48.9 Contour interval is 10 feet. Datum is sea level.

43.4 •3812 Well- Number denotes measured hydraulic head in feet above sea level.

,3870 38.0

32.6

IT) y 27.2 384'

3618

21.7

saoo 3795

16.3

10.9

3000 MB 5.4 17S0,

0.0 0. MILES SCALE 1 inch - 7.757 MILES

Figure 50: Simulated potentiometric surface and measured hydraulic heads for Layer 1, 1985. 147

54.3

_ -3840- Simulated potentiometric contour. 13924 48.9 Contour ir' 0 foet. Datum is sea level.

.3914

43.4 •3812 Well- Number denotes measured hydraulic head in feet above sea level.

38.0

32.6 3644 ,3043 • 3039

3 27.2

3620 3616

21.7 ,3601 >794

16.3 ,3761

3766

3765 10.9 1754

3797 1756. ,3746 3601

5.4 ,3741 751,

0.0 0 MILES SCALE 1 inch - 7.757 MILES I I I

Figure 51: Simulated potentiometric surface and hydraulic heads for Layer 1, 1990. 148

54.3 -3750— Simulated potentiometric head. Contour interval is 10 feet. Datum is feet above sea level. + Well - Symbol denotes location of 48.9 - measured hydraulic head. j

43.4

38.0

32.6 3850

3830 27.2

3810 21.7

3790 16.3

10.9

5.4

0.0 0

Figure 52: Simulated potentiometric surface for Layer 2, 1975. 149

54.3 -3750— Simulated potentiometric head. Contour interval is 10 feet. Datum is feet above sea level. + Well - Symbol denotes location of 48.9 - measured hydraulic head. j

43.4

38.0

32.6

27.2

3810 21.7

16.3 3780

10.9

5.4

0.0 0

Figure 53: Simulated potentiometric surface for Layer 2, 1990. 54.3 3750— Simulated potentiometric head. Contour interval is 10 feet. Datum is feet above sea level. Well — Symbol denotes location of 48.9 measured hydraulic head.

43.4

38.0

32.6

3830 27.2

21.7 3800

16.3

10.9

5.4

0.0 0

Figure 54: Simulated potentiometric surface for Layer 3, 1975. 54.3

-3750- Contour interval is 10 feet. 48.9 Datum is feet above sea level.

43.4

38.0

32.6

3830 27.2

21.7 3800

16.3

10.9

5.4

0.0 0,

Figure 55: Simulated potentiometric surface for Layer 3, 1990. 152

4.9.6 Water Budget Table 10 compares model-derived water budgets for steady state (pre- 1915), 1947, 1975, 1985, and the end of 1990. Most authors contend that the Basin was in quasi-steady state up through 1975. The model simulates a flow out of storage of only 0.38 cfs for the end of 1975, while flow out of storage increased to 10.3 cfs and 26.6 cfs for the end of 1985 and 1990. Net drain seepage decreased in the years shown, while net river seepage increased. Evapotranspiration from nonagricultural lands is similar for 1947, 1975, 1985, but drops off in 1990. Caution should be exercised when evaluating the water budget. The system is highly dependent on yearly fluxes of surface water input. Years of low river flow and low precipitation will cause high flows out of storage which may immediately be offset by a yeax of high precipitation and high river flows causing net flows to storage. Therefore, determining overall trends from a few years of annual data should be done with a high degree of skepticism. The overall water budget for these years is perhaps more useful for getting a general idea of individual fluxes in the system.

4.10 SENSITIVITY

Sensitivity tests on the model centered around the river and canal system, since modifications to the original model occurred in this area. Sensitivity of the model's flux terms to changes in vertical hydraulic conductivity of the canals, elevation of the riverbed, and elevation of the canalbeds were examined. A more complete sensitivity analysis should be performed before using the model for any new simulations. 153

Table 10: Model-derived water budget for select years (all units are cfs).

Steady End of End of End of End of State 1947 1975 1985 1990 INFLOW FROM: Net River Seepage 280.6 40.0 63.6 83.1 87.6 Net Canal Seepage 0.0 151.3 156.5 165.1 170.5 Applied Irrigation 0.0 337.2 280.9 225.5 162.3 Water Mountain Front 17.9 19.0 19.5 19.7 19.7 Recharge Constant Heads 0.38 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.8 TOTAL 298.9 549.2 522.3 495.2 441.9

Steady End of End of End Of End Of State 1947 1975 1985 1990 OUTFLOW TO: | Net Drain Seepage 0.0 227.9 177.1 154.4 137.3 Net M&I Pumping 0.0 2.4 53.5 59.9 59.6 ET from Nonag. Lands 297.8 104.8 105.2 107.7 97.5 Summation of Effective Rainfall and 0.0 208.0 184.9 181.8 172.6 ET from Ag. land Constant Heads 1.1 2.2 1.8 1.8 1.7 TOTAL 298.9 545.3 522.5 505.6 468.7 |

Net Flow To Storage 0.0 3.9 -0.38 -10.3 -26.6 1 154

4.10.1 Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity of the Canals

The canal-bed vertical hydraulic conductivity was varied from 0.379 to 1.137 ft/day in keeping with the thought that these are the extremes between which the canal-bed hydraulic conductivity may vary. All other terms in the calculation of canal-bed conductance were kept constant. Table 11 shows the water budget for the end of 1990 for different values of canal vertical hydraulic conductivity (the river bed K (vertical hydraulic conductivity) was left as it was for the standard model run). Vertical hydraulic conductivity of the canals was varied from 0.379 ft/day to 1.137 ft/day, with a K of 0.758 ft/day specified in the standard model run.

An increase in'K (ft/day) above the standard causes increases in canal seepage which are offset by increases in flow to drains and evapotranspiration from nonagricultural land. The increase in canal seepage causes a decrease in river loss, probably due to slight changes in head below the river. Storage depletion is decreased due to increased seepage from the canals.

A decrease in K (ft/day) below the standard causes an increase in river seepage, again probably due to changes in head below the river. Evapotranspiration from agricultural land decreases as does flow to drains. Storage depletion is increased from lack of larger canal seepage inputs.

4.10.2 River-bed Elevation

The sensitivity of river losses to variances in river-bed elevation was investigated by lowering the river bed two feet. All other parameters were 155

Standard K = .379 ft/day (K «= .758 ft/d*y K = 1.137 ft/dt INFLOW FROM: (cfs) Net River Seepage 107.1 (1.22) 87.6 (1.00) 72.8 (0.83) Net Canal Seepage 92.7 (0.54) 170.E (1.00) 231.3 (1.36) Applied Irrigation Water 162.3 (1.00) 162.3 (1.00) 162.3 (1.00) Mountain Front 1 Recharge 19.7 (1.00) 19.7 (1.00) 19.7 (1.00) Constant Heads 1.9 (1.06) 1.8 (1.00) 1.8 (1.00) TOTAL 383.7 441.9 487.9 |

OUTFLOW TO: (cfs) J Net Drain Seepage 102.7 (0.75) 137.3 (1.00) 164.2 (1.20) Net M&I Pumping 59.6 (1.00) 59.6 (1.00) 59.6 (1.00) ET from Nonag. Lands 77.7 (0.80) 97.5 (1.00) 113.5 (1.16) Summation of Effective Rainfall and ET 172.6 (1.00) 172.6 (1.00) 172.6 (1.00) from Ag. land Constant Heads 1.7 (1.00) 1.7 (1.00) 1.7 (1.00) TOTAL 414.3 468.7 511.6 |

Net Flow To Storage -30.4 (1.14) -26.6 (1.00) -23.7 (0.89) |

Table 11: Sensitivity of the model to changes in canal vertical hydraulic conductivity, end of 1990 (numbers in parentheses are values normalized to those obtained with a canal conductivity of 0.758 (standard)). 156

kept the same as in the standard. Losses in the river were found to be extremely sensitive to river-bed elevation. A two foot decrease in river-bed elevation caused the net losses from the river to change from -87.6 cfs to -46.2 cfs; a factor of 0.53. Figure 56 shows the river losses for the standard versus the decreased river-bed elevation.

4.10.3 Canal-bed Elevation

In a similar comparison as above, the canal-bed elevations were lowered 2 feet as compared to the standard. All other parameters were held constant.

Losses from the canals were found to be much less sensitive than the river to changes in canal-bed elevations. A two foot decrease in the elevations of the canals caused net canal losses to decrease from 170.5 cfs (standard) to 161.6 cfs; a factor of 0.91. 157

Standard *67.6 cfa

Riverbed -2 met -46.2 cfs

IIII.LI J 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 11 11 11 13 16 16 18 16 16 18 29 29 29 33 34 34 38 38 38 38 36 39 38 30 39 45 Segment Number in Downstream Order

- Standard ' Riverbed •2 feet

Figure 56: River loss in the standard model versus river loss with the river bed lowered 2 feet (1990 simulation). 158

CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 SUMMARY

Resolution of litigation between Texas and New Mexico over the water resources of the Mesilla Basin prompted a modeling study to address the common concerns of both parties involved. In particular, both parties requested development of a transient model to simulate the ground-water and surface- water system's response to lining a portion of the Rio Grande canal system, and its response to changes in pumping stresses within the study area. An existing U.S.G.S. simulation (Frenzel and Kaehler, 1990; Frenzel, 1992) of the Mesilla Basin was updated and modified in an attempt to meet these objectives.

The steady-state simulation represents average ground-water and surface- water conditions prior to development within the Mesilla Basin (pre-1915 conditions). The transient simulation represents ground-water and surface-water conditions in the Mesilla Basin for 1915-1990. Pumping periods vary from 14 years (1927-1940) to 1 year (1961, 1964, 1972, 1976, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989,

1990).

The current study modifies the existing steady-state U.S.G.S. models (Frenzel and Kaehler, 1990; Frenzel, 1992) by replacing the U.S.G.S. RIV2 river package with the U.S.G.S. Streamflow-Routing package by Prudic (1989). Many of the parameters for input to the Streamflow-Routing package were determined directly from Lee's (1907) map of the Mesilla Valley for 1907. The Rio Grande 159 was represented by eight different segments and was routed slightly differently than in the original models in order to more accurately simulate flow in the river. River length in the steady state was approximately 80 miles, due to meanders and braiding.

Flow specified at Selden Canyon was 850 cfs. Width of the river was specified everywhere as 300 feet. River-bed elevations were specified as 2 feet below the original heads used in the Frenzel and Kaehler (1990) model. Slopes of the river bed varied from 0.00035 to 0.001, depending on the segment and the reach. The roughness coefficient was specified as 0.045. River-bed conductance used in the original models (Frenzel and Kaehler, 1990; Frenzel, 1992) was used for the present model. . River depth varied from 1.39 to 2.3 feet. Simulated mountain front recharge was designated as a specified flux of 17.9 cfs around the perimeter of the basin, and simulated underflow at Selden Canyon, Fillmore Pass, and El Paso Narrows was designated as specified-head nodes. Model- derived net loss from the Rio Grande prior to 1915 was 281 cfs, model-derived inflow rate (underflow) at Selden Canyon was 0.38 cfs, and the model-derived outflow rate at Fillmore Pass and El Paso Narrows (underflow) was 1.1 cfs.

Model-derived Rio Grande flow exiting the study area at El Paso Narrows was

569 cfs.

Steady-state simulated water levels for Layer 1 compared moderately well with measured head data for pre-1915. Overall, all head residuals for Layer 1 fell within plus or minus 15 feet, with a mean absolute error of 4.2 feet and root mean square error of 5.3 feet. Simulated water levels for Layers 2 and 3 were 160

compared with measured head data; however, lack of enough measured head data tends to make comparisons less meaningful.

The current study updates and modifies the existing transient U.S.G.S. model (Frenzel, 1992) in the following manner: 1. The U.S.G.S. Streamflow-Routing package (Prudic, 1989), which simulates stage-discharge relationships and limits seepage in a stream to the amount of flow available in the stream, was modified and replaced the RIV2 river package (Miller, 1985) used in the original model.

Modifications of the Streamflow-Routing package (1989) included allowing specification of the amount of farm water to be removed from each segment,- and allowing specifications of diversions as either absolute values or fractional values of incoming flow.

2. The Rio Grande, canal system, and drain system existing in the Mesilla Valley were simulated from 1915-1990 (transient) with the modified version of the new Streamflow-Routing (Prudic, 1989) package. The original U.S.G.S. simulations (Frenzel and Kaehler, 1990; Frenzel, 1992) used RIV2 (Miller, 1985) to simulate the river and drain system for 1915-1985, and did not incorporate the canal system.

3. Municipal and industrial pumping stresses within the Mesilla Basin were updated for 5 years, 1985-1990.

4. Net flux to the valley from effective precipitation, and . 161

evapotranspiration from irrigated agriculture, were updated for 1985- 1990 using precipitation data and irrigated acreage data for these years, while the evapotranspiration rate determined by Frenzel (1992) for 1985 was used for 1985-1990. The Net Irrigation Flux designated by Frenzel (1992) was modified for the years 1915-1985.

5. Surface water applied to irrigated agriculture was modified for 1915- 1985 to account for surface water that was not delivered to the farms due to canal losses. Surface water applied to irrigated agriculture was

updated for 1986-1990.

6. In addition to comparing measured heads with simulated heads for the following years: pre-1915, 1947, 1975, 1985, the current study also compared simulated heads with measured heads for 1990. Measured water levels for different production zones of the Mesilla Basin were compiled from U.S.G.S. depth-to-water records mostly dated February of 1991.

The Rio Grande, a simplified version of the complex Mesilla Valley canal system, and the major drains within the valley were all simulated in the transient model. The modified Streamflow-Routing package required designation of slope, roughness coefficient, river-bed top elevation, river-bed bottom elevation, width, and conductance for the river, canals, and drains. 162

Reported annual flows of the Rio Grande at Selden Canyon for the years 1915-1990 were averaged over each stress period and designated as river inflow to the model (excluding 1964, for which 1955 data was substituted). Reported annual diversions at Leasburg, Eastside, and Westside Canals for the years 1915- 1990 were also averaged over each stress period and used as the diversions at the headings of the Leasburg, Eastside, and Westside Canals. Diversion data for Picacho, Las Cruces, Mesilla, La Union West, La Union East, Three Saints West, and Three Saints East was not available for any years. For these canals, diversions were specified as a fraction of the flow in the upstream segment. The specified fraction was based on the acreage serviced by the canal and the canal's surface area. Drain flow at the mouth of the drains was input as zero for all drains.

Slopes for the canals and drains, along with canal-bed and drain-bed elevations, were determined from canal and drain profiles. Slope for the river was determined using the river-bed elevation and length of the river in each reach. Canal-bed and drain-bed elevations were also determined from the profiles. River-bed elevations were designated as 2 feet lower than the original heads designated in Frenzel and Kaehler (1990). Widths of the canals were determined from average widths reported by Ackerly (1992). Widths of the drains were designated everywhere as 25 feet. River width for all reaches of the Rio Grande was 150 feet. Roughness coefficients were 0.03, 0.025, and 0.035 for the river, canals, and drains respectively. Conductance of the river and canals was determined using the formula C=KLW/M, where K was 0.758 ft/day. Conductance of the drains was determined using the formula Q [L^/T] = C 163

[L^/T] * (Head in the river [ft]-Head in the aquifer [ft]); where delta H was 3 feet and Q was 1.4 cfs/mile.

A quantity of farm water, approximately equivalent to the farm water applied to irrigated acreage in the model, was removed from each cell representing a canal cell.

Simulated water levels for 1947, 1975 and 1985 were compared with measured head levels given in the U.S.G.S. models for these years. For 1990, simulated head levels were compared with head levels mostly dated February 1991 determined from U.S.G.S. depth-to-water data for the Mesilla Basin. Simulated and measured head levels compared most favorably in later years. The 1990 mean absolute error in head levels was 4.5 feet, while the root mean squared error was 6.5 ft. Simulated and measured head levels compared least favorably in 1947. The mean absolute error in head levels was 11.5 feet while the root mean square error was 19.3 feet.

Simulated Rio Grande flow past Leasburg (Wilson et al., 1981; U.S. Geological Survey, Data on Flow Past Leasburg, personal communication (unpublished document), 1992) minus simulated Rio Grande flow past El Paso

Narrows (International Boundary and Water Commision, Data on Flow of the Rio Grande, 1932 through 1990; Wilson et al., 1981) (termed depletion in this report) was compared to actual Rio Grande depletion. Trends in simulated depletions matched trends in actual depletions fairly well after 1950 and poorly prior to 1942. Overall, after 1951, simulated depletions were lower than actual depletions. 164

Simulated return flow from canals to the Rio Grande was compared to reported canal return flow to the river. Overall, simulated return flow was higher than reported return flow except in drought years; then it was lower. Error in the reported return flows may be high. The average simulated river loss and canal loss for the ten yeax period 1965-1975 was calculated as 72 cfs and 159 cfs, respectively.

The water budget for pre-1915, 1947, 1975, 1985, and 1990 was compared, and it was pointed out that long term trends should not be extrapolated from annual data of a few years. Sensitivity tests were conducted on changes to the canal-bed vertical hydraulic conductivity, river-bed elevations, and canal-bed elevations. The water budgets for different canal-bed vertical hydraulic conductivities were compared for the end of 1990. River losses were shown to be extremely sensitive to river-bed elevation changes, while canal losses were less sensitive to canal-bed elevation changes.

5.2 CONCLUSIONS and RECOMMENDATIONS

The Mesilla Basin ground-water and surface-water system is extremely

complex because the distributed surface-water system interacts with the ground water system. The original U.S.G.S. model was a good model, and produced satisfactory results relating to river flux and gross fluxes in the system. The current revised model produced good results with respect to water level comparisons, river depletions, and the overall water budget. Any model, however, only gives an approximation of the actual physical system. Modeling 165

necessitates the simplification of complex systems even though simplification can cause greater inaccuracies in model outputs. Good input data will produce results

that have a smaller degree of uncertainty and poor or missing input data will produce results with a higher degree of uncertainty. Model solutions are not unique, when given uncertainty in input data. If inaccuracies tend to offset each other, one set of parameters may yield the same result as another set of parameters. Ultimately, any model should be viewed as a tool which will help to supplement, but not replace, the decision making process.

For the present simulation, the following items deserve particular care in their interpretation and application:

1. The original Streamflow-Routing package (Prudic, 1989) was really designed for natural stream systems, not complex irrigation districts. The modifications employed in the present simulation represent a first-order approach to the implementation of farm water withdrawals and fractional, rather than absolute, diversions in secondary canals.

It is recommended that a systems model of an irrigation district replace the modified Streamflow-Routing package (1989), or at the very least, more modifications should be made to the Streamflow-Routing package (1989). For example, the package should allow designation of evaporation from canals and evapotranspiration from vegetation immediately adjacent to the canals, inclusion of canal bank storage processes, specification of trapezoidal canal geometries, and designation of nonuniform extractions of farm water from cells of canal segments. 166

2. The canal-bed vertical hydraulic conductivity designated in the current study was obtained from inferences about the river-bed hydraulic conductivity. Canal-bed conductivity may differ from that of the river due to cleaning, excavation, structure changes, etc. Unfortunately, river-bed vertical hydraulic conductivity is not well documented. In addition to vertical conductivity, the thickness of the canal bed is difficult to determine. All of these factors will greatly affect the amount of water being lost from the canals and river.

It is recommended that seepage tests be performed on one canal in each of the Leasburg, Eastside, and Westside Units under varying volumes and during the irrigation and nonirrigation season. Monitoring wells near the canal being tested should be examined for water depth. If possible, a better estimate of vertical hydraulic conductivity for the river, canals, and drains, and a better estimate of a river bed and canal bed thickness should be obtained. Permeability studies may be useful for this.

3. Complex processes occur at canal boundaries. Evapotranspiration by phreatophytes along canal banks, canal bank storage, and evaporation from canal surfaces can not be incorporated directly with the Streamflow-Routing package (1989) or the Streamflow-Routing package as modified for this study. Although evaporation from canal surfaces is deemed to be a small percentage of the yearly gross canal diversion, evapotranspiration probably has a large effect on the amount of seepage entering the ground water. 167

The maximum evapotranspiration rate from unirrigated areas in the Valley is included in the model. However, it can approximate only grossly the evapotranspiration by plants lining the canal banks since, for each grid cell, evapotranspiration is averaged over the entire cell axea. Cell widths range from 50 to 150 times the actual width of the canal. Also, according to Frenzel (1992), the evapotranspiration rate used in the original model may be in error. The maximum evapotranspiration rate used in the original model was not modified for the current study. The maximum evapotranspiration rate from nonirrigated lands used in the original model for 1985 was used in the current study for 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, and 1990.

It is recommended that better estimates of the individual components comprising the canal losses be incorporated into the model. In addition, designation of a different maximum evapotranspiration rate for canal cells versus non-canal cells should be investigated. It is possible that evapotranspiration from canal cells may need to be accounted for in some other manner. It is further recommended that the grid have a higher resolution in the area of the canals and river. Also, a separate layer for the alluvium versus the Santa Fe Group would more accurately represent the effects of stresses on the alluvial aquifer. The GIS (Geographic Information System) would be useful for quickly updating the model in these areas. The usefulness of a GIS for assisting incorporation of recommendations can not be overemphasized.

4. The model was found to be very sensitive to river-bed elevations and not as sensitive to canal-bed elevations. River-bed elevations could easily be in error by 168

2 to 3 feet, which would greatly affect the river seepage. It is recommended that more accurate evaluations of the river-bed elevation be obtained. This would greatly improve model-derived river seepage. Canal profiles dated 1961-1965 were used to determine canal slopes and canal-bed elevations. The relative lack of sensitivity of model canal seepage to canal-bed elevation changes means that use of these profiles is probably adequate. It is unknown how use of drain profiles dated 1958-1959, may affect drain flow estimates, however. Individual drain geometries should also be incorporated into the model.

5. The complex Mesilla Valley surface-water system, which in reality consists of over 75 canals and laterals, was reduced to 11 canals and laterals for the present simulation. This simplification of the canal system produces a different distribution and volume of seepage than actually occurs in the system, and so affects the water budget results. It is recommended that the Upper and Lower Chamberino canal system be incorporated into the model. These two canals, along with their respective laterals, service approximately 11,000 acres.

6. Since the actual diversions in secondary canals (i.e., not Leasburg, Eastside, or Westside) were not known, a reasonable algorithm had to be devised for determining them. The algorithm required some estimate of the percent of losses and returns from each canal, and acreage serviced by the canal. These estimates could be in error, therefore causing percentages of incoming flow assigned to diversions to be in error. There may be a different algorithm that would produce more accurate results, however, this author feels that results would improve only 169

if the actual diversions were known.

Gaging stations at all major secondary canal and lateral headings are necessary to determine diversions for future updating of the model. Major Wasteways should continue to be gaged, and this data should eventually be incorporated into the model. In particular, spill from Wasteways la and 1 should be compiled or estimated and incorporated into the model. Return flows from the canals should be compiled individually for the Leasburg, the Westside, and the Eastside Units for as many years prior to 1990 as possible.

7. Data on acreage serviced by each canal was only available for the year 1992. This data had to be extrapolated for use in all yeaxs of the transient run, in order to determine the amount of farm water that should be extracted from each canal segment. Unfortunately, this procedure does not adequately account for changes in distributions of irrigated acreage within the Valley and within individual units (i.e., Leasburg, Eastside, and Westside Units). This approach is probably adequate for the past 20 yeaxs, but is questionable for earlier years, especially before 1950. Available data on returns, losses, and deliveries to farms was

generally reported as a total for the whole Valley. This meant that there was not sufficient information to show variations of these data among the individual units.

It is recommended that better estimates of the acreages serviced by the canals and laterals in the separate units be incorporated into the model. It is also recommended that data on returns, losses, and deliveries to farms for the three 170 units (Leasburg, Eastside, and Westside) be compiled individually, or estimated and incorporated into the model. More complete compilation of acreage and diversions in Texas would also be useful.

8. Although the irrigation districts within the Mesilla Valley may go to a year long irrigation season in the future, for all practical purposes their present irrigation season is 6 to 8 months. The current simulation relied on average annual data. Flow in the canals, which will affect stage, and which in turn will affect losses and returns, would be much different for a simulation that was run on a monthly basis versus a yearly basis. In the current study, a canal-bed conductivity was used that produced a minimum number of canal cells from going dry in any year, and kept a reasonable balance between canal return flows and losses. With an irrigation season that is less than a year, canal flow will actually be zero during nonirrigation months, and minimal during some irrigation months.

It is recommended that the model be run on a monthly basis subsequent to the year 1975. Model-derived heads for 1975 could be used as initial conditions for a model using monthly stress periods after this time. Monthly diversion data for Leasburg, Eastside, and Westside could be incorporated, along with estimated or reported Wasteway data subsequent to 1975.

9. As in the U.S.G.S. models, pumping by agriculture in the valley is accounted for indirectly (since evapotranspiration is accounted for directly). However, pumping by irrigated agriculture comprises a potentially large amount of water 171

(Maddock and Wright Water Engineers Inc. estimated approximately 110,000 acre-ft/yr ). This pumping is important, and will greatly affect river seepage, canal seepage, and drain flows in the Valley. It is recommended that irrigation pumping data or estimates be obtained and incorporated in the simulation.

10. Percent applied-irrigation surface water was approximated as 100 percent minus the percentage of gross diversions representing return flow, minus the percentage of gross diversions representing losses. In some cases, simulated surface water applied to fields was less than 40 percent of the gross headgate diversions (generally, these are in years when reported return flows are high). This author feels that less than 40 percent is too low for irrigated water applied to fields. Inconsistencies in applied water could arise from inaccurate or incomplete reported returns, or from overestimating losses for some years (those years in which losses were not reported- 1975 to 1990). It is recommended that irrigation water applied to the fields be investigated and perhaps revised on the basis of a better estimate of farm efficiency.

11. Evaporation from the river, drain, and canal surfaces was not accounted for in this study. In a normal surface-water year, canal and river evaporation will represent a small percentage of gross canal diversions and overall river flows, but it will represent a larger percentage in drought years. If these losses are not included, their absence will affect simulated river depletions. This should be kept in mind when comparing simulated and actual river depletions. It is recommended that updates of the model account for evaporation from the river. 172

12. The comparison of the water budget for different years gives a feel for the individual model derived fluxes. This author warns against extrapolating long term trends from individual annual water budgets for select years. The hydrologic system in the Mesilla Basin is driven by annual surface-water inputs to the system. This causes a high degree of variability in the water budget on a yearly, or several-year, basis.

13. Specified-head nodes were used to represent underflow at Selden Canyon,

El Paso Narrows, and Fillmore Pass. For the current model, this was considered acceptable, however, the reader is cautioned that specified-head cells can represent an inexhaustible supply of water. Future simulations with the model may require replacement of the specified-head cells with specified-flux cells when pumping stresses are known to directly affect those areas designated as specified- head boundaries.

14. It should be noted that diversions for the Leasburg, Eastside, and Westside Canals are reported in several sources. These sources do not always agree. Particularly, the gross diversions listed in Wilson et al. (1981) for some years differ from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation data supplied by Elephant Butte Irrigation District (EBID), and those reported in Maddock and Wright Water Engineers Inc. (1987). In some cases, the data reported in the study by Maddock and Wright Water Engineers Inc. (1987) differs from the Bureau's data supplied by EBID. This study used the Bureau records supplied by EBID and listed in 173

Appendix B (Elephant Butte Irrigation District, Total Canal Diversions at diversion Dams and Wasteway Discharge, 1992).

Wherever possible, the present study used the percentages reported by Wilson et al. (1981), not the absolute values, for use in determining the return flows, losses, and deliveries to farms. It is recommended that some type of standardization of diversions be established in order to stop proliferation of new diversion data sets. It should also be noted that river flow for 1987-1990 was based on river flow at the Leasburg Cable (below Wasteway la and 1), diversions at Leasburg, and Wasteway la information. Wasteway la information was not available for the years 1987 and 1988. Wasteway 1 information was not available for 1987-1990; therefore, river flows at Selden Canyon for these years may be overestimated.

The present study modifies and updates the U.S.G.S. models (Frenzel and Kaehler, 1990; Frenzel, 1992) of the Mesilla Basin, and represents a good first- order approach to incorporation of the complex boundary processes occurring in the Mesilla Valley. Lack of availability of detailed data, and inconsistencies/ambiguities in reported data, suggests that the present model be used with care. Implementation of some of the above recommendations will greatly enhance the usefulness of the model in the future. APPENDIX A: HEAD RESIDUALS FOR SELECT YEARS . AND SELECT LAYERS Table A-1: Steady state head residuals and error for Layer 1.

DIFF. X . Y IN HEADS (miles') (miles) (ft)

3.15 17.77 137 737 8.76 636 13.53 24.81 -4.72 14.92 20.14 -11.54 17.02 6.64 0.83 16.91 8.48 4.68 19.28 25.20 -531 19.95 6.58 -4.54 19.86 21.64 -5.01 22.83 1.16 0.83 26.97 1Z10 •8.58 30.66 23.92 -830 22.85 17.00 030 23.35 19.00 -0.47 23.35 29.00 4.40 23.85 23.00 5.56 23.85 25.00 11.68 24.35 10.00 -1.42 24.85 40.45 -4.43 24.85 45.00 -5.11 25.35 32.00 1.91 25.85 34.95 Z84 26.35 20.00 034 26.85 22.00 0.87

MEAN MEAN ROOT ERROR ABSOLUTE MEAN (ft) ERROR(ft) SQUARE

-0.72 4.23 534 Table A-2: Steady state head residuals for Layers 2 and 3.

DIFF. X Y IN HEADS (miles) (miles) (ft)

20.12 4.75 -13.19 23.46 15.65 -8.29 23.94 11.19 -11.41 23.80 34.12 -2.45 24.68 1231 -1536 24.90 13.80 -11.92 2438 32.49 -3.76 25.90 27.70 -5.54 25.88 44.78 4.69 26.91 43.00 -1.80 27.66 15.94 -6.20 32.24 22.96 -0.59

Layer 2

DIFF. X Y IN HEADS (miles) (miles) («)

16.91 29.95 3.81 24.83 12.53 -4.84 24.88 12.85 -8.89 25.90 20.52 -2.04 26.28 15.66 -22.44

Layer 3 177

Table A-3: 1947 Layer 1 residuals.

HEAD X Y DIFFERENCE (MILES) (MILES) (FEED 6.272719 1053564 67.00263 7.979732 17.455181 -3562343 8.841571 25.810901 •19.418845 1Z255891 7.944351 24.411086 11.775365 18.803494 -27.017683 1139194 22.772583 -56.093411 13301834 24586394 0.287186 15366337 29.014092 •46.065617 15.692539 31.670538 71.472396 17.405731 19.102275 4.959025 17.707289 8554903 6.868128 19.40698 25.077699 -0.463118 19341761 21589444 -4.774809 21.233335 10.193407 4566824 21385124 Z136912 2.760422 21.206773 39327863 6.66409 22.272897 0.979958 12323239 21793613 1358999 12375535 22501159 16.424069 -17583488 22.696349 17.445223 1.406153 22.427961 25.117794 -4.971227 22.97369 18.409784 0344222 22.880356 36.090684 -6522688 22.723371 36.869236 -7.054105 2238067 37.635896 -7.411926 2337963 2.669184 -3.021396 23559938 18.572158 -2.171709 23.15912 3550961 -5343227 23358797 40326205 •4156464 23383518 44.116669 -2326785 24.144224 13.247615 -3.044807 23.910915 28521507 -1Z46231 23.817173 47.043341 •8.823567 24.013513 49.234482 -0.481615 23.824889 52325456 -3511062 2334039 53536486 -3.710546 24565479 36.211492 •8.279848 24.208457 45222112 •8365377 24.941471 24566023 •133613 25.087473 36.798119 -10.160645 25358991 24300853 -1.204789 25.257302 34.176843 •4.650699 25.608999 40391782 -7573751 25.200995 45.059952 -10397927 25.7441 28.286692 -5.445351 25.815882 30.530652 -5.266137 26.01917 36.412694 -8.471846 26.922152 38524404 -19330033 27.021592 38.752468 -14.166378 26.670791 41.118721 -3.144828 27.497779 27502639 -15396098 28.746555 23391426 7.932453 178

Table A-4: 1975 Layer 1 residuals. HEAD X Y DIFFERENCE (MILES) (MILES) (FEET)

3.147003 17.774596 1.94644 3.998275 23.942572 -2.261799 3350468 29.201788 -21.23175 4.939402 27.751648 -1.590019 7.810659 17.842504 3.006179 11.251391 22.980279 5.639907 11.114103 31.648137 2.010705 13.526414 24.80541 -5.474879 14.923868 20.143302 -11.317436 14.542228 36.268797 21.971832 16.198531 28.27438 6.972577 16.314618 33.905222 2.406914 17.017826 6.642709 3.77483 16.910546 8.484222 6.970229 16.911665 29.946944 2.039505 19.280593 25.195467 -5.767197 19.947422 6.57915 •0.978144 21.022206 7.823044 -2.510034 21.130468 37.732041 3.509945 21.482792 10.439704 -2.495759 21.59187 11.018275 -1.177326 21.32088 39.507752 -3.322768 21.768486 7.081578 •0.821421 22.073417 15.399727 0.005781 21.869718 36.824319 3.715465 22.4242 2.478716 -0.7065 22.322621 11.389251 1.429816 22.492599 16.281711 -0.495418 22.444129 16.824516 -1328987 22.194052 40.734455 2.934749 23.022954 3.366205 18.49349 23.266604 6.431155 -0384871 22.803534 17.732506 1.037306 23.010925 36.430459 -9308444 Table A-4: 1975 Layer 1 residuals (concluded).

HEAD X Y DIFFERENCE (MILES) (MILES) (FEE!)

22.989461 40.971722 3.85897 23.37963 2.669184 -1.531024 23.282921 12.411667 -1.607239 23.402278 15.510535 -5.574613 23.618032 17.315661 •0571 23.668221 20.945927 3.645554 23335224 49384978 -3.518763 23.514502 50.685408 0.001549 23.545583 11.296077 0389086 23.717871 11.242109 •0.354469 23.898895 13.583707 •2.511146 24.047269 14.416433 -2.659234 24.259352 20.793097 -0.781971 24.064798 41.525375 •6.094887 24347152 11.052289 -4.765333 24.342822 11.534008 -6393287 24.481981 15.416858 -1.94532 24.891903 12.83942 -4.938381 24.919123 27.289141 -3.988467 25.143543 38.715552 -13.534622 24.750594 39.074964 -15.732115 25.378124 11.460048 -13.246025 25.652154 12.050386 -18.004883 25.496066 14.517316 0.485759 26.041025 12.987242 -20.691115 26.072712 36.535498 -8.974704 26.378747 26.236387 -7.292247 26.182324 30.475434 -5.838766 26.916461 14.88114 -10.562468 27.051101 14.822698 12.577052 27.177545 20.025287 3.090177 26.976847 22.261678 -5.840332 27.276651 42.629276 -11.603696 30.661104 23.916059 -9.422211 Table A-5: 1985 Layer 1 residuals. HEAD X Y DIFFERENCE (MILES) (MILES) (FEET)

1.263633 27.735352 -16.636183 2.543423 17.495852 -10.57516 3.078103 20.626037 -14.527184 4.879685 27.777855 5.232816 7.092722 8.861436 8.705495 7.115361 8.872429 2.71905 10.205404 27.908948 -0.64204 12.038216 7.976626 14.200639 13.526414 24.80541 0.358186 14.968711 20.123726 -6.172004 15.229561 28.823235 17.016291 14.602302 36.284278 25.72762 15.57404 31.805925 1.769181 17.424207 8.886788 5.157014 17.226645 15.5478 -2.066166 17.964033 7.671041 -0301783 17.524291 18.925316 -5.068452 18.695359 5.829677 6.003011 20514799 7.188063 -3.84178 20.261959 8.695948 -0.239747 21.013543 5.302289 3.050289 22.222283 24.727274 0.211032 27.177545 20.025287 3.044251 181

Table A-6: 1990 Layer 1 residuals. HEAD X Y DIFFERENCE ' (MILES) (MILES) (FEET)

22.59847 52.84153 •8.071577 23.95237 51.72645 -11.706115 23.40251 48.7288 -8.524804 25.13768 46.8212 -3.970929 24.25219 46.49804 -1.842764 24.27699 4533837 -3.010333 22.91889 42.79881 -0.660649 24.6073 41.91499 -2.492563 24.57029 41.95204 -5.316263 25.48553 40.7589 -9329122 24.19424 39.54752 -10.35202 22.7902 39.05376 1.281086 22.7902 39.05376 1.411086 22.84979 39.02774 -Z216709 22.84979 39.02774 0.453291 23.86931 38.47816 -6.258301 23.86931 38.47816 •6.118301 25.4713 37.02742 -6.031648 23.57208 35.64263 -1.468308 21.77391 35.46693 -1.670186 22.72407 33.86189 •6.089755 24.52235 33.2237 •0.64092 25.28292 32.89216 •0.16225 25.1468 32.74272 -2371628 25.1468 32.74272 -1.131628 24.05349 32.71826 -5.773972 24.36593 32.49853 -0.955524 24.36593 32.49853 -0.695524 23.18992 32.44761 -4.784271 23.18992 32.44761 -3.364271 23.28019 32.49176 •4398121 23.28019 32.49176 -3.478121 24.62221 31.86488 -3.525931 26.06006 31.05053 -0.353901 26.2944 30.4475 -2.036559 23.85251 30.38407 -5.062043 23.32452 29.13194 -4366931 24.39542 25.59685 1.100859 24.55368 23.87907 0.530825 26.71465 21.29058 -1.806231 24.22496 23.08293 -1.834817 23.97295 22.50385 -2.220213 27.17755 20.02529 4.205161 27.17755 20.02529 4.155161 Table A-6: 1990 Layer 1 residuals (concluded).

HEAD X Y DIFFERENCE (MILES) (MILES) (FEET)

27.17755 20.02529 4.105161 27.17755 20.02529 4.025161 27.17755 20.02529 3.785161 26.68476 2130357 3.26064 25.77231 20.59426 -0.799387 26.4525 2031947 -0.008076 26.64618 19.12944 5.555734 26.50996 17.91587 0.530549 26.08506 17.22415 -0.169532 26.21964 17.16569 0.704128 23.70043 16.2782 -Z411889 24.37859 12.39472 -2.885482 22.16645 11.60318 -0.584401 2138489 11.48385 0.169098 23.65983 10.41193 -5.866396 21.9778 8.096421 -3.260087 24.7468 12.46431 -7.239533 24.7468 12.46431 -9.179533 25.04613 12.33434 -5.90993 25.04613 12.33434 •8.60993 25.12096 12.30185 -4.194238 22.38513 6.000192 15.813428 25.21076 12.26286 -3.247391 25.21076 12.26286 -10.877391 22.81977 8.231474 -2.847187 22.46358 5.31944 -0.033485 23.05964 5.749141 -2.642643 23.37963 2.669184 -2.421474 15.57404 31.80593 5.441384 22.22228 24.72727 0.21833 4 28 -1.521756 13.54941 24.85802 •0.072388 14 20 -7.281973 2.996104 20.6829 -25.806999 17 15 •0.887384 2.543423 17.49585 -10.400963 17.42421 8.886788 3.649419 17.96403 7.671041 -1.48521' 20.26196 8.695948 -0.661059 20.5148 7.188063 -237157 21.01354 5302289 3.606087 7.092722 8.861436 8.959238 7.234835 8.778462 3.169742 12.03822 7.976626 15.20154 14.62624 36.42006 20.881884 15.22956 28.82323 14328849 1.263633 27.73535 -16.018725 Table A-7: 1975 Layer 2 residuals. Diff. Cell in Head Row Col (Feet) 21 19 -4.64 22 12 1.84 22 13 1.43 22 37 -1.90 23 12 6.62 24 14 -5.03 24 15 5.63 25 15 4.75 24 17 -0.42 24 24 -3.91 26 16 -16.34 27 41 -11.20 27 48 0.82 28 46 5.68 28 46 -13.09 28 53 -0.60 29 45 -2.69 29 49 -19.71 Table A-8: 1990 Layer 2 residuals. Diff. Cell in Head Row Col (Feet)

13 47 3.85 20 47 6.91 20 47 -1.28 22 46 1.99 27 41 15.51 27 42 2.91 25 36 -1.81 23 36 -3.38 23 36 -1.45 21 35 -0.37 21 35 -0.14 5 21 2.35 8 24 -3.42 6 10 9.01 24 15 -7.22 25 15 17.02 25 15 14.95 22 12 -8.77 11 33 2.90 Table A-9: 1975 Layer 3 residuals. Diff. Cell in Head Row Col (Feet)

23 13 -10.81 24 15 15.90 24 15 3.70 25 16 0.54 24 17 -19.66 25 42 -12.50 29 25 -0.10 186

APPENDIX B: TOTAL CANAL DIVERSIONS AT DIVERSION DAMS, AND WASTEWAY DISCHARGE LEASBURG CANAL AT LEASBURG DAM FOR YEAR 1916 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. KAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 6250 9550 9775 12795 14435 13875 11267 10550 3350 955 92802

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 12396 18942 19389 25379 28632 27520 22348 20962 6644 1894 184106

LEASBURG CANAL AT LEASBURG DAM FOR YEAR 1917 JAN. FEB. HAR. APR. KAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 466 8609 11331 10474 11858 14594 12917 10970 12244 9726 3993 4206 111388

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 923 17075 22474 20775 23519 28947 25621 21758 24289 19290 7919 8342 220932 LEASBURG CANAL AT LEASBURG DAM FOR YEAR 1918 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. OEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 3273 15148 16026 15895 14789 13229 12444 11350 7815 5188 0 115157

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 6482 30046 31787 31527 29334 26239 24683 22512 15501 10290 0 228401 LEASBURG CANAL AT LEASBURG DAM FOR YEAR 1920 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. OEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 17096 15808 17162 14603 15919 7875 7394 4192 100049

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 33909 31355 34039 28964 31574 15616 14665 8314 198436

LEASBURG CANAL AT LEASBURG DAK FOR YEAR 1921 JAN. FEB. KAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 5058 16656 16478 15378 16600 15091 15284 14648 10754 7393 0 133340

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 10032 33036 32683 30502 32925 29932 30315 29054 21330 14663 0 264472

LEASBURG CANAL AT LEASBURG DAM FOR YEAR 1922 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 10562 14829 16550 18427 16078 17750 16939 15324 14524 4313 5016 150312

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 20949 29411 32825 36549 31889 35207 33598 30392 28809 8555 9949 298133 LEASBURG CANAL AT LEASBURG DAM FOR YEAR 1923 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 5281 12570 20241 22831 22511 21947 19757 18744 17530 3210 1697 166319

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 10475 24935 40147 45284 44650 43531 39188 37178 34770 6367 3366 329891

LEASBURG CANAL AT LEASBURG DAM FOR YEAR 1924 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 11275 14313 22108 23656 22730 22099 21392 20003 16211 3540 5343 182670

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 22364 28390 43850 46921 45084 43832 42431 39676 32154 7022 10604 362328

LEASBURG CANAL AT LEASBURG DAM FOR YEAR 1925 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 9054 16126 20947 22048 21029 19343 17525 12900 7541 5854 7454 159821

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 17959 31986 41548 43731 41711 38367 34761 25587 14957 13595 14785 318987 LEASBURG CANAL AT LEASBURG DAM FOR YEAR 1926 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 9044 10775 16361 16911 17471 17852 17470 14516 4933 4970 3358 133661

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 17938 21372 32453 33542 34653 35409 34651 28792 9784 9858 6660 265112

LEASBURG CANAL AT LEAS8URG DAM FOR YEAR 1927 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 294 6021 10329 16455 19506 16910 15301 16172 14772 8216 3265 2261 129502

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 583 11942 20487 32638 38690 33S40 30349 32076 29300 16296 6476 4484 256861

LEASBURG CANAL AT LEASBURG DAM FOR YEAR 1928 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. HAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 2168 5356 12148 16092 15981 16977 17963 17911 15269 7001 2272 1793 130931

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 4300 10623 24095 37918 31698 33673 35629 35526 30286 13886 4506 3556 265696

00 00 CANAL AT LEASBURG DAN FOR YEAR 1929 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 4125 5852 10093 18223 17300 17574 16320 14629 12319 3757 3283 4368 127843

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 8182 11607 20019 36145 34314 34858 32370 29016 24434 7451 6512 8664 253572

LEASBURG CANAL AT LEASBURG DAM FOR YEAR 1930 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 360 4924 9910 16582 15688 14224 15636 16296 13974 4925 2143 1845 116507

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 714 9767 19656 32890 31117 2821$ 31014 32323 27717 9769 4251 3660 231091

LEASBURG CANAL AT LEASBURG DAM FOR YEAR 1931 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. KAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. " DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 2564 8007 15070 13771 16535 15293 14233 11602 4634 3587 909 106205

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 5090 15900 29900 27300 32800 30300 28200 23000 9190 7110 1800 210590

LEASBURG CANAL AT LEASBURG DAM FOR YEAR 1932 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 4170 9438 16005 14839 15537 15622 15707 12769 2166 2783 1884 110920

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 8270 18700 31700 29400 30800 31000 31200 25300 4300 5520 3740 219930 LEASBURG CANAL AT LEASBURG DAM FOR YEAR 1933 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. XT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 5176 9981 15724 14409 12567 14986 16533 13462 4501 2291 3258 112888

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 10300 19800 31200 28600 24900 29700 32800 26700 8930 4540 6460 223930

LEASBURG CANAL AT LEASBURG DAM FOR YEAR 1934 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 1078 7141 10558 14434 12905 13386 14988 16224 9833 2008 1797 1797 106149

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 2140 14160 20940 28630 25600 26550 29730 32180 19500 3980 3560 3560 210530

<000 CANAL AT LEASBURG DAM FOR YEAR 1935 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. HAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 560 2023 2913 7534 6687 10441 12163 10351 4427 2445 1745 789 62078

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 1111 4013 5778 14940 13263 20710 24120 20530 8780 4850 3460 1565 123120 LEASBURG CANAL AT LEASBURG DAM FOR YEAR 1936 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 341 1820 6209 15490 13170 16252 17899 17648 13384 3294 2140 1614 109261

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 677 3610 12310 30720 26120 322*0 35500 35000 26550 6530 4240 3200 216687 LEASBURG CANAL AT LEASBURG DAM FOR YEAR 1937 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 653 2318 5150 15413 13372 14060 14379 15830 7453 2972 2025 2703 96528

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 1300 4990 10220 30570 26520 27890 28520 31400 14780 5890 4020 5360 191460 LEASBURG CANAL AT LEASBURG DAM FOR YEAR 1938 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. OEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 2798 6893 15124 14310 15882 13584 15586 9576 5315 2335 2860 104263

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 5550 13670 30000 28380 31500 26940 30910 18990 10540 4630 5670 206780

LEASBURG CANAL AT LEASBURG DAM FOR YEAR 1939 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 1861 9971 16406 15460 17821 19420 16840 9778 3733 2640 2353 116283

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 3690 19780 32540 30660 35350 38520 33400 19390 7400 5240 4670 230640

LEASBURG CANAL AT LEASBURG DAM FOR YEAR 1940 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. NAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 842 1193 10009 15861 14419 15936 17834 17695 10320 3371 2153 775 110408

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 1670 2366 19853 31460 28600 31609 35373 35098 20469 6686 4270 1537 218991

CO O CANAL AT LEASBURG DAM FOR YEAR 1941 JAN. FES. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 713 3112 6261 8618 11639 12956 11254 6193 2260 1139 773 64918

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 1410 6170 12420 17090 23090 25700 22320 12280 4480 2260 1530 128750

LEASBURG CANAL AT LEASBURG DAM FOR YEAR 1942 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 3192 7055 12783 10976 13346 14871 11730 9769 $567 3800 3939 97028

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 6330 13990 25350 21770 26470 29500 23270 19380 11040 7540 7810 192450

LEASBURG CANAL AT LEASBURG DAM FOR YEAR 1943 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. HAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 996 4111 9657 15302 12909 14407 14633 18450 9886 4952 3524 2063 110890

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 1980 8150 19150 30350 25600 28580 29020 36600 19610 9820 6990 4090 219940

LEASBURG CANAL AT LEASBURG DAM FOR YEAR 1944 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. HAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. OEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 661 2556 8917 14197 12187 13614 15943 15207 11434 5283 1186 1838 103023

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 1310 5070 17690 28160 24170 27000 31620 30160 22680 10480 235Q 3650 204340

LEASBURG CANAL AT LEASBURG DAM FOR YEAR 1945 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 3267 9350 14274 13293 13991 17404 16391 13508 3189 2159 3163 109989

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 6480 18540 28310 26370 27750 34520 32510 26790 6320 4280 6270 218140

LEASBURG CANAL AT LEASBURG DAM FOR YEAR 1946 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. NAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 2433 8554 15143 11697 15361 18951 17483 7835 2386 2266 1591 103700

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 4830 16970 30040 23200 30470 37590 34680 15540 4730 4490 3160 205700

CO LEASBURG CANAL AT LEASBURG OAM FOR YEAR 1947 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. HAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 1184 8844 15277 11247 13641 18307 14442 10875 1524 1031 770 97142

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 2350 17540 30300 22310 27060 36310 28650 21570 3020 2040 1530 192680

LEASBURG CANAL AT LEASBURG DAN FOR YEAR 1948 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 232 125 5435 13541 7896 11835 18627 18635 10127 3014 1667 1526 92660

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 460 250 10780 26860 15660 23470 36950 36960 20090 5980 3310 3030 183800 LEASBURG CANAL AT LEASBURG DAM FOR YEAR 1949 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 106 672 10196 12056 8937 12379 17436 16756 7478 3832 3433 1868 95149

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 210 1330 20220 23910 17730 24550 34580 33240 14830 7600 6810 3710 188720 LEASBURG CANAL AT LEASBURG DAM FOR YEAR 1950 JAN. FEB. NAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 1124 2449 14188 10704 12747 11266 13393 17599 10222 2027 1143 946 97808

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 2230 4860 28140 21230 25280 22350 26560 34910 20280 4020 2270 1880 194010 LEASBURG CANAL AT LEASBURG DAM FOR YEAR 1951 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 0 6445 8117 2665 5988 9545 10694 5439 687 578 433 50591

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 0 127B0 16100 5290 11880 18930 21210 10790 1360 1150 860 100350 LEAS8URG CANAL AT LEASBURG DAM FOR YEAR 1952 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 267 148 1594 5295 3357 7245 10384 12388 7790 1059 573 607 50707

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 530 294 3160 10500 6660 14370 20600 24570 15450 2100 1140 1200 100574 LEASBURG CANAL AT LEASBURG DAM FOR YEAR 1953 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. OEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 402 184 6704 5216 3853 5770 9600 10669 7125 594 209 283 50609

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 797 365 13300 10350 7640 11440 19040 21160 14130 1180 415 561 100378

LEASBURG CANAL AT LEASBURG DAM FOR YEAR 1954 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 244 94 1597 5055 2229 3026 3916 5081 2874 1288 27 25431

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 484 186 3170 10030 4420 6000 7770 10080 5700 2550 54 50444 LEASBURG CANAL AT LEASBURG DAM FOR YEAR 1955 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV* OEC. TOTAL TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 0 1483 2703 459 1486 3231 4043 4298 195 0 0 17898

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 0 2940 5360 910 2950 6410 8020 8520 387 0 0 35497 LEASBURG CANAL AT LEASBURG DAM FOR YEAR 1956 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 0 2907 2961 560 2786 3266 3267 2066 0 17813

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 0 5770 5870 1110 5530 6480 6480 4100 0 35340 LEASBURG CANAL AT LEASBURG DAM FOR YEAR 1957 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 0 1128 5853 301 9905 14767 15337 11208 2343 526 0 61368 MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 0 2240 11610 597 19650 29290 30420 22230 4650 1040 0 121727 LEASBURG CANAL AT LEASBURG DAM FOR YEAR 1958 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. HAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 0 9560 10042 8495 12285 16106 13187 6693 3257 1518 808 81951

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 0 18960 19920 16850 24370 31950 26160 13280 6460 3010 1600 162560

CO CO CANAL AT LEASBURG DAM FOR YEAR 1959 JAN. FE8. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 742 0 11213 10308 8353 11590 14002 12062 9238 1833 1227 1094 81662

MONTHLY RIM-OFF (A/F) 1470 0 22240 20450 16570 22990 27770 23920 18320 3640 2430 2170 161970

LEASBURG CANAL AT LEASBURG DAM FOR YEAR 1960 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 1002 11012 7830 6923 11088 12708 13363 10003 2177 1178 1076 78360

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 1990 21840 15530 13730 21990 25210 26510 19840 4320 2340 2130 155430

LEASBURG CANAL AT LEASBURG DAM FOR YEAR 1961 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. HAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 955 601 9296 6835 S897 7028 11902 10628 6345 1542 1141 614 62784

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 1890 1190 18440 13560 11700 13940 23610 21080 12590 3060 2260 1220 124540

LEASBURG CANAL AT LEASBURG DAM FOR YEAR 1962 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 511 166 9609 8606 6414 11306 11868 13723 6559 2211 1372 1312 73657

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 1010 329 19060 17070 12720 22430 23540 27220 13010 4390 2720 2600 146099

LEASBURG CANAL AT LEASBURG DAM FOR YEAR 1963 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. ' AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 242 11872 9220 9018 9693 11464 9266 5025 1065 636 671 68172

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 480 23550 18290 17890 19230 22740 18380 9970 2110 1260 1330 135230

LEASBURG CANAL AT LEASBURG DAM FOR YEAR 1964 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. OEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 238 2475 3559 91 5678 10735 10900 5702 10 39388

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 471 4910 7060 180 11260 21290 21620 11310 19 78120

CO LEASBURG CANAL AT LEASBURG DAM FOR YEAR 1965 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 1522 2702 106 6428 10625 10511 6580 932 371 39777

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 3020 5360 210 12750 21070 20850 13050 1850 736 78896

LEASBURG CANAL AT LEASBURG DAM FOR YEAR 1966 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 8856 7570 5069 7873 12023 9588 8524 1725 414 0 61642

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 17570 15020 10050 15620 23850 19020 16910 3420 821 0 122281

LEASBURG CANAL AT LEASBURG DAM FOR YEAR 1967 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE ' 11862 6693 6544 6763 9294 9553 8950 1269 661 61594

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 23530 13280 12980 13410 18430 18950 17750 2520 1310 122169 LEASBURG CANAL AT LEASBURG DAM FOR YEAR 1968 JAN. FE8. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 7223 9527 8312 11134 12420 13588 10465 1500 609 74778

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 14330 18900 16490 22080 24630 26950 20760 2980 1210 148330 LEASBURG CANAL AT LEAS8URG DAM FOR YEAR 1969 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 13364 10621 7199 11692 14847 15334 8890 1991 708 84646

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 26510 21070 14280 23190 29450 30420 17630 3950 1400 167900

LEASBURG CANAL AT LEASBURG DAM FOR YEAR 1970 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 978 11326 8684 8254 11156 15167 14273 10216 2297 667 83018

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 1940 22460 17220 16370 22130 30080 28310 20260 4560 1320 164650 CANAL AT LEASBURG DAM FOR YEAR 1971 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 10502 7912 8515 9439 11808 11761 5780 566 0 66283

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 20830 15690 16890 18720 23420 23330 11460 1120 0 131460

LEASBURG CANAL AT LEASBURG DAM FOR YEAR 1972 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 8742 7359 3324 4266 10100 7389 2357 20 43557

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 17340 14600 6590 8460 20030 14660 4680 40 86400 LEASBURG CANAL AT LEASBURG DAM FOR YEAR 1973 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 4196 6729 6419 9184 9761 12183 9976 2607 0 61055

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 8320 13350 12730 18220 19360 24160 19790 5170 0 121100

LEAS8URG CANAL AT LEASBURG DAM FOR YEAR 1974 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 9315 9591 8998 12120 10548 11694 8418 360 0 71044

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 18480 19020 17850 24040 20920 23200 16700 714 0 140924 LEASBURG CANAL AT LEASBURG DAM FOR YEAR 1975 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 510 5395 6608 7270 9240 11549 11931 8320 1484 0 62307

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 1010 10700 13110 14420 18350 22910 23660 16500 2940 0 123600

LEASBURG CANAL AT LEASBURG DAM FOR YEAR 1976 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 1538 5094 8383 8444 8412 9464 10161 11541 8548 1472 0 73057

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 3050 10100 16630 16750 16680 18770 20150 22890 16960 2920 0 144900

to O LEASBURG CANAL AT LEASBURG OAK FOR YEAR 1977 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 0 3835 6158 5898 6863 6666 8272 4312 58 42062 MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 0 7610 12210 11700 13610 13220 16410 8550 115 83425 LEASBURG CANAL AT LEASBURG DAM FOR YEAR 1978 JAN. FE8. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. TOTAL TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 0 1787 3231 889 4240 4455 6500 5033 40 26175 MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 0 3540 6410 1760 8410 8840 12890 9980 79 51909 LEASBURG CANAL AT LEASBURG DAM FOR YEAR 1979 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN* JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. OEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 0 2924 6428 6860 8978 10724 6493 7661 981 51049

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 0 5800 12750 13610 17810 21270 12880 15200 1950 101270 LEASBURG CANAL AT LEASBURG DAM FOR YEAR 1980 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 3475 3643 7456 7696 7558 11126 12001 10540 6535 816 70846

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 6890 7230 14790 15260 14990 22070 23800 20910 12960 1620 140520 LEASBURG CANAL AT LEASBURG DAM FOR YEAR 1981 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 451 7319 7213 7607 10490 8033 6023 180 57124

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 895 14520 14310 15090 19450 20810 15930 11950 357 113312

LEASBURG CANAL AT LEASBURG DAM FOR YEAR 1982 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. :. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 350 7575 7325 7525 9737 11306 9844 7052 286 0 61000

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 694 15020 14530 14930 19310 22420 19520 13990 567 0 120981

CO -a CANAL AT LEAS8URG DAM FOR YEAR 1983 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. HAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 0 6022 7014 8475 10146 11785 11007 8607 693 63749

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 0 11944 13910 16810 20120 23380 21830 17072 1374 126440 LEASBURG CANAL AT LEASBURG DAM FOR YEAR 1984 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 137 7845 8068 8644 9577 11484 6106 8036 59897

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 270 15560 16000 17150 19000 22780 12110 15939 118809 LEASBURG CANAL AT LEASBURG DAM FOR YEAR 1985 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 0 5213 7921 9100 10643 11423 9631 7839 2594 64364

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 0 10340 15711 18050 21110 22657 19103 15548 5145 127664 LEASBURG CANAL AT LEASBURG DAM FOR YEAR 1986 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 2366 5613 9087 9632 10548 9295 11602 12287 9560 3145 83135

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 4693 11133 18024 19105 20922 18436 23012 24371 18962 6238 164896 LEASBURG CANAL AT LEASBURG DAM FOR YEAR 1987 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 7390 10777 10691 11905 11400 13799 11549 9398 4267 91176

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 14658 21376 21205 23613 22621 27370 22907 18641 8463 180854

LEASBURG CANAL AT LEASBURG DAM FOR YEAR 1988 JAN. FES. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 2962 8827 9261 10640 12692 13230 10775 8656 2998 80041

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 5875 17508 18369 21104 25174 26241 21372 17169 5946 158758 CANAL AT LEASBURG DAM FOR YEAR 1989 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 1358 10807 9593 10791 13502 13753 8375 6715 0 74894

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 2694 21435 19027 21404 26781 27279 16612 13319 0 148551

LEASBURG CANAL AT LEASBURG DAM FOR YEAR 1990 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 7985 7450 8887 11728 10463 7833 8064 371 0 62781

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 15838 14777 17627 23262 20753 15537 15995 736 0 124525

LEASBURG CANAL AT LEASBURG DAM FOR YEAR 1991 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 1709 8100 8331 9322 10542 9968 7356 6794 4408 0 66530

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 3390 16066 16524 18490 20910 19771 14590 13476 8743 0 131960

CO CANAL AT HESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1916 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

0 1520 3498 3130 3695 5410 5530 1865 3980 2290 160 31078

0 3015 6938 6209 7329 10730 10968 3699 7985 4542 317 61732 CANAL A1 HESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1917 JAK. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

245 3320 4775 3750 5080 5425 5233 4508 5410 5375 50 2120 45291

485 6585 9471 7438 10076 10760 10379 8942 10731 10661 99 4205 89832

CANAL AT MES1LLA DAM FOR YEAR 1918 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. OEC. TOTAL

0 371 5337 5405 5317 5321 5331 4765 5644 1964 995 40450

0 736 10585 10721 10546 10554 10574 9451 11194 3896 1974 80231 CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1920 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

0 0 0 0 5173 4785 5628 5338 5149 2769 2764 2016 33622

0 0 0 0 10260 9490 11162 10587 10212 5492 5482 3998 66683 CANAL AT TCSILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1921 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. TOTAL

0 1624 4360 4185 4126 4556 5098 5192 4466 2975 2070 38652

0 3221 8648 8299 8183 9035 10111 10297 8858 5901 4105 76658 CANAL AT KESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1922 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. KAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

2858 3861 4287 4313 5051 5253 5764 4836 2665 963 605 40456

5669 7658 8504 8554 10018 10419 11432 9592 5286 1910 1199 80241

CANAL AT KESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1923 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. KAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

1593 3800 5405 7383 7617 7881 7162 6367 4998 603 482 53291

3159 7537 10720 14644 15108 15632 14206 12629 9912 1196 956 105699 CANAL AT MES1LLA DAM FOR YEAR 1924 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR, KAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

3657 6460 7333 7954 7297 7446 7608 7191 2946 1901 59793

7251 12813 14544 15776 14473 14769 15090 14263 5843 3770 118592 CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1925 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. KAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

1435 4202 7466 7829 7988 7794 6785 5481 193 311 633 50117

2846 8335 14809 15529 15844 15459 13458 10872 383 617 1256 99408

CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1926 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

136 882 6575 6209 7033 7361 7594 6317 500 1023 122 43752

270 1749 13041 12315 13950 14600 15062 12530 992 2029 242 86780

CANAL AT KESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1927 JAN. FEB. KAR. APR. KAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

100 594 2569 5998 6917 6130 7250 5914 6780 1835 1598 812 46497 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CANAL AT HESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1928 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUH. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

1033 2646 3949 7940 6600 6415 8448 7544 6070 1894 640 53179

2049 5248 7833 15749 13091 12724 16756 14963 12040 3757 1269 105479

CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1929 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. HAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

485 581 4059 7849 6340 6180 4917 4425 3858 1261 343 691 40989

962 1152 8051 15568 12575 12258 9753 8777 7652 2501 680 1371 81300 CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1930 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

1853 4313 7687 4880 4991 8154 7015 4948 2455 767 535 47598

3675 8555 15247 9679 9899 16173 13914 9814 4869 1521 1061 94407 CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1931 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

1384 4891 7584 5221 6763 7463 6273 5097 1663 849 70 47258

2745 9700 15000 10400 13400 14802 12400 10100 3300 1680 140 93667

CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1932 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

1082 4629 6914 5776 6099 6815 6962 5169 779 794 809 45828

2150 9180 13700 11500 12100 13500 13800 10300 1540 1570 1600 90940

CANAL AT HESILLA DAH FOR YEAR 1933 JAN. FEB. KAR. APR. HAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

0 1396 3866 6812 4759 4566 6222 6250 5355 1530 803 1292 42851

0 2770 7670 13500 9440 9060 12300 12400 10600 3030 1590 2560 84920 CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1934 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

3305 4375 5765 4312 5374 6184 7355 3997 362 516 260 41805

6555 8680 11430 8550 10660 12270 14590 7930 718 1020 516 82919

CANAL AT HESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1935 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

690 1763 3902 3064 3657 5539 4658 2593 927 416 547 27756

1370 3500 7740 6080 7250 10990 9240 5140 1840 825 1080 55055 CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1936 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

491 2774 5281 4669 4931 5811 5677 3147 779 372 359 34291

947 5500 10470 9260 9780 11530 11260 6240 1550 738 712 67987

CANAL AT HESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1937 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. NAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

433 3062 5966 4517 5286 6379 6920 4184 414 759 627 38547

859 6070 11830 8960 10480 12650 13730 8300 821 1510 1240 76450

CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1938 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

0 0 3746 6019 4714 5533 5707 6714 3408 2249 912 768 39770

0 0 7430 11940 9350 10970 11320 13320 6760 4460 1810 1520 78880

CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1939 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. OEC. TOTAL

720 3459 7067 5462 6738 7537 6661 5096 1466 816 676 45698

1430 6860 14020 10830 13360 14950 13210 10110 2910 1620 1340 90640 CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1940 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. TOTAL

0 460 2726 6688 4580 6066 6950 7202 5028 99 350 40149

0 912 5410 13260 9080 12030 13790 14280 9970 1960 694 81386

CANAL AT MES1LLA DAN FOR YEAR 1941 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. TOTAL

0 109 1743 6367 4182 5669 7533 5809 3944 494 414 36860

0 216 3460 12630 8290 11240 14940 11520 7820 980 821 73097 CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1942 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. HAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. TOTAL

0 2719 4972 7104 6524 6013 6073 6580 5036 1228 1137 47918

0 5390 9860 14090 12940 11930 12050 13050 9990 2440 2260 95060 CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1943 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. TOTAL

0 1069 5133 7461 5187 5785 6338 8157 4429 1164 818 45787

0 2120 10180 14800 10290 11470 12570 16180 8780 2310 1620 90808 CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1944 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. TOTAL

0 770 4354 7792 4844 5505 6620 7284 5370 1431 44556

0 1530 8640 15460 9610 10920 13130 14450 10650 2840 88390

CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1945 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. HAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. TOTAL

0 407 4751 7300 5408 6540 7815 8128 6355 1104 677 49357

0 810 9420 14480 10730 12970 15500 16120 12600 2190 1340 97890 EASTSIDE CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1946 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY OISCHARGE 1049 3708 7156 4545 6680 7927 7950 2901 945 355 533 43749

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 20S0 7350 14190 9010 13250 15720 15770 5750 1870 700 1060 86750

EASTSIDE CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1947 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 388 3450 6938 4264 5330 8391 7143 3789 39693

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 770 6840 13760 8460 10570 16640 14170 7520 78730 EASTSIDE CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1948 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 2463 7258 3816 5054 9123 8722 4490 514 456 132 42028

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 4890 14400 7570 10020 18100 17300 8910 1020 900 260 83370 EASTSIDE CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1949 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. NAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 5003 6371 4796 6260 8610 8827 3450 746 524 0 44587

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 9920 12640 9510 12420 17080 17510 6840 1480 1040 0 88440 EASTSIDE CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1950 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 610 6317 5885 5700 5330 6083 7950 3746 226 41847

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 1210 12530 11670 11310 10570 12070 15770 7430 448 83008 EASTSIDE CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1951 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 3092 4786 1377 3397 5437 5786 1771 25646

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 6130 9490 2730 6740 10780 11480 3510 50860

to 001 CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1952 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

0 0 895 3528 2571 4144 6344 7549 3325 0 0 0 28356

0 0 1780 7000 5100 8220 12580 17970 6600 0 0 0 59250

CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1953 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. J UN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

0 0 4143 3458 2324 3704 5212 5927 3255 0 0 0 28023

0 0 8220 6860 4610 7350 10340 11760 6460 0 0 0 55600

CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1954 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

0 0 990 2762 2100 3961 5598 2132 860 444 0 0 18847

0 0 1960 5480 4170 7860 11100 4230 1710 881 0 0 37391 CANAL AT MESILLA DAN FOR YEAR 1955 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

0 0 892 1533 155 1500 1598 3302 2312 98 0 0 11390

0 0 1770 3040 307 2980 3170 6550 4590 194 0 0 22601

CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1956 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

0 0 1135 4316 271 2797 2346 1580 1198 0 0 0 13643

0 0 2250 8560 538 5550 4650 3130 2380 0 0 0 27058

CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1957 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. HAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

0 0 746 1645 13 2621 3572 4658 2953 557 72 0 16837

0 0 1480 3260 26 5200 7080 9240 5860 1100 143 0 33389 CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1958 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. TOTAL

0 G 2982 4355 3462 5013 6878 5986 2752 300 0 31728

0 0 5910 8640 6870 9940 13640 11870 5460 596 0 62926

CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1959 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. TOTAL

0 0 4483 4326 3516 5962 7281 5289 3735 0 0 34592

0 0 8890 8580 6970 11830 14440 10490 7410 0 0 68610

CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1960 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. HAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. TOTAL

0 0 5079 4140 4192 5613 5655 7035 4004 0 0 35718

0 0 10070 8210 8310 11130 11220 13950 7940 0 0 70830

CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1961 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. TOTAL

0 0 3890 4025 3306 4742 6530 6298 2352 67 0 31210

0 0 7720 7980 6560 9410 12950 12490 4660 133 0 61903

CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1962 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. TOTAL

0 0 4655 4623 3481 5866 6828 7227 2758 0 0 35438

0 0 9230 9170 6900 11640 13540 14330 5470 0 0 70280

CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1963 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. TOTAL

0 0 5616 3584 2743 5522 6367 4966 1680 0 0 30478

0 0 11140 7110 5440 10950 12630 9850 3330 0 0 60450 EASTSIDE CANAL AT MESILLA 0AM FOR YEAR 1964 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 0 1081 1740 0 1058 2029 1803 1761 0 0 9472

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 0 2140 3450 0 2100 4020 3580 3490 0 0 18780

EASTSIDE CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1965 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 0 594 1903 0 3720 5601 5585 2839 0 0 20242

MONTHLY RUH-OFF (A/F) 0 0 1180 3770 0 7380 11110 11080 5630 0 0 40150

EASTSIDE CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1966 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 0 4350 4312 2975 3503 4883 5620 2980 0 0 28623

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 0 8630 8550 5900 6950 9680 11150 5910 0 0 56770

' EASTSIDE CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1967 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 0 4806 3653 3158 3180 4710 5112 3857 0 0 28476

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 0 9530 7250 6260 6310 9340 10140 7650 0 0 56480

EASTSIDE CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1968 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 0 4904 4045 3999 4910 5549 5887 3174 0 0 32468

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 0 9730 8020 7930 9740 11010 11680 6300 0 0 64410

EASTSIDE CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1969 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. HAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 0 5058 3751 3152 5918 7008 7887 3352 0 0 36126

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 0 10030 7440 6250 11740 13900 15640 6650 0 0 71650 EASTSIDE CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1970 JAN. FE8. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 310 5086 4020 3478 4692 6395 7170 3564 34715

NONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 615 10090 7970 6900 9306 12680 14220 7070 68851

EASTStDE CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1971 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 0 5246 3740 3005 4325 5736 4979 1895 0 28926

NONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 0 10400 6880 5960 8580 11380 3760 0 56840

EASTSIDE CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1972 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL NONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 0 4758 2337 1038 611 3225 2427 504 0 14900

NONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 0 9440 4640 2060 1210 6400 4810 1000 0 29560

EASTSIDE CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1973 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 0 3061 4103 3300 5180 6566 7279 5631 250 0 35370

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) Q 0 6070 8140 6540 10270 13020 14440 11170 496 0 70146

EASTSIDE CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1974 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 0 5310 4715 3662 6316 6474 6402 3440 340 36659

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 0 10530 9350 7260 12530 12840 12700 6820 674 72704

EASTSIDE CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1975 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. TOTAL

TOTAL NONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 0 3039 3880 4749 6041 6952 6806 4748 124 36339

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 0 6030 7700 9420 11980 13790 13500 9420 246 72086

toO CO CANAL AT MESILLA DAN FOR YEAR 1976 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. HAY. JUH. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. TOTAL

1724 2726 4799 5140 6070 5506 5005 6823 4364 0 0 42157

3420 5410 9520 10200 12040 10920 9930 13530 8660 0 0 83630

CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1977 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. TOTAL

0 0 2270 2901 2326 2807 3344 3433 1394 0 0 18475

0 0 4500 5750 4610 5570 6630 6810 2760 0 0 36630

CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1978 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. TOTAL

0 0 927 1188 10 1568 2921 4071 2391 0 0 13076

0 0 1840 2360 20 3110 5790 8070 4740 0 0 25930

CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1979 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. TOTAL

0 0 2107 3985 3230 4606 6532 3747 4001 0 0 28208

0 0 4180 7900 6410 9140 12960 7430 7940 0 0 55960

CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1980 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. TOTAL

0 241 4596 4122 3982 5719 6172 5327 2986 0 0 33145

0 478 9120 8180 7900 11340 12240 10570 5920 0 0 65748

CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1981 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. TOTAL

0 211 4543 4028 4015 5134 5944 5241 3029 0 0 32145

0 419 9010 7990 7960 10180 11790 10400 6010 0 0 63759 CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1982 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

0 84 4765 4414 4518 5422 5745 5585 3155 0 0 0 33688

0 167 9451 8755 8960 10755 11395 11078 6258 0 0 0 66819

CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1983 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

0 0 3784 3256 4161 5254 6021 4720 4859 0 0 0 32055

0 0 7505 6458 8253 10421 11942 9362 9638 0 0 0 63579

CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1984 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. HAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

0 13 5383 4498 4752 4915 6799 2444 4994 452 0 0 34250

0 26 10677 8922 9425 9749 13486 4848 9905 897 0 0 67935

CANAL AT MESILLA 0AM FOR YEAR 1985 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

0 0 3553 4438 4753 5648 5854 5367 4070 1419 0 0 35102

0 0 7047 8803 9427 11203 11611 10645 8073 2815 0 0 69624

CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR TEAR 1986 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

1092 3185 5405 4939 5264 5292 5974 6320 6094 1901 0 0 45466

2166 6317 10721 9796 10441 10497 11849 12536 12087 3771 0 0 90181

CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR TEAR 1987 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

0 4983 5717 5316 5867 6167 7487 5589 2986 2185 0 0 46297

0 9884 11340 10544 11637 12232 14850 11086 5923 4334 0 0 91830 EASTSIDE CANAL AT MESILLA 0AM FOR YEAR 1988 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. HAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL HONTHLY DISCHARGE 1252 5427 4796 5301 6139 6264 4615 3705 1466 38965

HONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 2483 10764 9513 10514 12177 12424 9154 7349 2908 77286

EASTSIDE CANAL AT HESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1989 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. HAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. :. TOTAL

TOTAL HONTHLY DISCHARGE 665 5664 5169 4904 6996 7308 5256 2999 0 38961

HONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 1319 11234 10253 9727 13879 14495 10425 5948 0 77280

EASTSIDE CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1990 JAN. FE8. MAR. APR. HAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP* OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL HONTHLY DISCHARGE 4485 3764 A216 6361 5288 3385 4361 160 0 32020

HONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 8896 7466 8362 12617 10489 6714 8650 317 0 63511

EASTSIDE CANAL AT HESILLA DAH FOR YEAR 1991 JAN. FEB. HAR. APR. HAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL HONTHLY DISCHARGE 454 4787 3098 3879 5276 4756 2501 2862 2043 29656

HONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 900 9495 6145 7694 10465 9433 4961 5677 4052 58822

to toh-* UESTSIDE CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1916

JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 3165 7925 5385 11290 13075 13495 12003 9645 4035 80018

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 6278 15718 10680 22393 25934 26767 23808 19130 8004 158712

UESTSIDE CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1917 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. HAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 3640 6290 7575 8240 10715 10044 7359 9225 5427 2835 3587 74937

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 7220 12477 15025 16344 21253 19922 14596 18297 10764 5623 7115 148636

UESTSIDE CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1918 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT, NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 1745 7576 9419 9566 8876 9775 7652 7554 2796 1197 0 66156

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 3460 15027 18683 18974 17605 19389 15177 14983 5545 2373 0 131216

UESTSIDE CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1920 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 0 0 0 11001 9718 11112 8608 7975 4310 4084 2951 59759

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 0 0 0 21819 19275 22040 17073 15818 8548 8100 5853 118526

UESTSIDE CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1921 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 1606 11792 11484 13210 12505 13486 13883 13134 9518 5510 0 106128

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 3185 23389 22778 26201 24803 26749 27536 26049 18879 10929 0 210498

UESTSIDE CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1922 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 6508 10902 13046 15215 14246 14184 14284 12084 12395 4342 5706 122912

MONTHLY RIM-OFF (A/F) 0 12909 21623 25876 30178 28256 28134 28332 23969 24585 8611 11317 243790

N2 I—» CO CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1923 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 6098 11498 14886 16519 15908 16685 15412 13318 11317 1382 2268 125291

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 12095 22806 29526 32765 31553 33094 30659 26416 22447 2742 4499 248602

UESTSIDE CANAL AT ISStLLA DAM FOR YEAR 1924 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. OEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 9842 15158 17165 17830 16141 16426 17486 15270 8039 6428 3597 143382

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 19521 30066 34046 35365 320.15 32580 34683 30288 15945 12750 7134 284393

UESTSIDE CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1925 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 8002 15932 18745 19727 18402 17657 16181 12535 3245 3010 3705 137141

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 15872 31601 37199 39129 36500 35023 32095 24863 6435 5970 7348 272035

UESTSIDE CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1926 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 4927 10528 15095 15492 17194 16470 16824 15392 3866 3329 2863 121980

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 9772 20882 29940 30728 34104 32668 33370 30529 7668 6603 5679 241943

UESTSIDE CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1927 JAN. FE8. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 785 6237 11122 16656 17563 16610 18496 15299 13891 5549 2667 1741 126616

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 1557 12371 22060 33037 34836 32947 36686 30345 27552 11006 5290 3453 2S1140

UESTSIDE CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1928 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. OEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 2608 5435 13400 16693 14707 16774 18464 15497 12963 5303 2803 1427 126074

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 5173 10780 26578 33110 29171 33271 36623 30738 25712 10518 5560 2830 250064

to UESTSIDE CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1929 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. OEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 1825 4741 10522 18457 15139 15143 14529 12741 11156 3109 2113 1625 111100

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 3620 9404 20870 36609 30028 30036 28818 25271 22128 6167 4191 3223 220365

UESTSIDE CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1930 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 4145 11375 15781 13942 14399 18098 17292 12819 3954 2104 2305 116214

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 8221 22562 31301 27654 28560 35897 34298 25426 7843 4173 4572 230507

UESTSIDE CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1931 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 3025 13220 18016 14348 17954 17557 15293 13125 4143 2862 1552 121095

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 6000 26200 35700 28500 35600 34800 30300 26000 8220 5680 3080 240080

UESTSIDE CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1932 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 4720 12461 17885 15008 16560 16834 17578 14159 2262 3077 2249 122793

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 9360 24700 35500 29800 32800 33400 34900 28100 4490 6100 4460 243610

UESTSIDE CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1933 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 3663 12260 16656 12672 13434 17901 17268 13297 4336 2488 3265 117240

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 7270 24320 3300Q 25100 26600 35500 34300 26400 8600 4930 6480 232500

UESTSIDE CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1934 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 100 7808 11968 15726 12264 14456 17120 17320 9711 3149 1847 930 112399

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 198 15490 23740 31190 24320 28080 33960 34350 19260 6250 3660 1840 222338

to I—*Ot CANAL AT MESILLA DAN FOR TEAR 1935 JAN. FEB. PUR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 815 1642 4916 10909 8287 11291 14915 13418 6259 4027 1659 2400 80538

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 1620 3260 9750 21640 16440 22400 29580 26610 12410 7990 3290 4760 159750

UESTSIDE CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1936 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 132 2563 8763 14278 11225 13671 15501 16010 9120 3115 2026 1361 97765

MONTHLY RIM-OFF (A/F) 262 5080 17380 28320 22260 27J20 30750 31760 18090 6180 4020 2700 193922

UESTSIDE CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1937 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. OEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 2140 7916 14913 10344 13260 16273 16996 10329 1614 1617 1705 97107

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 4240 15700 29580 20520 26300 32280 33710 20490 3200 3210 3360 192610

UESTSIDE CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1938 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 532 2690 8946 14352 11521 14451 14885 16677 7065 6048 3128 1868 102163

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 1060 5340 17740 28470 22850 28660 29520 33080 14010 12000 6200 3700 202630

UESTSIDE CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1939 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. OEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 67 3103 11710 14780 13298 16213 18342 15816 11247 4606 1603 1353 112138

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 133 6150 23230 29320 26380 32160 36380 31370 22310 9140 3180 2680 222433

UESTSIDE CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1940 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 70 1698 10321 15049 11268 14999 16820 15601 11721 2129 916 79 100671

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 139 3370 20470 29850 22350 29750 33360 30946 23250 4220 1820 157 199684

to h-» O) UESTSIDE CANAL AT MES1LLA DAM FOR YEAR 1941 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 963 6846 15658 10125 14526 17217 13951 8895 1322 1110 1380 91993

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 1910 13580 31060 20080 28810 34150 27670 17640 2620 2200 2740 182460

UESTSIDE CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1942 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 6988 9797 16163 14915 16778 17676 16673 10470 4230 3989 2140 119819

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 13860 19430 32060 29580 33280 35060 33070 20770 8390 7910 4240 237650

UESTSIDE CANAL AT WSILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1943 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. OEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 202 4355 13181 15663 13840 16181 15200 18829 9593 4003 2004 1069 114120

HONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 401 8640 26140 31070 27450 32090 30150 37350 19030 7940 3978 2120 226359

UESTSIDE CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1944 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 198 2054 11173 16748 12193 14967 15955 16894 12415 4378 1452 108427

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 393 4070 22160 33220 24180 29690 31650 33510 24620 8680 2880 215053

UESTSIDE CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1945 JAN. FE8. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 3815 10601 16414 12356 15341 18395 17953 13355 4446 2403 1824 116903

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 7570 21030 32560 24510 30430 36490 35610 26490 8820 4770 3620 231900

UESTSIDE CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1946 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 2802 9212 17309 10379 16416 19904 18899 6171 2329 1841 1164 106426

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 5560 18270 34330 20590 32560 39480 37490 12240 4620 3650 2310 211100 CANAL AT KESJLLA DAM FOR YEAR 1947 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 1345 8776 17049 11946 14225 19814 16513 10027 786 2G5 202 100888

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 2670 17410 33820 23690 28210 39300 32750 19890 1560 410 400 200110

UESTSIOE CANAL AT MESILLA DAK FOR YEAR 1948 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 171 188 6610 16482 10512 12660 20853 19182 11029 1708 1443 943 101781

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 340 370 13110 32690 20850 25110 41360 38050 21880 3390 2860 1870 201880

UESTSIOE CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1949 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE Q 0 11490 14968 11284 14735 19577 19211 6933 3073 1634 550 103455

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 0 22790 29690 22380 29230 38830 38100 13750 6100 3240 1090 205200

UESTSIOE CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1950 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 131 15626 11411 12898 12922 15658 18291 10154 1759 103 98953

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 260 30990 22630 25580 25630 31060 36280 20140 3490 204 196264

UESTSIDE CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1951 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. :. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 0 8399 10441 3375 9351 13138 13888 5170 0 63762

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 0 16660 20710 6690 18550 26060 27550 10250 0 126470

UESTSIDE CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1952 ' JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. HAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 0 3030 8911 7443 10261 14467 15659 7134 0 66905

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 0 6010 17670 14760 20350 28690 31060 14150 0 132690 WESTSIDE CANAL AT MESILLA 0AM FOR YEAR 1953 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 0 10294 7881 8378 11312 11554 13474 7476 70369

HONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 0 20420 15630 16620 22440 22920 26730 14830 139590

UESTSIDE CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1954 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. KAY. Jim. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 0 t93B 7776 7220 9884 10315 5673 1665 918 45389

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 0 3840 15420 14320 19600 20460 11250 3300 1820 90010

WESTSIDE CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1955 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. KAY. JUM. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 0 1969 6165 1820 6335 7419 10887 5870 256 40721

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 0 3910 12230 3610 12570 14720 21590 11640 508 80778

UESTSIDE CANAL AT MESILLA 0AM FOR YEAR 1956 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. HAY. JUN. JUL* AUG. SEP. OCT. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 0 3356 8071 623 8199 11081 6787 4366 42483

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 0 6660 16010 1240 16260 21980 13460 8660 84270

UESTSIDE CANAL AT MESILLA 0AM FOR YEAR 1957 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. OEC. TOTAL

TOTAL HONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 0 3052 6501 231 9799 14726 15322 11888 900 120 0 62539

HONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 0 6050 12890 458 19440 29210 30390 23580 1780 238 0 124036

UESTSIDE CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1958 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. OEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 0 11451 11111 11847 14978 17572 15625 7026 916 90526

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 0 22710 22040 23500 29710 34850 30990 13940 1820 179560

to h-» UESTSIDE CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1959 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN, JUL. AUG. SEP. TOTAL

TOTAL HONTHLY DISCHARGE 13517 8139 8782 13779 17323 13450 8466 83456

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 26810 16160 17420 27330 34360 26680 16790 165530

UESTSIDE CANAL AT MESILLA DAN FOR YEAR 1960 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. TOTAL

TOTAL HONTHLY DISCHARGE 13376 8770 8948 14260 16231 16892 8995 87472

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 26530 17400 17750 28280 32190 33500 17840 173490

UESTSIDE CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1961 JAN. FE8. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 11285 11144 10322 12281 15452 15062 5667 0 81213

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 22380 22100 20470 24360 30650 29880 11240 0 161080

UESTSIDE CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1962 JAN. FE8. MAR. APR. MAY. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 13795 7986 8482 16239 16513 16287 6698 467 0 0 86467

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 27360 15840 16820 32210 32750 32300 13290 926 0 0 171496

UESTSIDE CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1963 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 14221 9651 10916 15115 15176 12325 3479 0 80883

HONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 28210 19140 21650 29960 30100 24450 6900 0 160430

UESTSIDE CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1964 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 2678 5343 6958 9468 10020 6446 0 40913

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 5310 10600 13800 18780 19870 12790 0 81150

to oto CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1965 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. JIM. JUL. AUG. SEP. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL NONTHLY DISCHARGE 1412 7009 9493 15033 14992 7153 55092

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 2800 13900 18830 29820 29740 14190 109280

UESTSIDE CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1966 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 10872 11382 7588 9504 12390 12861 6365 100 0 71062

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 21560 22580 15050 18850 24580 25510 12620 198 0 140948

UESTSIDE CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1967 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 17 1337B 7007 7188 7936 11552 12258 7542 0 66878

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 33 26540 13900 14260 15740 22910 24310 14960 0 132653

UESTSIDE CANAl AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1968 JAM. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 13106 9693 12256 13200 13323 15086 7106 0 83770

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 26000 19230 24310 26180 26430 29920 14100 0 166170

UESTSIDE CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1969 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 14077 11372 10926 15266 19645 21090 9551 0 101927

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 27920 22560 21670 30280 38960 41830 18940 0 202160

UESTSIDE CANAL AT MESILLA 0AM FOR YEAR 1970 JAN. FE8. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 711 13448 10622 11568 13522 18731 17350 9904 0 95856

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 1410 26670 21070 22940 26820 37150 34410 19640 0 190110 UESTSIDE CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1971 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 14031 10655 10953 11325 13239 13235 4651 77889

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 27830 20740 21720 22460 26260 26250 9220 154480

UESTSIDE CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1972 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 10701 8153 3379 3864 11204 10050 2118 0 49469

HONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 21220 16170 6700 7660 22220 19930 4200 0 98100

UESTSIDE CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1973 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR, MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 7943 9260 9632 12874 14636 17646 13507 143 85641

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 15760 18370 19100 25530 29030 35000 26790 284 169864

UESTSIDE CANAL AT MESILLA OAH FOR YEAR 1974 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 14307 10448 12405 15160 16401 16202 8243 93166

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 28380 20720 24600 30070 32530 32140 16350 184790

UESTSIDE CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1975 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 389 949 9516 9474 10418 13200 16614 16874 115B2 671 89687

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 772 1880 18880 18790 20660 26180 32950 33470 22970 1330 177882

UESTSIDE CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1976 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 2662 6142 12926 11774 13565 12860 14303 17490 10318 50 0 102090

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 5280 12180 25640 23350 26910 25510 28370 34690 20470 99 0 202499 CANAL AT MESILLA OAM FOR YEAR 1977 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 0 7030 7037 6975 8619 9397 11759 4454 55271

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 0 13940 13960 13840 17100 18640 23320 8830 109630

UESTSIDE CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1978 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. NOV. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 0 2061 4021 245 7271 9065 9947 5166 37776

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 0 4090 7980 486 14420 17890 19730 10250 74846

UESTSIDE CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1979 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 0 6606 9524 8648 11949 15640 10395 9998 0 72760

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 0 13100 18890 17150 23700 31020 20620 19830 0 144310

UESTSIDE CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1980 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. :. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 2237 13176 9047 10987 13752 17766 13367 8258 0 88590

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 4440 26130 17940 21790 27280 35240 26510 16380 0 175710

UESTSIDE CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1981 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 265 12540 9510 10206 13098 15774 12533 7324 0 81250

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 526 24870 18860 20240 25980 31290 24860 14530 0 161156

UESTSIDE CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1982 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 303 12875 10259 11782 14072 15942 14912 8813 88958

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 601 25540 20350 23370 27910 31620 29580 17480 176451 UESTSIDE CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1983 JAN. FEB. KAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 147 12692 9713 12335 14437 16222 15131 12992 953 94622

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 292 25174 19265 24466 28635 32176 30012 25769 1890 187679

UESTSIDE CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1984 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 705 13428 10596 11359 12003 17373 7135 11878 885 85362

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 1398 26634 21017 22530 23808 34459 14152 23560 1755 169313

UESTSIDE CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1985 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 0 8951 10158 11519 14100 15906 13786 10002 2865 0 87287

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 0 17754 20148 22848 27967 31549 27344 19839 5683 0 173132

UESTSIDE CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1986 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 2234 7258 12470 10319 12655 12756 12592 15686 11941 3692 0 101603

HONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 4431 14396 24734 20467 25101 25301 24976 31113 23685 7198 0 201402

UESTSIDE CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1987 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. AUG. SEP. OCT. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 7838 13606 11535 13812 15995 17658 14507 10329 4517 0 109797

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 15546 26987 22879 27369 31726 35024 28774 20487 8959 0 217751

UESTSIDE CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1988 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 2717 13654 11369 13127 15803 16629 11838 10936 2697 98770

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 5389 27082 22550 26037 31345 32983 23480 21691 5349 195906 UESTSIDE CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1989 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 1434 14601 11654 13153 17539 17422 12372 9319 0 97494

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 2844 26961 23115 26089 34788 34556 24540 18484 0 193377

UESTSIDE CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1990 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 11092 9988 11953 16508 15242 11057 12004 583 0 88427

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 22001 19811 23708 32743 30232 21931 23810 1156 0 175392

VESTSIDE CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1991 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 1394 12328 8955 10495 14207 12386 8979 8459 4442 81645

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 2765 24452 17762 20817 28179 24567 17810 16778 8811 161941

Orto DEL RIO LATERAL CANAL AT KESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1955 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 0 8 24 0 0 14 83 110 0 0 0 239

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 0 16 48 0 0 28 165 218 0 0 0 475

DEL RIO LATERAL CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1956 JAN. FEB. KAR. APR. KAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 0 48 37 9 T8 51 59 16 0 0 0 238

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 0 95 73 18 36 101 117 32 0 0 0 472

DEL RIO LATERAL CANAL AT MES1LLA DAM FOR YEAR 1957 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 0 0 13 0 28 92 225 164 0 0 0 522

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 0 0 26 0 56 182 446 325 0 0 0 103S

DEL RIO LATERAL CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1958 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. HAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 0 201 138 276 351 340 233 85 106 0 0 1730

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 0 399 274 547 696 647 462 169 210 0 0 3404

DEL RIO LATERAL CANAL AT KESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1959 JAN. FEB. KAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 0 271 143 240 319 312 279 306 50 0 0 1920

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 0 538 284 476 633 619 553 607 99 0 0 3809

to a>to CANAL AT MESILLA DAH FOR YEAR 1960 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

0 0 280 134 204 272 314 351 212 0 0 0 1767

0 0 555 266 405 540 623 696 420 0 0 0 3505

CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1961 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

0 0 284 63 123 132 236 221 129 0 0 0 1188

0 0 563 125 244 262 468 438 256 0 0 0 2356

CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1962 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT, NOV. DEC. TOTAL

0 0 313 100 114 276 411 368 156 63 0 0 1801

0 0 621 198 226 547 815 730 309 125 0 0 3571

CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1963 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. HAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

0 0 288 38 46 122 136 277 179 0 0 0 1086

0 0 571 75 91 242 270 549 355 0 0 0 2153

CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1964 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

0 0 3 15 0 0 30 27 41 0 0 0 116

0 0 6 30 * 0 0 60 54 81 0 0 0 231

CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1965 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

0 0 0 4 0 18 151 247 225 0 0 0 645

0 0 0 8 0 36 300 490 446 0 0 0 1280 CANAL AT HESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1966 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

0 0 60 330 170 190 320 455 300 0 0 0 1825

0 0 119 655 337 377 635 902 595 0 0 0 3620

CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1967 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

0 0 275 85 155 70 200 255 275 0 0 0 1315

0 0 545 169 307 139 397 506 545 0 0 0 2608

CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1968 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

0 0 125 50 80 105 190 235 225 0 0 0 1010

0 0 248 99 159 208 377 466 446 0 0 0 2003

CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1969 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. HAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

0 0 158 110 145 175 395 465 120 0 0 0 1568

0 0 313 218 288 347 783 922 238 0 0 0 3109

CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1970 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. HAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

0 20 230 185 195 255 255 265 210 0 0 0 1615

0 40 456 367 ' 387 506 506 526 417 0 0 0 3205

CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1971 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. HAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

0 0 200 55 95 75 220 245 50 0 0 0 940

0 0 397 109 188 149 436 486 99 0 0 0 1864 DEL RIO LATERAL CANAL AT HESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1972 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 0 75 70 40 AO 210 150 45 0 0 0 630

NONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 0 149 139 80 80 417 298 89 0 0 0 1252

DEL RIO LATERAL CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1974 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 0 310 360 255 240 125 370 160 0 0 0 1820

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 0 615 714 506 476 248 734 317 0 0 0 3610

DEL RIO LATERAL CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1975 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 0 200 120 310 340 395 390 270 20 0 0 2045

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 0 397 238 615 674 783 774 536 40 0 0 4057

DEL RIO LATERAL CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1976 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 40 SO 240 240 3B0 410 320 270 360 0 0 0 2310

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 79 99 476 476 754 813 635 536 714 0 0 0 4582

DEL RIO LATERAL CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1977 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 0 70 105 195 300 260 215 85 0 0 0 1230

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 0 139 208 387 595 516 426 169 0 0 0 2440

DEL RIO LATERAL CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 197B JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 0 25 15 0 0 160 205 155 0 0 0 560

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 0 50 30 0 0 317 407 307 0 0 0 1111 CftMAl AT HESRU DAM FOR TEAR 1979 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. KAY.' JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. TOTAL

0 0 95 173 260 335 207 227 169 0 0 1466

0 0 188 343 516 664 411 450 335 0 0 2907

CANAL AT MESILLA DAN FOR YEAR 1980 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. TOTAL

0 0 118 167 439 37B 484 282 91 0 0 1959

0 0 234 331 B71 750 960 559 180 0 0 3885

CANAL AT MESILLA 0AM FOR YEAR 1981 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. TOTAL

0 0 236 198 233 263 352 224 123 0 0 1629

0 0 468 393 462 522 698 444 244 0 0 3231

CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1982 JAN. FES. MAR. APR. HAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. TOTAL

0 0 159 211 271 301 269 246 238 0 0 1695

0 0 315 419 538 597 534 488 472 0 0 3363

CANAL AT ICSILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1983 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. TOTAL

0 0 149 123 257 284 350 308 247 0 0 1718

0 0 296 244 510 563 674 611 490 0 0 3388

CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1985 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. TOTAL

0 0 230 129 175 261 378 283 58 138 0 1652

0 0 456 256 347 518 750 561 115 274 0 3277 DEL RIO LATERAL CANAL AT KESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1986 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 45 64 138 266 239 216 334 303 240 56 0 0 1901

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 89 127 274 528 474 428 662 601 476 111 0 0 3770

DEL RIO LATERAL CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1987 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 82 120 160 297 358 514 271 230 191 0 0 2223

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 163 238 317 589 710 1020 538 456 379 0 0 4410

DEL RIO LATERAL CANAL AT HESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1988 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 27 180 276 271 359 353 247 146 79 0 0 1938

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 54 357 547 538 712 700 490 290 157 0 0 3845

DEL RIO LATERAL CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1989 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 8 218 297 319 414 407 314 213 0 0 0 2190

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 16 432 5B9 633 821 807 623 422 0 0 0 4343

DEL RIO LATERAL CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1990 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 0 149 194 276 368 336 279 275 0 0 0 1877

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 0 296 385 547 730 666 553 545 0 0 0 3722

DEL RIO LATERAL CANAL AT MESILLA DAM FOR YEAR 1991 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. NAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 0 145 233 229 346 237 131 177 157 0 0 1655

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 0 288 462 454 686 470 260 351 311 0 0 3282 CANAL AT DAM FOR YEAR 1982 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. HAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. TOTAL

0 5 20 116 20 24 7 37 123 0 0 352

0 10 40 230 40 48 14 73 244 0 0 699

CANAL AT 0AM FOR YEAR 1991 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. HAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. TOTAL

0 235 1550 1500 1550 1500 1800 1322 1425 813 0 11695

0 466 3074 2975 3074 2975 3570 2622 2826 1613 0 23195

CANAL AT DAM FOR YEAR 1982 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. XT. NOV. TOTAL

0 4 19 33 1 6 0 48 33 0 0 144

0 8 38 65 2 12 0 95 65 0 0 285

CANAL AT DAM FOR YEAR 1983 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. HAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. TOTAL

0 0 17 54 2 21 13 27 65 0 0 199

0 0 34 107 4 42 26 54 129 0 0 396

CANAL AT DAM FOR YEAR 1984 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. XT. NOV. TOTAL

0 0 41 138 37 12 4 355 101 88 0 776

0 0 81 274 73 24 8 704 200 175 0 1539 U.U. 19 CANAL AT DAM FOR YEAR 1985 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 0 164 72 13 5 250 185 45 14 0 0 748

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 0 325 143 26 10 496 367 89 28 0 0 1484

U.U. 19 CANAL AT DAM FOR YEAR 1986 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 290 233 34 43 70 72 109 265 909 337 0 0 2362

HONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 575 462 67 85 139 143 216 526 1803 668 0 0 4684

U.U. 19 CANAL AT DAM FOR YEAR 1987 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. HAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL HONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 615 10 24 57 228 218 185 11 22 0 0 1370

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 1220 20 48 113 452 432 367 22 44 0 0 2718

U.U. 19 CANAL AT DAM FOR YEAR 1988 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 12 2 16 64 40 86 190 40 25 0 0 475

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 24 4 32 127 79 171 377 79 50 0 0 943

U.U. 19 CANAL AT DAM FOR YEAR 1989 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. HAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL HONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 42 5 0 0 4 0 49 2 0 0 0 102

HONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 83 10 0 0 8 0 97 4 0 0 0 202

U.U. 19 CANAL AT DAM FOR YEAR 1990 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL HONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 0 22 0 0 3 9 3 3 21 0 0 61

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 0 44 0 0 6 18 6 6 42 0 0 122

to CO CO U.U. 19 CANAL AT DAM FOR YEAR 1991 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 2 2 11 11 17 14 49 112 20 0 0 238

MONTHLY RUH-OFF (A/F) 0 4 4 22 22 34 28 97 222 40 0 0 473

U.U. 1A CANAL AT DAM FOR YEAR 1989 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 1414 7007 5960 5830 2739 2835 8192 1107 0 0 0 35084

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 2805 13898 11821 11564 5433 5623 16249 2196 0 0 0 69589

U.U. 1A CANAL AT DAM FOR YEAR 1990 JAN, FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 300 5451 7172 6813 3992 6599 5739 6437 451 0 0 42954

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 595 10812 14225 13513 7918 13089 11383 12768 895 0 0 8S198

U.U. 1A CANAL AT DAM FOR YEAR 1991 JAN, FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 961 4983 4050 5010 3850 4122 5167 5224 2098 0 0 35465

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 1906 9884 8033 9937 7636 8176 10249 10362 4161 0 0 70344

U.U. 20 CANAL AT DAM FOR YEAR 1979 JAN FEB. MAR. APR. NAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 0 31 55 30 24 3 10 0 0 0 0 153

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 0 62 109 60 48 6 20 0 0 0 0 305 CANAL AT OAK FOR YEAR 1980 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAT. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. XT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

075 10 1 090 12 000116

0 14 10 2 0 2 0 178 24 0 0 0 230

CANAL AT DAM FOR YEAR 1981 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN'. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

00701410 4300029

0014 02820 86000 58

CANAL AT DAM FOR YEAR 1979 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

0 0 0 14 3 34 119 27 42 0 0 0 239

0 0 0 28 6 67 236 54 83 0 0 0 474

CANAL AT DAM FOR YEAR 1980 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

05527 00050 43 000130

0 10 10 54 0 0 0 99 85 0 0 0 258

CANAL AT 0AM FOR YEAR 1981 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

0 1 5 0 96 89 107 0 50 0 0 0 348

0 2 10 0 190 177 212 0 99 0 0 0 690 U.U. 26 CANAL AT DAM FOR YEAR 1982 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. XT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 02900 0 5 31 27 00 00 92

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 58 00 0 10 62 54 00 0 0 184

U.U. 26 CANAL AT DAM FOR YEAR 1983 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. HAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 0 51 17 10 22 8 5 43 0 0 0 156

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 0 101 34 20 44 16 10 85 0 0 0 310

U.U. 26 CANAL AT DAM FOR YEAR 19B4 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. NAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL HOKTHLY DISCHARGE 0 0 83 0 0 14 0 252 57 0 0 0 406

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 0 165 0 0 28 0 500 113 0 0 0 806

U.U. 26 CANAL AT DAM FOR YEAR 1985 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 0 2 0 3 45 213 26 52 0 0 0 341

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 0 4 0 6 89 422 52 103 0 0 0 676

U.U. 26 CANAL AT DAM FOR YEAR 1986 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 114 2 99 8 39 52 42 171 29 293 0 0 849

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 226 4 196 16 77 103 83 339 58 581 0 0 1683

U.U. 26 CANAL AT DAM FOR YEAR 1987 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 1407 418 214 684 513 391 473 155 72 0 0 4327

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 2791 829 424 1357 1018 776 938 307 143 0 0 6583 U.W. 26 CANAL AT DAM FOR YEAR 1988 JAN. FED. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 45 31 43 107 33 29 30 31 91 0 0 ttO

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 89 61 85 212 65 58 60 61 180 0 0 871

U.W. 26 CANAL AT DAM FOR YEAR 1989 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 68 35 44 4 40 1 11 0 0 0 0 203

NONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 135 69 87 8 79 2 22 0 0 0 0 402

U.U. 26 CANAL AT DAM FOR YEAR 1990 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. HAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 0 5 0 54 55 0 8 0 51 0 0 173

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 0 10 0 107 109 0 16 0 101 0 0 343

U.U. 26 CANAL AT DAM FOR YEAR 1991 JAN FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 4 8 0 0 0 29 19 6 75 0 0 141

NONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 8 16 0 0 0 58 38 12 149 0 0 281

U.U. 31 CANAL AT DAM FOR YEAR 1981 JAN FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL NONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 59 26 64 79 68 136 142 169 0 0 0 743

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 117 52 127 157 135 270 282 335 0 0 0 1475

to —J U.U. 31 CANAL AT DAN FOR YEAR 1982 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 47 355 0 0 7 0 133 0 0 0 0 542

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 93 704 0 0 14 0 264 0 0 0 0 1075

U.U. 31 CANAL AT DAM FOR YEAR 1983 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 0 123 55 9 6 50 142 154 0 0 0 539

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 0 246 109 18 12 99 282 305 0 0 0 1071

U.U. 31 CANAL AT DAM FOR YEAR 1984 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 200 121 391 2 83 103 601 113 147 0 0 1761

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 397 240 776 4 165 204 1192 224 292 0 0 3494

U.U. 31 CANAL AT DAM FOR YEAR 1985 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 0 108 18 1 71 840 193 201 281 0 0 1713

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 0 214 36 2 141 1666 383 399 557 0 0 3398

U.U. 31 CANAL AT DAN FOR YEAR 1986 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 69 266 130 212 217 679 241 682 676 412 0 0 3584

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 137 528 258 420 430 1347 478 1353 1341 817 0 0 7109

U.U. 31 CANAL AT DAM FOR YEAR 1987 JAM. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL HONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 2042 507 967 918 1188 1008 1806 1301 286 0 0 10023

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 4050 1006 1918 1820 2356 1999 3582 2580 567 0 0 19878 U.U. 31 CANAL AT DAM FOR YEAR 1988 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOT At

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 119 186 82 80 122 374 780 531 378 0 0 2652

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 236 369 163 159 242 742 1547 1053 750 0 0 5261

U.U. 31 CANAL AT DAM FOR YEAR 1989 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN*. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 298 15 5 102 136 147 60 15 0 0 0 778

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 591 30 10 202 270 292 119 30 0 0 0 1546

U.U. 31 CANAL AT DAM FOR YEAR 1990 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 0 4 50 62 242 132 77 201 216 0 0 984

HONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 0 8 99 123 480 262 153 399 428 0 0 1952

U.U. 31 CANAL AT DAM FOR YEAR 1991 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 54 70 18 3 18 30 241 19 53 0 0 506

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 107 139 36 6 36 60 478 38 105 0 0 1005

U.U. 32 CANAL AT DAN FOR YEAR 1979 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. KAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 0 117 89 19 76 248 172 176 0 0 0 897

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 0 232 176 38 151 492 341 349 0 0 0 1779 U.U. 32 CANAL AT 0AM FOR YEAR 1980 JAN. FEB. HAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 30 12 63 0 1 B 40 78 0 0 0 232

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 60 24 125 0 2 16 79 155 0 0 0 461

U.U. 32 CANAL AT DAM FOR YEAR 1981 JAN. FEB. HAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 16 0 7 26 101 25 118 172 0 0 0 465

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 32 0 14 52 200 50 234 341 0 0 0 923

U.U. 32 CANAL AT DAM FOR YEAR 1982 JAN. FEB. HAR. APR. NAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 48 77 802 1496 1263 25 49 534 0 0 0 4294

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 95 153 1590 2970 2500 50 97 1059 0 0 0 8514

U.U. 32 CANAL AT DAM FOR YEAR 1983 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 27 686 1028 1464 1034 35 40 77 154 0 0 4545

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 54 1361 2039 2904 2051 69 79 153 305 0 0 9015

U.U. 32 CANAL AT DAM FOR YEAR 1984 JAN. FEB. HAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 215 53 20 60 77 26 702 35 88 0 0 1276

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 426 105 40 ' 119 153 52 1392 69 175 0 0 2531

U.U. 32 CANAL AT DAM FOR YEAR 1985 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 0 53 17 17 0 7 5 99 49 0 0 247

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 0 105 34 34 0 14 10 196 97 0 0 490 CANAL AT DAM FOR YEAR 1986 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. HAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

370 1063 1 6 3 72 270 142 562 213 0 0 2702

734 2108 2 12 6 143 536 282 1115 422 0 0 5360

CANAL AT DAM FOR YEAR 1987 JAN. FE3. MAR. APR. HAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

0 361 580 445 407 421 186 347 676 261 0 0 3684

0 716 1150 883 807 835 369 688 1341 518 0 0 7307

CANAL AT DAM FOR YEAR 1988 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT* NOV. DEC. TOTAL

0 204 48 371 476 112 413 452 312 373 0 0 2761

0 405 95 736 944 222 819 897 619 740 0 0 5477

CANAL AT DAM FOR YEAR 1989 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT, NOV. DEC. TOTAL

0 135 40 94 186 0 62 236 11 0 0 0 764

0 268 79 186 369 0 123 468 220 0 0 0 1713

CANAL AT DAM FOR YEAR 1990 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. HAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT# NOV. DEC. TOTAL

0 13 109 25 0 0 0 164 57 99 0 0 467

0 16 216 50 0 0 0 325 113 196 0 0 916

CANAL AT DAM FOR YEAR 1991 JAN. FEB. HAR. APR. HAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

0 137 128 0 4 0 29 82 381 28 0 0 789

0 272 254 0 8 0 58 163 756 56 0 0 1567 CANAL. AT DAM FOR YEAR 1980 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

0 26 190 416 326 243 472 538 203 0 0 0 2414

Q 52 377 825 647 482 936 1067 403 0 0 0 4789

CANAL AT DAM FOR YEAR 1981 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

0 0 259 381 223 156 371 315 234 0 0 0 1939

0 0 514 756 442 309 736 625 464 0 0 0 3846

CANAL AT DAM FOR YEAR 1982 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. HAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

0 1 123 147 190 300 312 305 203 0 0 0 1581

0 2 244 292 377 595 619 605 403 0 0 0 3137

CANAL AT DAM FOR YEAR 1983 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

0 0 235 174 207 235 296 424 381 22 0 0 1974

0 0 466 345 411 466 587 841 756 44 0 0 3916

CANAL AT DAM FOR YEAR 1984 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. XT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

0 0 520 247 253 244 345 602 312 143 0 0 2666

0 0 1031 490 502 484 684 1194 619 284 0 0 5288 CANAL AT DAM FOR YEAR 1985 JAN. FEB. KAR. APR. HAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. TOTAL

0 0 523 341 176 329 820 818 1071 484 0 4562

0 0 1037 676 349 653 1626 1622 2124 960 0 9047

CANAL AT DAM FOR YEAR 1986 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. HAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. TOTAL

277 1149 653 804 668 691 916 751 764 286 0 6959

549 2279 1295 1595 1325 1371 1817 1490 1515 567 0 13803

CANAL AT DAM FOR YEAR 1987 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. HAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. TOTAL

0 734 785 1048 984 800 610 861 1215 274 0 7311

0 1456 1557 2079 1952 1587 1210 1708 2410 544 0 14503

CANAL AT DAM FOR YEAR 1988 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. KAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. TOTAL

0 116 614 918 906 650 1047 1242 818 239 0 6550

0 230 1218 1821 1797 1289 2077 2463 1622 474 0 12991

CANAL AT DAM FOR YEAR 1989 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. TOTAL

0 155 554 982 818 656 515 610 565 23 0 4878

0 307 1099 1948 ' 1622 1301 1021 1210 1121 46 0 9675

CANAL AT DAM FOR YEAR 1990 JAN. FEB. HAR. APR. HAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. TOTAL

0 3 323 520 385 313 492 634 561 85 0 3316

0 6 641 1031 764 621 976 1258 1113 168 0 6578 U.U. 35 CANAL AT DAM FOR YEAR 1991 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. KAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL HONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 94 414 291 179 288 508 533 422 343 0 0 3072

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 186 621 577 355 571 1008 1057 837 680 0 0 6092

U.U. 40 CANAL AT DAM FOR YEAR 1991 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. HAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL HONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 60 166 125 85 109 167 196 156 57 0 0 1121

HONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 119 329 248 169 216 331 389 309 113 0 0 2223

U.U. 5 CANAL AT DAN FOR YEAR 1979 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. HAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL HONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 0 18 5 82 84 132 86 37 16 0 0 460

HONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 0 36 10 162 167 262 171 73 32 0 0 913

U.U. 5 CANAL AT DAM FOR YEAR 1980 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL MONTHLY DISCHARGE 397 13 77 92 38 37 62 98 22 78 0 0 914

HONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 790 26 153 1B3 75 73 123 194 44 155 0 0 1816

U.U. 5 CANAL AT DAM FOR YEAR 1981 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL HONTHLY DISCHARGE 0 80 84 2 23 236 108 197 297 0 0 0 1027

MONTHLY RUN-OFF (A/F) 0 159 167 4 46 468 214 391 589 0 0 0 2038

to CANAL AT DAM FOR YEAR 1983 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. KAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

0 0 142 111 78 93 134 39 137 185 0 0 919

0 0 282 220 155 184 266 77 272 365 0 0 1821

CANAL AT DAM FOR YEAR 1984 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

0 58 228 442 100 70 11 180 52 280 0 0 1421

0 115 452 877 198 139 22 357 103 555 0 0 2818

CANAL AT DAM FOR YEAR 1985 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

0 0 104 0 1 37 165 241 51 118 0 0 717

0 0 206 0 2 73 327 478 101 234 0 0 1421

CANAL AT DAM FOR YEAR 1986 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. HAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

322 100 255 136 2 0 42 154 149 249 0 0 1409

639 198 506 270 4 0 83 305 296 494 0 0 2795

CANAL AT DAM FOR YEAR 1987 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

0 950 302 307 680 259 231 529 359 157 0 0 3774

0 1884 599 609 ' 1349 514 458 1049 706 311 0 0 7479

CANAL AT DAM FOR YEAR 1988 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

0 160 340 211 130 298 473 311 210 112 0 0 2245

0 317 674 419 258 591 938 617 417 222 0 0 4453 CANAL AT DAM FOR YEAR 1989 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

0 65 304 16 181 50 27 36 0 0 0 0 679

0 129 603 32 359 99 54 71 0 0 0 0 1347

CANAL AT DAM FOR YEAR 1990 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. HAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

0 0 27 137 52 21 56 165 159 24 0 0 641

0 0 54 272 103 42 111 327 315 48 0 0 1272

CANAL AT DAM FOR YEAR 1991 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

0 54 257 122 105 164 87 106 264 561 0 0 1720

0 107 510 242 208 325 173 210 524 1113 0 0 3412

CANAL AT DAM FOR YEAR 1979 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. NAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

0 0 20 21 149 353 258 300 197 119 0 0 1417

0 0 40 42 296 700 512 595 391 236 0 0 2812

CANAL AT DAM FOR YEAR 1980 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

2784 1906 324 344 240 366 372 359 205 6 0 0 6906

5520 3780 643 682 476 726 738 712 407 12 0 0 13696 CANAL AT DAN FOR TEAR 1981

JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. NAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. TOTAL

0 50 245 91 16S 165 281 310 998 0 0 2245

0 99 486 180 208 327 558 615 1980 0 0 4453

CANAL AT DAM FOR YEAR 1982 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. TOTAL

0 76 204 79 81 80 119 245 650 0 0 1534

0 151 405 157 161 159 236 486 1290 0 0 3045

CANAL AT DAM FOR YEAR 1983 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. TOTAL

0 0 71 129 95 144 197 214 227 152 0 1229

0 0 141 256 188 286 391 424 450 301 0 2437

CANAL AT DAM FOR TEAR 1984 JAN. FEB. MAIt. APR. MAY. JVM. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. TOTAL

0 43 127 79 183 386 173 450 353 131 0 1925

0 85 252 157 363 766 343 893 700 260 0 3819

CANAL AT DAM FOR YEAR 1985 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. TOTAL

0 0 499 564 449 402 865 883 677 85 0 4424

0 0 990 1119 * 891 797 1716 1751 1343 169 0 8776

CANAL AT DAM FOR YEAR 1986 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. TOTAL

636 794 695 222 0 349 1181 1574 932 1123 0 7506

1261 1575 1379 440 0 692 2342 3122 1849 2227 0 14887 CANAL AT DAM FOR YEAR 1987 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. TOTAL

0 1914 1162 401 451 496 203 226 548 324 0 5745

0 3796 2344 795 895 984 403 448 1087 643 0 11395

CANAL AT DAM FOR YEAR 1988 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN.' JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. TOTAL

0 417 313 258 770 694 822 909 794 243 0 5220

0 827 621 512 1527 1377 1630 1803 1575 482 0 10354

CANAL AT DAM FOR YEAR 1989 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. TOTAL

0 166 498 457 383 233 285 659 381 0 0 3062

0 329 988 906 760 462 565 1307 756 0 0 6073

CANAL AT DAM FOR YEAR 1990 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. TOTAL

0 0 101 255 186 94 321 193 283 86 0 1519

0 0 200 506 369 186 637 383 561 171 0 3013

CANAL AT DAM FOR YEAR 1991 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. ' AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. TOTAL

0 50 189 219 133 176 616 426 393 167 0 2369

0 99 375 434 264 349 1222 845 780 331 0 4699 APPENDIX C: RIO GRANDE DISCHARGE AT CABLE SECTION BELOW LEASBURG AND MESILLA DIVERSION DAMS CABLE SECTION BELOW LEASBURG FOR YEAR 1914 JAM. FEB. MR. APR. NAY. JUM. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. OEC. TOTAL

TOTAL SFD 22615 12965 18090 47560 140305 .108425 77205 40845 10465 37970 30340. 30990 577775

TOTAL AF 44955 25715 35881 94334 278290 215058 152134 81014 20757 75312 60178 61466 1145094

CABLE SECTION BELOW LEASBURG FOR YEAR 1915 JAN. FEB. HAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. TOTAL

TOTAL SFD 22385 15435 6490 21945 76985 95981 43645 47810 33885 11160 3670 0 379391

TOTAL AF 44400 30614 12873 43527 152499 190374 86568 94830 67210 22135 7279 0 752309

CABLE SECTION BELOU LEASBURG FOR YEAR 1919 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. NAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL SFD 1705 9000 16342 22247 44431 36960 32410 32510 20890 5688 7371 2031 231585

TOTAL AF 3382 17852 32414 44127 88129 73310 64285 64484 41435 11282 14620 4028 459348

CABLE STATION BELOU LEAS3URG FOR YEAR 1920 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. NAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL SFD 7262 6840 19786 29297 39830 40860 38661 40290 32184 23520 13327 12795 304652

TOTAL AF 14404 13567 39246 58111 79003 81046 76684 79916 63837 46651 26434 2537B 604277

CABLE SECTION BELOU LEASBURG FOR YEAR 1921 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. HAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL SFD 2596 7800 26911 26227 34116 42200 47439 61002 47053 33812 21882 18580 369618

TOTAL AF 5217 21949 53721 51131 71043 83434 102491 109713 95962 66550 40795 31131 733137

to Ox o CABLE SECTION BELOU LEASBURG FOR YEAR 1922 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL SFO 7464 16725 27516 33852 43209 47765 49409 47689 36907 17184 12205 13878 353803

TOTAL AF 14801 33166 54564 . 67128 85683 94718 97978 94567 73187 34076 24202 31486 705556

CABLE SECTION BELOU LEASBURG FOR YEAR 1923 JAN. FEB. KAR. APR. KAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OC?. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL SFD 5406 13636 14479 31569 38706 45603 46205 48271 22781 11374 5704 15899 299633

TOTAL AF 10722 27047 28719 62612 76772 90452 91647 95745 45185 22560 11314 31535 594310

CABLE SECTION BELOU LEASBURG FOR YEAR 1924 JAN. FEB. APR. NAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL SFO 4386 15908 20180 42710 50795 46620 40290 57105 24570 1403 6475 6995 317437

TOTAL AF 8700 31553 40026 84714 100730 92470 79914 113266 48734 2783 12843 13874 629607

CABLE SECTION BELOU LEASBURG FOR YEAR 1925 JAN. FEB. KAR. APR. NAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL SFO 3375 10270 24500 42890 32660 32520 45280 36370 38953 1758 913 943 270432

TOTAL AF 6694 20371 48597 85071 64780 64502 89811 72139 77262 3487 1811 1870 536395

CABLE SECTION BELOU LEASBURG FOR YEAR 1926 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. NAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL SFO 3585 865 18418 37118 53152 42805 40907 40296 28510 3432 4392 5025 278505

TOTAL AF 7111 1716 36531 73622 105425 84902 81138 79925 56549 6807 8711 9967 552404

CABLE SECTION BELOU LEASBURG FOR YEAR 1927 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL SFD 4064 10519 19593 40490 40443 45103 53328 43851 32948 7596 8856 5859 312650

TOTAL AF 8061 20864 38862 80311 80217 89460 105774 86977 65351 15066 17566 11621 620130 CABLE SECTION BELOW LEASBURG FOR TEAR 1928 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. NAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL SFD 5769 11661 24337 49703 32467 46166 51192 52599 34883 11076 5295 3989 328937

TOTAL AF 11443 22733 48272 98584 64397 91569 101538 104328 69189 21969 10502 7912 . 652436

CABLE SECTION BELOW LEASBURG FOR YEAR 1930 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL SFD 1601 9586 25261 40135 29962 38651 46958 50643 25474 5822 4366 3718 282177

TOTAL AF 3175 19014 5010S 79608 59430 76664 93141 100450 50528 11549 8661 7375 559700

CABLE SECTION BELOU LEASBURG FOR YEAR 1931 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. XT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL SFD 1953 6006 26059 32200 29872 39997 43715 41594 24615 8971 7526 3612 266120

TOTAL AF 3874 11913 51688 63869 57466 79334 86709 82502 48824 17794 14928 7165 526066

CABLE SECTION BELOU LEASBURG FOR YEAR 1932 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL SFD 2020 6743 18014 36269 32227 42464 48648 50629 35288 1U99 8366 7301 299468

TOTAL AF 4007 13375 35731 71940 63922 84227 96493 100423 69994 22808 16594 14482 593996

CABLE SECTION BELOU LEASBURG FOR YEAR 1933 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL SFD 1958 8415 22405 35733 35169 39907 50141 50820 32362 10001 6925 8625 302461

TOTAL AF 3884 16691 44440 70876 69758 79156 99455 100801 64190 19837 13736 17108 599932

CABLE SECTION BELOU LEASBURG FOR YEAR 1934 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL SFD 1500 16807 23249 35608 34394 40043 47308 50495 25988 3195 2468 355 281410

TOTAL AF 2975 33337 46114 70628 68221 79425 93835 100157 51547 6337 4896 705 558177

Olto to I

CABLE SECTION BELOW IEASBURG FOR YEAR 1935 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. HAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL SFD 1368 2285 14721 30707 30102 37189 44800 54410 29315 5795 2399 3768 256859

TOTAL AF . 2713 4532 29199 60907 . 59707 73764 88861 107922 58146 11494 4758 7474 509477

CABLE SECTION BELOU IEASBURG FOR YEAR 1936 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL SFD 1575 5007 19423 31673 32130 36787 43941 44019 18541 2842 2411 1917 240266

TOTAL AF 3120 9930 38520 62820 63730 72970 87160 87310 36780 5640 4780 3800 476560

CABLE SECTION BELOU LEASBURG FOR YEAR 1937 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL SFD 978 2367 19045 36707 35064 39516 48253 51480 33043 2373 4709 3407 276942

TOTAL AF 1940 4690 37770 72810 69550 78380 95710 102110 65540 4710 9340 6760 549310

CABLE SECTION BELOU LEASBURG FOR YEAR 1938 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL SFD 2039 6862 25709 35845 36230 40660 43010 44508 22281 8869 3731 2507 272251

TOTAL AF 4040 13610 50990 71100 71860 80650 85310 88280 44190 17590 7400 4970 539990

CA8LE SECTION BELOU LEASBURG FOR YEAR 1939 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL SFD 1116 6529 23068 32317 31939 37917 41217 38994 29128 8038 2956 2367 255586

TOTAL AF 2214 12950 45755 64101 63351 75208 81754 77345 57775 15943 5863 4695 506954

CABLE SECTION BELOU LEASBURG FOR YEAR 1940 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUM. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL SFO 140 4749 26332 36076 28406 38199 42773 35354 23900 1169 72 84 237254

TOTAL AF 278 9420 52230 71557 56343 75768 84840 70125 47406 2319 143 167 470596

CJI Od CABLE SECTION BELOU LEASBURG FOR YEAR 1941 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL SFO 787 1714 17810 46989 33502 41881 49364 44786 33904 2585 2624 4925 280871

TOTAL AF 1561 340D 35326 93203 66451 83071 97913 88833 67249 5127 5205 9769 5S7108.

CABLE SECTION BELOU LEASBURG FOR YEAR 1942 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. NAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL S?D 2895 29949 36495 85687 191594 157564 101079 76890 83416 16702 4893 5243 792407

TOTAL AF 5742 59404 72388 169960 380027 312528 200490 152511 165456 33129 9705 10400 1571740

CABLE SECTION BELOU LEAS8URG FOR YEAR 1943 JAN. FEB. HAR. APR. KAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL SFD 2541 9404 34218 47828 44916 48183 45627 52290 27001 5825 3639 1872 323344

TOTAL AF 5040 18653 67871 94867 89091 95571 90501 103717 53556 11554 7218 3713 641352

CABLE SECTION BELOU LEASBURG FOR YEAR 1944 JAN. FEB. HAR. APR. KAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL SFD 948 5954 28399 46803 40993 42176 45037 48593 34945 5404 849 3803 303904

TOTAL AF 1880 11810 56329 92834 81310 83656 89331 96384 69313 10719 1684 7543 602793

CABLE SECTION BELOU LEASBURG FOR YEAR 1945 JAN. FEB. KAR. APR. KAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL SFD 0 0 28712 44152 38892 40524 48363 44616 31601 0 0 0 276860

TOTAL AF 0 0 56950 88290 77140 60380 95930 88490 62680 0 0 0 549860

CABLE SECTION BELOU LEASBURG FOR YEAR 1946 JAN. FEB. KAR. APR. KAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL SFD 1363 6069 26182 41007 34478 39359 46539 46147 13524 6804 2683 2183 266338

TOTAL AF 2704 12038 51932 81337 68387 78069 92310 91533 26825 13496 5322 4330 S28283 CABLE SECTION BELOU LEASBURG FOR YEAR 1947 JAM. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. OEC. TOTAL

TOTAL SFD 325 2723 24289 42728 28920 37590 48840 45373 16109 49 30 31 247007

TOTAL AF 665 5400 48180 84750 57360 74560 96870 90000 31950 100 60 60 489935

CABLE SECTION BELOW LEASBURG FOR YEAR 1948 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL SFD 442 588 18286 41495 28280 39075 51734 49735 17800 2128 2137 1841 253541

TOTAL AF 880 1170 36270 82300 56090 77500 102610 98650 35310 4220 4240 3650 502890

CABLE SECTION BELOU LEASBURG FOR YEAR 1949 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL SFD 1119 236 29510 36792 31615 38585 47257 45370 17897 3295 544 461 252681

TOTAL AF 2220 470 58530 72980 62710 76530 93730 89990 35500 6540 1080 910 501190

CABLE SECTION BELOU LEASBURG FOR YEAR 1950 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL SFD 62 2738 38573 35176 31933 38361 44361 48470 16788 2059 30 31 258582

TOTAL AF 120 5430 76510 69770 63340 76090 87990 96140 33290 4080 60 60 512880

CABLE SECTION BELOU LEASBURG FOR YEAR 1951 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL SFD 777 674 22996 23980 8056 26988 37150 37418 8893 62 40 31 167065

TOTAL AF 1540 1340 45610 47560 15980 53530 73690 74220 17640 123 79 61 331373

CABLE SECTION BELOU LEASBURG FOR YEAR 1952 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL SFD 149 81 11803 22381 22788 36580 39222 43191 16633 48 30 31 192937

TOTAL AF 296 161 23410 44390 45200 72560 77800 85670 32990 95 60 61 382693

to Oi CABLE SECTION BELOU LEASBURG FOR YEAR 1953 JAN. FEB. KAR. APR. HAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL SFD 31 150 36146 23321 19836 30438 36197 42851 18823 93 61 62 208009

TOTAL AF 61 298 71690 46260 39340 60370 71800 84990 37330 184 121 123 412567

CABLE SECTION BELOU LEASBURG FOR YEAR 1954 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. HAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL SFD 62 56 9993 23204 12756 17386 18545 8903 3157 5988 60 62 100172

TOTAL AF 123 111 19820 46020 25300 34480 36780 17660 6260 11880 119 123 198676

CABLE SECTION BELOU LEASBURG FOR YEAR 1955 JAN. FEB. HAR. APR. HAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. TOTAL

TOTAL SFD 10472 10084 2569 10976 11673 17783 14370 357 78284

TOTAL AF 20770 20000 5100 21770 23150 35270 28500 708 155268

CABLE SECTION BELOU LEASBURG FOR YEAR 1956 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. HAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. TOTAL

TOTAL SFD 17637 18245 976 14863 18236 11775 6358 0 88090

TOTAL AF 34980 36190 1940 29480 36170 23360 12610 0 174730

CABLE SECTION BELOU LEASBURG FOR YEAR 1957 JAN. FEB. KAR. APR. HAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL SFD 7696 8587 20278 32010 42917 20444 2014 789 353 135088

TOTAL AF 15260 17030 40220 63490 85120 40550 3990 1560 700 267920

CABLE SECTION BELOU LEASBURG FOR YEAR 1958 JAN. FEB. HAR. APR. HAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL SFD 342 289 35408 32676 34930 47466 57280 45493 31593 3459 68 62 289066

TOTAL AF 678 573 70230 64810 69280 94150 113610 90230 62660 6860 135 123 573339

to O*Cn CABLE SECTION BELOW LEASBURG FOR YEAR 1959 JAN. FEB. KAR. APR. HAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL SFD 144 566 43893 24934 30556 47362 49089 35170 19167 116 67 40 251102

TOTAL AF 286 1120 87060 49460 60600 93940 97370 69760 38020 230 133 79 498058

CABLE SECTION BELOU LEASBURG FOR YEAR 1960 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL SFD 139 800 46697 27628 32420 62753 63315 63172 19706 233 140 54 256855

TOTAL AF 276 1590 92230 56800 66300 86800 85910 85630 39080 662 264 107 509449

CABLE SECTION BELOU LEASBURG FOR YEAR 1961 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL SFD 31 49 36260 24403 22536 35097 63868 3662B 9166 139 120 508 206783

TOTAL AF 61 97 71920 48600 66700 69610 87010 68680 18160 276 238 1010 410142

CABLE SECTION BELOU LEASBURG FOR YEAR 1962 JAN. FEB. KAR. APR. KAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL SFD 917 389 41803 23852 23719 41160 61181 66796 13562 1155 133 532 233179

TOTAL AF 1820 772 82920 47310 47050 81600 81680 88850 26900 2290 264 1060 462516

CABLE SECTION BELOU LEASBURG FOR YEAR 1963 JAN. FEB. KAR. APR. KAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL SFD 731 656 43217 13774 9900 30819 38544 23768 4678 167 148 114 166496

TOTAL AF 1450 1300 85720 27320 19640 61130 76650 47100 9280 331 294 226 330241

CABLE SECTION BELOU LEASBURG FOR YEAR 1964 JAN. FEB. KAR. APR. HAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. TOTAL

TOTAL SFD 390 454 9662 8182 64 6994 6083 7226 6051 21 45127

TOTAL AF 774 900 19160 16230 127 13870 12070 16330 12000 62 89503

to cn CABLE STATION BELOW LEASBURG FOR YEAR 1965 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL SFO 8500 14206 40192 50223 43825 18802 24 98 465 176335

TOTAL AF 16860 28180 79720 99620 86930 37290 47 195 922 349764

CABLE SECTION 8ELOU LEASBURG FOR YEAR 1966 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. KAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL SFO 401 114 35598 24569 22081 33686 38423 34616 9980 447 759 880 201554

TOTAL AF 795 226 70610 48730 43800 66820 76210 68660 19800 887 1500 1740 399778

CABLE SECTION BELOW LEASBURG FOR YEAR 1967 JAN. FEB. NAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL SFD 917 591 35982 13573 14706 17403 25995 30410 19511 1268 1287 1900 163543

TOTAL AF 1820 1170 71370 26920 29170 34520 51560 60320 38700 2510 2550 3770 324380

CABLE SECTION BELOU LEASBURG FOR YEAR 1968 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL SFD 853 1624 35182 13271 13721 34526 27731 26205 12270 175 432 793 166783

TOTAL AF 1690 3220 69780 26320 27220 68480 55000 51980 24340 348 858 1570 330806

CABLE SECTION BELOU LEAS8URG FOR YEAR 1969 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL SFD 441 272 33251 21137 21533 39634 47229 48539 12754 610 772 4948 231120

TOTAL AF 875 540 65950 41920 42710 78610 93680 96280 25300 1210 1530 9810 45841S CABLE SECTION BELOU LEAS8URG FOR YEAR 1970 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. HAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL SFD 1367 2996 36844 26321 28542 35473 47371 39210 15874 1050 594 1338 236980

TOTAL AF 2710 5940 73080 52210 56610 70360 93960 77770 . 31490 20830 1180 2650 488790

CABLE SECTION BELOU LEASBURG FOR YEAR 1971 JAN. FEB. KAR. APR. NAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL SFD 1041 1350 36967 17495 1&591 27405 29835 24735 7090 1223 664 646 167042

TOTAL AF 2060 2680 73320 34700 36880 54360 59180 49060 14060 2430 1320 1280 331330

CABLE SECTION BELOU LEASBURG FOR YEAR 1972 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL SFD 391 186 30136 9873 5824 4080 16697 15534 3765 1893 391 356 89126

TOTAL AF 776 369 59770 19580 11550 8090 33120 30810 7470 3760 776 706 176777

CABLE SECTION BELOU LEASBURG FOR YEAR 1973 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL SFD 343 349 28058 27251 26541 37073 32681 50022 24695 545 460 465 228483

TOTAL AF 680 692 55650 54050 52640 73530 64820 99220 48980 1080 912 922 453176

CABLE SECTION BELOU LEASBURG FOR YEAR 1974 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL SFD 494 326 41632 24844 28598 44740 40123 37508 19068 5487 890 620 244330

TOTAL AF 980 647 82580 49280 56720 88740 79580 74400 37820 10880 1760 1230 484617

CABLE SECTION BELOU LEASBURG FOR YEAR 1975 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. OEC. TOTAL

TOTAL SFD 3630 1293 27653 29821 33031 37484 36859 39353 24025 1191 643 860 235843

TOTAL AF 7200 2560 54850 59150 65520 74350 73110 78060 47650 2360 1280 1710 467800

to Olto CABLE SECTION BELOW LEASBURG FOR TEAR 1976 JAN. FEB; MAR. APR. NAT. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL SFO 6538 5784 33177 34811 44025 38856 33850 43636 16877 557 830 620 261561

TOTAL AF 16935 11470 65810 69050 87320 77070 67140 86550 33480 1100 1650 .1230 518805

CABLE SECTION BELOU LEASBURG FOR YEAR 1977 JAM. FEB. MAR. APR. MAT. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL SFO 589 510 27473 17872 16451 27217 26784 3t993 8637 479 446 310 158763

TOTAL AF 1170 1010 54490 3S450 32630 53980 53120 63460 17130 950 889 615 314894

CABLE SECTION BELOU LEASBURG FOR TEAR 1978 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. CCt. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL SFO 310 280 14682 13079 2839 28887 32631 36890 11592 1040 1715 710 144655

TOTAL AF 615 555 29120 25940 5630 57300 64720 73170 22990 2060 3400 1410 286910

CABLE SECTION BELOU LEASBURG FOR YEAR 1979 JAN. FEB. APR. NAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL SFD 322 280 28739 26465 25478 40637 48111 32731 27173 810 1110 1091 232947

TOTAL AF 639 555 57000 52490 50530 80600 95430 64920 53900 1610 2200 2160 462034

CABLE SECTION BELOU LEASBURG FOR YEAR 1980 I. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. ' AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. OEC. TOTAL

TOTAL SFD 796 4294 33319 29358 32867 43716 47087 36497 16216 1047 1220 1053 247470

TOTAL AF 1580 8520 66090 58230 65190 86710 93400 72390 32160 2080 2420 2090 490860

CABLE SECTION BELOU LEASBURG FOR YEAR 1981 I. FEB. NAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL SFD 995 6163 32339 29909 32154 39611 40665 29854 17331 1484 1190 1010 232705

TOTAL AF 1970 12220 64140 59320 63780 78570 80660 59220 34380 2940 2360 2000 461560 CABLE SECTION BELOU LEAS8URG FOR YEAR 1982 JAM. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUK. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL SFD 1915 5591 36017 29443 32735 35752 39248 37829 18159 1445 1440 1445 241019

TOTAL .AF 3800 11090 71440 58400 64930 70910 77850 75030 36020 . 2870 2860 2870 478070

CABLE SECTION BELOU LEASBURG FOR YEAR 1983 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL SFO 1187 4985 30723 24471 30688 35221 40999 37222 26425 3581 1843 1261 238606

TOTAL AF 2350 9890 60940 48540 60870 69860 81320 73830 52410 7100 3660 2500 473270

CABLE SECTION BELOU LEASBURG FOR YEAR 1984 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAT. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. OEC. TOTAL

TOTAL SFO 949 7595 33649 31039 35207 35408 47176 26526 28949 5222 1625 2001 255346

TOTAL AF 1882 15064 66742 61565 69832 70231 93572 52614 57420 10358 3223 3969 506472

CABLE SECTION BELOW LEASBURG FOR YEAR 1985 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL SFD 1419 1321 29021 27390 35221 41629 46116 38166 24190 12407 2286 2043 261209

TOTAL AF 2815 2620 57562 54327 69860 82570 91470 75701 47980 24609 4534 4052 518100

CABLE SECTION BELOU LEASBURG FOR YEAR 1986 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL SFO 13612 33629 48891 38221 52070 61604 80736 56130 32472 60390 44710 72486 594951

TOTAL AF 26999 66702 96974 75810 103279 122190 160138 111332 64407 119782 88681 143774 1180068

CABLE SECTION BELOU LEASBURG FOR YEAR 1987 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL SFD 60776 46991 66602 60243 86975 69566 94090 41010 19775 11520 3986 3546 565080

TOTAL AF 120547 93205 132103 119490 172512 137982 186625 81349 39223 22850 7906 7033 1120825

Oto CABLE SECTION BELOW LEASBURG FOR YEAR 1988 JAN. FEB. KAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL SFD 3434 7311 58251 50249 40137 47172 46549 37214 22470 8021 2308 1548 324664

TOTAL AF 6811 14501 115539 99667 79611 93564 92329 73813 44569 15909 4578 3070 643961

CABLE SECTION BELOU LEASBURG FOR YEAR 1989 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. HAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL SFD 1069 7149 46257 26101 33217 47318 50118 39143 24172 3103 1974 1585 281206

TOTAL AF 2120 14180 91749 51771 65885 93854 99408 77639 47944 6155 3915 3144 557764

CABLE SECTION BELOU LEASBURG FOR YEAR 1990 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL SFD 1343 4757 41652 24899 30878 48668 46464 29049 26853 4299 1994 1245 262101

TOTAL AF 2664 9435 82616 49386 61246 96532 92160 57618 53262 8527 3955 2469 519870

CABLE SECTION BELOU LEASBURG FOR YEAR 1991 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL SFD 1058 2695 39938 22407 28090 38136 32144 28366 18670 7717 2314 2283 223818

TOTAL AF 2099 5345 79216 44444 55716 75642 63757 56263 37031 15306 4590 4528 443937

CABLE SECTION BELOU MESILLA FOR YEAR 1985 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JIM. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL SFD 885 974 11169 10954 14279 17457 23806 16200 9404 6673 2079 1343 115223

TOTAL AF 1755 1932 22153 21727 28322 34625 47218 32132 18652 13236 4124 2664 228S40

CABLE SECTION BELOU MESILLA FOR YEAR 1986 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL SFD 8702 20866 32018 22646 35090 48848 62512 38256 12560 54038 42902 74145 452583

TOTAL AF 17260 41387 63507 44918 69600 96889 123991 75880 24912 107183 85095 147064 897686 CABLE SECTION BELOW MESILLA FOR YEAR 1987 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL SFD 59776 37500 48747 44879 76375 52935 78910 19430 6100 3586 3000 3686 434924

TOTAL AF 118564 74380 96688 89016 151488 104995 156516 38540 12099 7113 5950 7311 862660

CABLE SECTION BELOW MESILLA FOR YEAR 1988 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUM. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL SFD 3292 3516 47314 38862 20316 29416 24982 22899 10221 4291 2561 1973 209643

TOTAL AF 6530 6974 93846 77082 40296 58346 49551 45420 20273 8511 5080 3913 415822

CABLE SECTION BELOU MESILLA FOR YEAR 1989 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL SFD 1681 2415 24964 11295 18197 30309 32020 27741 10614 3907 2457 2055 167655

TOTAL AF 3334 4790 49515 22403 36093 60117 63511 55023 21053 7749 4873 4076 332537

CABLE SECTION BELOU MESILLA FOR YEAR 1990 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL SFD 1461 4304 26275 12421 14972 27991 32486 17153 10945 3716 2100 1607 155431

TOTAL AF 2898 8537 52116 24637 29697 55519 64435 34022 21709 7371 4165 3187 308293

CABLE SECTION BELOU MESILLA FOR YEAR 1991 JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY. JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL

TOTAL SFD 1187 781 22775 10701 13819 22902 25033 20407 9209 2530 2439 2468 134251

TOTAL AF 2354 1549 45174 21225 27410 45425 49652 40477 18266 5018 4838 4895 266283

to 0) CO APPENDIX D: RECORDS OF SELECTED WELLS IN THE IN THE MESILLA GROUND-WATER BASIN 265

EXPLANATION

Main geologic unit: AVMB, flood-plain alluviun; SNTP, Santa Fe Group. Depth of well: R, reported. Altitude: Datun is sea level. Water level: RP, recently pimped; P, pimping; NP, nearby punping. Use of water: H, domestic; I, irrigation; H, municipal supply; S, stock; U, unused. Remarks: OWN, other well nunbers or names; USBR, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation; EBID, Elephant Butte Irrigation District; SI, screened interval; QW, chemical analysis available; Wl, additional water-level measurements available; RW, replaced well casing, new depth of well and construction date. Table 1. Records of selected wells in the Mesilla ground-water basin - Continued

Water level Depth Depth Altitude below Main of of land land Use Well geologic well surface surface Date of number Well location unit (feet) (feet) (feet) measured water Remarks

1 21S.1W.14.313 AVMB 28.5 3960 11.04 08-31-89 U OWN: USBR-41; 14.4 02-02-90 SI:26.5-28.5 14.8 02-07-91

2 21S.1W.24.214 AVMB 28.6 3950 11.36 08-31-89 U OWN: USBR-42; 15.2 02-02-90 SI: 26.6-28.6 15.1 02-07-91

3 22S.1W.19.333 SNTF 250 4460 156.08 01-23-84 U 158.62 02-26-85 160.50 03-20-86 161.82 02-09-87 163.26 02-08-88 163.57 02-13-89 165.63 01-29-90 166.6 02-14-91

4 22S.1E.06.124 AVMB 28.2 3935 8.81 08-31-89 U OWN: USBR-43; 10.7 02-05-90 SI: 26.2-28.2 10.9 02-07-91

5 22S.1E.09.241a AVMB 23.4 3930.1 7.7 02-01-84 U OWN: USBR-26; QW; 1 9.3 02-01-85 RW: 28.4, 05-02-89 8.6 02-01-86 266

7.2 02-01-87 10.8 02-06-90 11.4 02-07-91

22S.1E.09.333 AVMB 3928.1 6.9 02-01-84 OWN: USBR-20; QU; 7.7 02-01-85 UL 6.9 02-01-86 7.0 02-01-87 7.7 02-01-88 8.0 02-02-89 8.2 02-06-90 8.1 02-07-91

22S.1E.16.433 AVMB 3923.4 9.4 02-01-84 OWN: USBR-19; QU; 9.2 02-01-85 UL 8.5 02-01-86 8.2 02-01-87 9.3 02-01-88 9.2 02-02-89 8.9 02-06-90 9.2 02-07-91

22S.1E.33.341 AVMB 3906.6 7.9 02-01-84 OWN: USBR-15; QU; 8.0 02-01-85 WL 6.7 02-01-86 6.5 02-01-87 8.7 02-01-88 8.1 02-21-89 8.0 02-06-90 8.3 02-01-91

22S.1E.35.334 AVMB 3909.9 13.9 02-01-84 OWN: USBR-18; QU; 14.0 02-01-85 UL 13.3 02-01-86 12.9 02-01-87 13.1 02-01-88 13.0 02-02-89 13.6 02-06-90 14.1 02-01-91

10 22S.1E.35.434b AVMB 3909.6 15.0 02-01-84 OUN: USBR-17; QU; 15.9 02-01-85 UL 15.4 02-01-86 13.9 02-01-87 15.4 02-01-88 15.0 02-02-89 15.9 02-06-90 16.4 02-01-91 267

23S.1U.25.444 SNTF 380 4197 329.70 02-22-84 U SI: 330-380; UL 327.11 02-01-85 327.62 02-10-87 327.69 02-02-88 327.82 02-13-89 327.40 01-30-90 327.75 02-15-91

23S.2U.01.422 SNTF 4460 200.58 02-23-83 212.38 01-23-84 215.37 02-27-85 210.75 02-13-89 211.37 01-29-90 204.9 01-14-91

23S.2U.12.122 SNTF 4463 175.1 01-23-84 217.34 02-27-85 219.83 03-20-86 215.50 02-09-87 215.2 02-08-88 220.02 02-13-89 206.87 02-14-91

23S.2U.13.134 SNTF 4431 182.85 01-23-84 185.62 02-27-85 188.04 03-20-86 183.43 02-09-87 180.97 02-08-88 178.9 02-13-89 175.37 01-29-90 174.97 02-14-91

23S.2U.13.341 SNTF 4429 213.10 01-23-84 I OWN: 23S.02W.13.311 199.5 02-27-85 QU; UL 202.08 03-20-86 201.35 02-09-87 197.9 02-08-88 192.93 02-13-89 188.9 01-29-90 188.47 02-14-91

23S.1E.01.413 AVHB 28.5 3900 19.48 08-31-89 U OWN: USBR-44; 20.8 02-02-90 SI: 26.5-28.5 21.4 02-01-91

23S.1E.09.433 AVHB 3894.7 8.3 02-01-84 U OWN: USBR-16; QU; 9.2 02-01-85 UL 268

8.5 02-01-88 7.9 02-02-89 8.7 02-06-90 9.0 02-01-91

18 23S.1E.14.241 AVMB 28.3 3890 15.51 08-30-87 U OWN: USBR-45; 16.3 02-02-90 SI: 26.3-28.3 17.3 02-01-91

19 23S.1E.16.424 AVMB 3865.7 13.4 02-01-84 U OWN: USBR-12; QU; 14.4 02-01-85 UL 13.4 02-01-86 13.6 02-01-87 13.9 02-01-88 13.9 02-01-89 13.4 02-06-89 13.3 02-02-90 13.8 02-01-91

20 23S.1E.22.232a SNTF 322 3888.6 7.91 01-16-85 U OWN: LC-1A; SI: 8.09 02-06-91 295-300; QU; UL

21 23S.1E.22.232b SNTF 117 3888.6 5.88 01-16-85 U OWN: LC-1B; SI: 6.31 02-06-91 95-100; QU; UL

22 23S.1E.22.232c AVMB 42 3888.6 6.34 01-17-85 U OWN: LC-1C; SI: 6.18 02-06-91 31-36; QU; UL

23 23S.1E.22.241a SNTF 314 3888.0 16.23 01-17-85 U OWN: LC-2A; SI: 15.68 02-06-91 300-305; QU; UL

24 23S.1E.22.241b SNTF 119 3888.0 9.92 01-17-85 U OWN: LC-2B; SI: 9.35 02-06-91 100-105; QU; WL

25 23S.1E.22.241c AVMB 40 3888.0 6.44 01-17-85 U OWN: LC-2C; SI: 6.68 02-06-91 30-35; QU; UL

26 23S.1E.23.244a SNTF 332 3889.7 22.26 03-06-85 U OWN: LC-3A; SI: 19.71 02-06-91 322-327; QU; UL

27 23S.1E.23.244b SNTF 120 3889.7 21.32 03-06-85 U OWN: LC-3B; SI: 18.13 02-06-91 110-115; QU; UL 269

28 23S.1E.23.2Uc AVMB 50 3889.7 21.20 03-06-85 OUN: LC-3C; SI: 17.99 02-06-91 40-45; QU; UL

29 23S.IE.27.334 AVMB 3882.3 6.3 02-01-84 U OUN: US8R-11; QU; 6.2 02-01-85 UL 5.4 02-01-86 5.4 02-01-87 6.3 02-01-88 6.3 02-06-89 6.0 02-02-90 6.0 02-01-91

30 23S.2E.21.444 SNTF 507 4057 208.8 02-02-90 U OUN: NNSU-4; SI:350-507

31 23S.2E.28.123 SNTF 665 3966 120.1 02-02-90 0UN:NHSU-3; SI:590-665

32 23S.2E.28.314 SNTF 626 3954 109.82 01-03-89 OUN: NMSU-8; 100.44 04-19-91 SI: 330-626; UL

33 23S.2E.28.333 SNTF 525 3932 78.72 02-14-90 OUN: NHSU-9; 79.89 04-19-91 SI: 310-525

34 23S.2E.29.113 AVMB 29 3880 16.82 08-30-89 OUN: USBR-47; 18.4 02-06-90 SI: 27-29 18.8 02-01-91

35 23S.2E.29.141 SNTF 712 3882 32.18 01-03-89 H OUN: NHSU-14; SI: 323- 463, 547-667; UL

36 23S.2E.29.243a SNTF 485 3903 61.64 01-03-89 U OUN: NMSU-2; SI: 362- 69.29 04-19-91 485; UL

37 23S.2E.29.441 SNTF 766 3912 73.76 02-14-90 OUN: NMSU-10; SI: 316-766

38 24S.1U.22.121 SNTF 4230 353.25 01-24-83 OUN: 24S.01U.22.123; 353.85 02-28-85 QU; UL 353.33 03-20-86 356.20 02-09-88 356.7 02-15-89 358.6 01-30-90

39 24S.2U.36.111 SNTF 4319 332.12 03-06-85 437.4P 03-20-86 P 02-27-89 334.15 02-06-90 270

40 24S.1E.01.223 AVMB 35 3880 13.92 08-30-89 U OWN: USSR-46; 15.5 02-06-90 SI: 33-35 16.3 02-07-91

41 24S.1E.11.112 AVMB 28.2 3870 4.77 08-30-89 U OWN: USBR-48; 6.1 02-02-90 SI: 26.2-28.2 6.3 02-01-91

42 24S.1E.13.221s SNTF 370 3863 9.52 02-01-85 U OWN: EBID-5; SI: 8.94 02-06-86 145-370; QU; UL 8.44 02-09-87 8.91 02-02-88 8.77 02-13-89 9.56 02-08-90 9.57 02-18-91

43 24S.2E.07.231 SNTF 460 3870 15.55 02-01-85 U OWN: EBID-2; SI: 14.51 02-10-86 180-460; UL 13.52 02-09-87

44 24S.2E.07.234 SNTF 310 3871 17.88 02-01-85 U SI: 305-310; QU; 16.83 02-10-86 UL 15.86 02-09-87

45 24S.2E.07.234a SNTF 125 3871 17.26 02-01-85 U SI: 120-125; QU; 15.88 02-10-86 UL 14.78 02-09-87

46 24S.2E.07.234b AVMB 80 3871 17.16 02-01-85 U SI: 75-80; QU; UL 15.70 02-10-86 14.49 02-09-87

47 24S.2E.08.434a AVMB 21 3862.9 12.4 02-01-84 U OWN: USBR-13; UL; 11.5 02-01-85 RU: 30.2, 04-21-89 9.7 02-01-86 9.0 02-01-90 10.1 02-08-91

48 24S.2E.09.433 AVMB 3861.9 13.0 02-01-84 U OWN: USBR-14; QU; 12.3 02-01-85 UL 10.8 02-01-86 10.5 02-01-87 9.8 02-01-88 9.6 02-21-89 9.4 02-01-90 10.3 02-08-91 271

49 24S.2E.16.124a SNTF 307 3861.5 16.68 01-26-84 U OWN: H-4A; SI: 14.93 01-15-85 297-302; QU; UL 14.01 02-09-91

50 24S.2E.16.124b SNTF 125 3861.5 16.09 01-26-84 U OWN: M-4B; SI: 14.40 01-15-85 110-115; QU; UL 12.98 02-09-91

51 24S.2E.16.124c AVMB 45 3861.5 13.85 01-30-84 U OWN: M-4C; SI: 13.17 01-15-85 30-35; QU; UL 11.54 02-09-91

52 24S.2E.17.322 SNTF 464 3860 14.97 02-01-85 U OWN: EBID-3; SI: 13.23 02-10-86 180-464; QU; UL 13.68 02-09-87 12.95 02-02-88 12.96 02-13-89 13.95 02-08-90 13.94 02-18-91

53 24S.2E.17.414a SNTF 312 3858 11.14 02-01-85 U SI: 292-297; QU; 10.34 02-10-86 UL 11.19 02-09-87 9.91 02-02-88 10.09 02-13-89 11.07 02-08-90 10.98 02-18-91

54 24S.2E.17.414b SNTF 618 3858 16.28 02-01-85 U SI: 612-617; QU; 16.50 02-10-86 UL 15.85 02-09-87 15.44 02-02-88 14.98 02-13-89 16.46 02-08-90 16.54 02-18-91

55 24S.2E.17.423a SNTF 686 3858 12.26 02-01-84 U OWN: EBID-1; SI: 10.96 02-01-85 310-680; QU; UL 10.31 02-10-86 11.09 02-09-87 9.43 02-02-88 9.84 02-13-89 11.14 02-08-90 11.00 02-18-91

56 24S.2E.17.423b SNTF 610 3859.8 15.72 02-01-85 U OWN: M-3B; SI: 272

15.87 02-10-86 591-596; QU; UL 15.30 02-09-87 14.85 02-02-88 14.37 02-13-89 15.60 02-08-90 15.73 02-18-91

57 24S.2E.17.423c SNTF 310 3859.8 11.04 02-01-85 OWN: H-3C; SI: 10.27 02-10-86 302-307; QU; UL 11.10 02-09-87 9.72 02-02-88 9.98 02-13-89 10.97 02-08-90 10.85 02-18-91

58 24S.2E.17.423d SNTF 121 3859.8 10.28 02-01-85 U OWN: M-3D; SI: 9.24 02-10-86 113-118; QU; UL 9.42 02-09-87 9.33 02-02-88 9.30 02-13-89 9.74 02-08-90 10.15 02-18-91

59 24S.2E.17.423e AVMB 35 3859.8 9.95 02-01-85 U OWN: M-3E; SI: 8.42 02-10-86 30-35; QU; UL 8.66 02-09-87 9.20 02-02-88 9.06 02-13-89 9.38 02-08-90 9.89 02-18-91

60 24S.2E.19.214a SNTF 335 3859.2 10.45 12-01-83 U OWN: M-1A; SI: 10.96 01-15-85 310-315; QU; UL 11.97 02-09-91

61 24S.2E.19.214b SNTF 130 3859.2 9.95 12-01-83 U OWN: H-1B; SI: 9.91 01-15-85 115-120; QU; UL 11.09 02-09-91

62 24S.2E.19.214c AVMB 50 3859.2 6.17 12-01-83 U OWN: M-1C; SI: 6.42 01-15-85 35-40; QU; UL 9.67 02-09-91

63 24S.2E.19.223a SNTF 321 3859.2 10.59 01-15-85 U OWN: M-2A; SI: 11.74 02-09-91 309-314; QU; UL

64 24S.2E.19.223b SNTF 122 3859.2 9.28 01-15-85 U OWN: M-2B; SI: 273

10.79 02-09-91 110-115; QU; UL

65 24S.2E.19.223c AVMB 52 3859.2 6.61 01-15-85 U OWN: H-2C; SI: 9.87 02-09-91 40-45; QU; UL

66 24S.2E.21.123 SNTF 480 3855 12.73 02-01-85 U OWN: EBID-4; SI: 9.82 02-08-86 170-480; QU; UL 10.66 02-13-89 10.86 02-18-91

67 24S.2E.22.242 AVMB 19 3851.4 10.1 02-01-84 U OWN: USBR-10; UL; 9.8 02-01-85 RU:30.5, 04-24-89 9.0 02-01-86 8.3 02-01-87 7.9 02-01-88 7.8 02-09-89 8.0 02-01-90 8.5 02-08-91

68 24S.2E.23.342 AVMB 20.7 3848.6 10.9 02-01-84 OWN: USBR-9; QU; UL; 11.3 02-01-85 RU: 30.6, 04-24-89 9.0 02-01-86 8.9 02-01-90 9.6 02-08-91

69 24S.2E.28.334 AVMB 3850.5 11.8 02-01-84 OWN: USBR-8; 10.7 02-01-85 UL 10.4 02-01-86 9.9 02-01-87 10.7 02-01-88 9.2 02-03-89 10.7 02-01-90 11.5 02-07-91

70 25S.2U.05.133 SNTF 4432 120.11 03-06-85 OWN: 25S.02U.05.134; 119.52 03-20-86 UL 117.65 02-10-87 116.70 02-09-88 115.95 02-15-89 115.76 02-06-90 114.53 02-15-91

71 25S.2U.30.324 SNTF 4288 219.98 02-16-84 218.85 02-27-85 216.15 03-21-86 215.74 02-11-87 215.44 02-10-88 216.87 02-27-89 214.76 02-13-90 274

214.82 02-15-91

72 25S.3U.02.214 SNTF 527R 4499 404.18 01-24-84 S UL 392.62 02-27-85 387.75 03-02-87 387.90 02-09-88 386.28 02-15-89 385.30 02-06-90 384.80 02-15-91

73 25S.1E.06.331 SNTF 400R 4210 368.30 09-22-83 U 368.24 02-20-85 367.60 03-21-86 368.43 02-10-87 368.50 02-09-88 368.45 02-15-89 368.5 02-06-90 366.42 02-15-91

74 25S.1E.06.333 SNTF 680 4209 366.52 06-20-86 U OWN: Afton Testhole 366.08 02-10-87 SI: 665-675; QU 371.20 02-09-88 369.15 02-15-89 367.55 02-06-90 368.45 02-15-91

75 25S.1E.16.111 SNTF 1650 4190 352.82 01-24-84 U OWN: 25S.01E.16.114 352.85 02-27-85 UL 352.48 02-04-87 352.00 02-09-88 352.64 02-17-89 352.35 02-06-90 352.80 02-07-91

76 25S.1E.19.424a SNTF -- 4154 323.93 01-24-84 S

77 25S.1E.19.424b SNTF -- 4154 307.01 02-28-85 S 309.78 03-21-86

78 25S.2E.01.411 AVMB 12.27 3835.3 8.3 02-01-84 U OWN: USBR-25; QU; 9.3 02-01-85 UL 7.5 02-01-86 7.5 02-01-87 7.1 02-01-88 7.6 02-09-89 Silted

79 25S.2E.04.114 AVMB -- 3847 12.7 02-01-84 U OWN: USBR-7; QU; 11.5 02-01-85 UL 275

12.1 02-01-86 12.4 02-01-87 12.0 02-01-88 11.3 02-02-89 12.0 02-01-90 12.0 02-07-91

80 255.2E.23.212 AVMB 3828.6 9.1 02-01-84 U OWN: USBR-6; UL 8.9 02-01-85 8.7 02-01-86 8.8 02-01-87 8.8 02-01-88 8.5 02-02-89 8.6 02-01-90 8.7 02-07-91

81 25S.2E.25.322 AVMB 21 3821.3 9.3 02-01-84 OWN: USBR-5; QU; UL; 10.4 02-01-85 RU: 21.2, 04-21-89 9.2 02-01-86 9.7 02-01-87 9.6 02-01-88 9.6 02-02-89 9.8 02-01-90 9.9 02-07-91

82 25S.2E.28.222b SNTF 120 3922 104.60 02-16-84 UL 103.97 01-09-85 103.85 02-13-87 103.74 02-02-88 103.70 02-14-89 103.72 02-12-90 103.90 02-19-91

83 25S.2E.31.312a SNTF 4171 356.73 03-21-86 355.16 02-13-87 355.13 02-04-88 354.85 02-14-89 354.76 02-12-90 355.09 02-19-91

84 25S.2E.31.312b SNTF 1000R 4171 349.77 02-19-85

85 25S.3E.20.421 AVMB 3818.9 7.6 02-01-84 OUN: USBR-24; QU; 7.9 02-01-85 WL 6.6 02-01-86 6.8 02-01-87 7.2 02-01-88 7.1 02-09-89 7.2 02-01-90 276

6.9 02-01-91

86 25S.3E.28.343a AVMB 3810.5 9.9 02-01-84 OUN: USBR-21; QU; 10.1 02-01-85 UL 9.3 02-01-86 9.6 02-01-87 9.6 02-01-88 9.7 02-02-89 9.9 02-01-90 9.6 02-01-91

87 255.3E.31.143 AVMB 3814.3 7.6 02-01-84 U OWN: USBR-4; UL 7.4 02-01-85 7.3 02-01-86 7.6 02-01-87 7.6 02-01-88 7.7 02-02-89 7.5 02-01-90 7.8 02-01-91

88 26S.1U.04.412 SNTF 445 4211 414.19P 01-24-84 OUN: 26S.01U.04.322 384.85 02-27-85

89 26S.1U.16.334 SNTF 1000R 4210 388.75 02-27-85 P 02-27-89 386.40 02-22-90

90 26S.1U.25.412b SNTF 4194 375.42 03-26-86 375.32 02-12-87 375.38 02-03-88 375.62 02-15-89 375.26 02-13-90 375.58 02-20-91

91 26S.2U.15.434 SNTF 437R 4250 409.17 02-27-85 QU 409.90 03-24-86 408.41 02-11-87 409.10 02-10-88 408.85 02-27-89 409.05 02-13-90 409.24 02-15-91

92 26S.2U.30.233 SNTF 800 4333 489.58 03-07-85 488.00 03-21-86 P 02-27-89 P 02-13-90

93 26S.1E.18.222a SNTF 430 4213 394.40 02-16-84 S QU; UL 277

94 26S.1E.18.222b SNTP 600R 4213 393.1 02-28-85 H.S 393.5 03-21-86 393.16 .02-10-87 393.18 02-04-88 393.3 02-15-89 393.5 02-22-90 393.4 02-07-91

95 26S.1E.35.332 SNTF 500R 4158 358.39 03-05-85 U OWN: 26S.01E.35.333; 358.40 03-26-86 UL 363.99 02-12-87 358.38 02-03-88 358.56 02-15-89 358.55 02-13-90 358.69 02-20-91

96 26S.2E.01.211 AVMB 3812.6 8.5 02-01-84 U OWN: USBR-3; UL 8.5 02-01-85 8.1 02-01-86 6.4 02-01-87 8.0 02-01-88 7.7 02-02-89 8.0 02-01-90 8.2 02-01-91

97 26S.2E.32.333 SNTF 4128 332.38 02-20-84 333.18 02-15-85

98 26S.3E.03.344 AVMB 26 3812 10.06 02-01-85 U SI: 16-26; QU; UL 9.71 02-06-86 9.47 02-09-87 9.69 02-02-88 9.93 02-08-90 9.88 02-18-91

99 26S.3E.03.344a AVMB 36 3812 10.11 02-01-85 U SI: 26-36; QU; UL 9.75 02-06-86 9.53 02-09-87 9.73 02-02-88 9.88 02-14-89 9.99 02-08-90 9.93 02-18-91

100 26S.3E.03.344b AVMB 48 3812 10.07 02-01-85 U SI: 45-48; QU; UL 9.73 02-06-86 9.48 02-09-87 9.71 02-02-88 10.06 02-08-90 278

9.98 02-18-91

101 26S.3E.03.344c AVMB 75 3812 10.62 02-01-85 U SI: 72-75; QW; UL 10.51 02-06-86 9.98 02-02-88 10.10 02-08-90 10.06 02-18-91

102 26S.3E.03.344d SNTF 150 3812 10.95 02-01-85 SI: 147-150; QU; 10.57 02-06-86 UL 10.07 02-09-87 9.78 02-02-88 9.86 02-14-89 10.40 02-08-90 10.30 02-18-91

103 26S.3E.04.122 AVMB 3814.6 8.4 02-01-84 U OWN: USBR-27; UL 9.2 02-01-85 7.8 02-01-86 8.3 02-01-87 8.5 02-01-88 8.4 02-06-89 8.4 02-02-90 8.6 02-01-91

104 26S.3E.08.221 AVMB 3809.0 9.3 02-01-84 U OWN: USBR-23; UL 10.0 02-01-85 9.9 02-01-86 9.3 02-01-87 10.0 02-01-88 9.8 02-09-89 9.8 02-01-90 10.4 02-01-91

105 26S.3E.09.221a AVMB 3804.7 6.8 02-01-84 U OWN: USBR-22; UL 7.2 02-01-85 6.9 02-01-86 6.7 02-01-87 6.9 02-01-88 7.0 02-02-89 7.1 02-01-90 7.0 02-01-91 279

106 26S.3E.15.112 AVMB 3806.5 6.9 02-01-84 U OWN: USBR-28; UL 7.8 02-01-85 7.2 02-01-86 7.8 02-01-87 7.8 02-01-88 7.8 02-06-89 7.7 02-01-90 7.6 02-01-91

107 26S.3E.22.211 AVMB 3794.5 4.6 02-01-84 OWN: USBR-30; QU; 4.0 02-01-85 UL 4.4 02-01-86 4.6 02-01-87 4.4 02-01-88 4.6 02-21-89 4.8 02-01-90 4.6 02-01-91

108 26S.3E.27.211 AVMB 3793.6 6.8 02-01-84 OWN: USBR-32; QU; 6.5 02-01-85 UL 6.3 02-01-86 6.6 02-01-87 6.7 02-01-88 6.4 02-02-89 7.1 02-01-90 6.6 02-01-91

109 26S.3E.27.212 AVMB 3792.9 5.5 02-01-84 U OUN: USBR-31; UL 5.8 02-01-85 5.3 02-01-86 5.4 02-01-87 4.6 02-01-88 5.3 02-21-89 5.8 02-01-90 5.4 02-01-91

110 26S.3E.32.441 AVMB 3790.0 9.0 02-01-84 OWN: USBR-39; QU; 8.6 02-01-85 UL 8.9 02-01-86 9.3 02-01-87 8.8 02-01-88 8.8 02-09-89 8.9 02-01-90 8.7 02-01-91

111 27S.1U.26.433 SNTF 314R 4095 284.48 02-26-85 S UelI destroyed 284.46 02-03-88 06-18-90 284.53 02-15-89 280

284.62 02-16-90

112 27S.1U.26.433a SNTF 475 4095 285.35 02-21-91 S SI: 375-475

113 27S.2W.02.413 SNTF 406 4203 P 02-16-85 S 367.10 02-13-90 368.7 02-26-91

114 27S.2U.25.111 SNTF 600 4167 361.44 02-21-84 I QU; UL 361.68 02-13-85 374.45 03-24-86 374.86 02-11-87 375.75 02-10-88 376.27 02-17-89 376.14 02-13-90 372.8 02-26-91

115 27S.1E.04.121 SNTF 560 4189 382.89 06-13-86 U OWN: Phillips 66; 382.81 02-12-87 SI: 440-560 382.79 02-03-88 383.00 02-15-89 382.68 02-13-90 383.12 02-20-91

116 27S.1E.04.121a SNTF 4189 -- UN: Lanark Testhole; QU

117 27S.2E.13.331 SNTF 722 4098 316.59 08-23-86 OUN: La Union Test- 316.59 02-13-87 hole; SI: 707-717; QU 317.23 02-03-88 317.69 02-15-89 317.56 02-09-90 317.29 02-20-91

118 27S.2E.21.111 SNTF 4092 304.20 02-15-85 U OUN: 27S.02E.21.113 303.72 03-26-86 303.91 02-12-87 303.76 02-03-88 303.82 02-14-89 303.83 02-13-90 304.12 02-20-91

119 27S.3E.09.444 AVMB 3779.1 6.9 02-01-84 U OUN: USBR-38; QU; UL 3.5 02-01-85 5.8 02-01-86 5.9 02-01-87 4.6 02-01-88 281

3.7 02-09-89 5.4 02-01-90 6.8 02-01-91

120 27S.3E.22.221 AVMB 28.1 3775 5.96 08-31-89 U OWN: USBR-49; 6.4 02-01-90 SI: 26.1-28.1 8.8 02-06-91

121 27S.3E.28.314 AVHB 3771.2 8.6 02-01-84 U OWN: USBR-1; QU; UL 8.7 02-01-85 7.9 02-01-86 8.3 02-01-87 8.0 02-01-88 14.8 02-03-89 8.1 02-01-90 7.9 02-06-91

122 27S.3E.32.124a AVHB 3773.2 9.7 02-01-84 U OWN: USBR-2; UL 9.2 02-01-85 8.6 02-01-86 8.5 02-01-87 8.5 02-01-88 8.3 02-01-90 8.5 02-06-91

123 27S.3E.35.113 AVMB 29 3767 9.59 08-31-89 U OWN: USBR-50; 12.0 02-01-90 SI: 27-29 13.2 02-06-91

124 28S.1U.07.113a SNTP 4111 308.86 02-22-84 U UL 310.49 03-25-86 309.21 02-15-89 309.16 02-13-90 309.4 02-05-91

125 28S.1U.07.113b SNTF 600 4111 309.34 02-22-84 309.74 02-12-85 310.95 03-25-86 309.57 02-12-87 309.48 02-03-88 309.90 02-17-89 309.55 02-13-90 309.8 02-05-91

126 28S.2U.31.111a SNTF 4153 315.89 03-02-84 316.84 02-13-85 282

316.23 02-16-89

127 28S.2U.31.111b SNTF 4153 320.76NP 02-22-91

128 28S.3U.33.443 SNTF 4142 226.10 03-02-84 280.76RP 02-13-85 289.08 03-25-86 268.99 02-12-88 267.31 02-16-89

129 28S.1E.34.414 SNTF 533 4127 327.35 09-04-86 OUN: Noria Testhole; 327.53 02-12-87 SI: 518-528; OU 327.63 02-04-88 327.68 02-16-89 327.78 02-13-90 327.79 02-27-91

130 28S.2E.23.222 SNTF 4111 333.78 03-06-84 334.08 02-14-86 333.98 03-26-86 335.18 02-12-87 334.78 02-04-88 335.12 02-14-89 335.36 02-09-90 335.94 02-27-91

131 28S.2E.24.444 SNTF 4079 313.50 01-22-85 U UL 314.46 12-02-86 P 01-18-89 317.18 12-27-89 314.04 01-03-91

132 28S.3E.17.214 SNTF 330 3828 70.30 01-23-85 U UL 70.22 12-02-86 70.06 01-11-88 70.41 01-18-89 70.61 12-26-89 70.44 01-03-91

133 28S.3E.21.144 SNTF 300 3803 54.64 01-23-85 U UL 54.48 12-02-86 54.16 01-11-88 55.06 01-18-89 54.83 12-26-89 283

54.06 01-03-91

134 28S.3E.27.434 SNTF 300 3822 72.07 01-23-85 UL 71.43 12-02-86 71.11 01-11-88 71.34 01-18-89 71.65 12-26-89 71.14 01-03-91

135 28S.3E. 29.344 SNTF 550 4065 325.56 01-22-85 U UL 326.58 12-02-86 P 01-18-89

136 28S.3E.32.143 SNTF 605 4095 328.86 01-22-85 U UL

137 29S.2U.06.231 SNTF 715R 4109 263.73 02-26-85 U UL 263.79 03-25-86 263.95 02-12-87 264.60 02-04-88 264.39 02-16-89 264.20 02-16-90 264.13 02-21-91

138 29S.2U.15.234 SNTF 4037 196.37 02-22-84 S UL

139 29S.3U.13.134 SNTF 4050 202.04 02-22-84 191.92 02-20-85 192.08 03-25-86

140 29S.1E.06.111 SNTF 4130 326.63 03-01-84 326.77 02-15-85 326.96 02-04-88 326.26 02-24-89 326.84 02-13-90 326.92 02-27-91

141 29S.1E.08.124 SNTF 565 4121 324.52 02-29-84 UL 323.96 02-15-85 333.72 03-25-66 324.12 02-16-89 324.09 02-13-90 323.99 02-22-91

142 29S.2E.06.122b SNTF 600 4108 307.54 02-21-85 H,S 309.10 03-25-86 307.01 02-12-87 307.14 02-04-88 307.27 02-16-89 307.36 02-13-90 284

02-22-91

143 JL 49-03-916 AVMB 29.6 3754.7 7.9 02-01-84 OWN: USBR-36; QU; 7.1 02-01-86 RU: 29.3, 04-20-89 7.4 02-01-87 7.2 02-01-88 7.3 02-06-89 7.9 02-01-90 7.7 02-06-91

144 JL 49-04-111 SNTF 1060 3775.8 25.45 02-26-85 OWN: CR-6; SI: 740- 61.04 12-04-86 860; 980-1060; UL 41.68 12-22-87 50.90 02-21-89 76.12 12-19-89 41.28 12-24-90

145 JL 49-04-121 AVMB 3788.4 7.0 02-01-84 OWN: USBR-29; QU; 5.5 02-01-85 UL 6.5 02-01-86 6.3 02-01-87 6.1 02-01-88 6.2 02-06-89 6.8 02-01-90 7.2 02-01-91

146 JL 49-04-416 SNTF 1013 3768.5 21.42 02-26-85 OWN: CR-3; SI: 27.71 12-04-86 528-1013; WL 23.12 12-22-87 25.64 02-21-89 26.88 12-19-89 22.56 12-24-90

147 JL 49-04-418 SNTF 545 3769.8 37.78 02-26-85 OWN: CR-5; SI: 18.52 12-04-86 445-545; WL 37.13 12-22-87 38.82 02-21-89 25.38 12-19-89 28.57 12-24-90

148 JL 49-04-419 SNTF 1050 3772.5 33.62 02-26-85 OWN: CR-2; SI: 67.95 12-04-86 585-1050; UL 56.73 12-22-87 52.96 02-21-89 88.64 12-19-89 56.10 12-24-90

149 JL 49-04-466 AVMB 59 3770.6 7.86 12-05-84 U OWN: CUF-4A; SI: 8.22 02-08-91 52-57; QW; UL

JL 49-04-467 SNTF 159 3770.6 10.20 12-05-84 U OWN: CUF-4B; SI: 10.16 02-08-91 152-157; QW; UL

151 JL 49-04-468 SNTF 299 3770.6 53.40 12-05-84 U OWN: CUF-4C; SI: 54.02 02-08-91 292-297; QW; UL

152 JL 49-04-469 SNTF 800 3770.6 41.11 12-05-84 U OWN: CUF-4D; SI: 59.17 02-08-91 792.5-797.5; QW; UL

153 JL 49-04-470 AVMB 58 3773.8 9.48 01-16-85 U OWN: CUF-3A; SI: 10.88 02-08-91 51-56; QW; WL

154 JL 49-04-471 SNTF 158 3773.8 12.48 01-16-85 U OWN: CWF-3B; SI: 13.58 02-08-91 151-156; QW; WL

155 JL 49-04-472 SNTF 298 3773.8 48.60 01-16-85 U OWN: CWF-3C; SI: 49.02 02-08-91 291-296; QW; WL

156 JL 49-04-473 SNTF 799 3773.8 37.05 01-16-85 OWN: CUF-3D; SI: 53.62 02-08-91 792-797; QW; Ul

157 JL 49-04-474 AVMB 47 3773.5 8.74 02-04-85 OWN: CWF-2A; SI: 9.17 02-08-91 40-45; QW; UL

158 JL 49-04-475 SNTF 158 3773.5 13.48 02-04-85 U OWN: CWF-2B; SI: 14.15 02-08-91 151-156; QW; WL

159 JL 49-04-476 SNTF 300 3773.5 44.44 02-04-85 U OWN: CUF-2C; SI: 45.62 02-08-91 293-298; QW; WL

160 JL 49-04-477 SNTF 799 3773.5 51.31 02-04-85 U OWN: CUF-2D; SI: 51.50 02-08-91 792-797; QU; WL

161 JL 49-04-478 AVMB 52 3776.7 12.05 02-15-85 OWN: CUF-1A; SI: 11.79 02-08-91 45-50; QU; UL

162 JL 49-04-479 SNTF 156 3776.7 19.42 02-15-85 U OWN: CUF-1B; SI: 19.42 02-08-91 149-154; QU; UL

163 JL 49-04-480 SNTF 334 3776.7 48.73 02-15-85 U OWN: CWF-1C; SI: 46.75 02-08-91 327-332; QW; WL

164 JL 49-04-481 SNTF 803 3776.7 53.19 02-15-85 OWN: CWF-1D; SI: 51.05 02-08-91 798-803; QW; UL 286

165 JL 49-04-701 AVHB 3755.5 6.8 02-01-84 OWN: USBR-37; QW; 6.9 02-01-85 UL 6.6 02-01-86 6.5 02-01-87 6.4 02-01-88 6.4 02-06-89 7.2 02-01-90 7.1 02-06-91

166 JL 49-12-101 AVHB 21.6 3748.1 6.0 02-01-86 OWN: USBR-35; WL; 5.7 02-01-87 RW: 30.7, 04-20-89 6.3 02-01-88 7.0 02-06-89 7.0 02-01-90 6.9 02-06-91

167 JL 49-12-117 AVHB 17.7 3747.3 6.3 02-01-84 OWN: USBR-33; QW; WL 6.5 02-01-85 RW: 31.8, 05-03-89 6.0 02-01-86 5.7 02-01-87 5.8 02-01-88 6.6 02-02-89 7.6 02-01-90 6.1 02-06-91

168 JL 49-12-501 AVHB 3735.5 6.6 02-01-84 U OWN: USBR-34; WL 6.7 02-01-85 6.8 02-01-86 6.5 02-01-87 6.9 02-01-88 7.1 02-02-89 7.6 02-01-90 6.8 02-06-91 287

REFERENCES

Ackerly, N.W., Irrigation Systems in the Mesilla Valley: An Historical Overview, Vol. I, CAR Report 710, September 1992.

Alvarez, H.J. and A.W. Buckner, Ground-Water Development in the El Paso Region, Texas with Emphasis on the Lower El Paso Valley, Texas Department of Water Resources, Report 246, 1980.

Anderson, M.P. and W.W. Woessner, Applied Ground-Water Modeling-Simulation of Flow and Advective Transport, Academic Press, Inc., 1992.

Canal Profiles, Elephant Butte Irrigation District, 1961-1965.

City of Las Cruces, Las Cruces, New Mexico, Municipal and Industrial Pumping Totals, 1992.

City of Las Cruces, personal communication, 1992.

Conover, C.S., Ground-Water Conditions in the Rincon and Mesilla Valleys and Adjacent Areas in New Mexico, U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1230, 1954.

Drain Profiles, Elephant Butte Irrigation District, 1958-1959.

Elephant Butte Irrigation District, Computer printout on water righted acreage serviced by all the canals and laterals within the Elephant Butte Irrigation District, 1992.

Elephant Butte Irrigation District (EBID), Crop Production and Water Utilization Data for 1986 through 1990 for EBID, 1992.

Elephant Butte Irrigation District, Rio Grande Discharge at Cable Section Below Leasburg Dam, Rio Grande Gaging Station Data for 1914 through 1991, 1992.

Elephant Butte Irrigation District, Rio Grande Discharge at Cable Section Below Mesilla, Rio Grande Gaging Station Data for 1985 through 1991, 1992. 288 Elephant Butte Irrigation District, Total Canal Diversions at Diversion Dams and Wasteway Discharge, Canal Gaging Station Data for 1915-1990 and Wasteway Discharge Measurements for Select Years, 1992.

El Paso County Water Improvement District No. 1, Computer printout on Texas irrigated acreage and canals servicing them, 1992.

El Paso County Water Improvement District No. 1, Crop Acreage for 1986 through 1990 for Texas, 1992.

Frenzel, P.F., Listings of Model-Input Values For The Simulation of Ground-Water Flow in the Mesilla Basin, Dona Ana County, New Mexico, and El Paso County, Texas, Supplement to Water Resources Investigations Report 91-4155 and Open-File Report 88-305,U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 91-455, 1992.

Frenzel, P.F., Simulation of Ground-water Flow in the Mesilla Basin, Dona Ana County, New Mexico, and El Paso County, Texas, Supplement to Open-File Report 88-305, U.S. Geological Survey, Water-Resources Investigations Report 91-4155, 1992.

Frenzel, P.F. and C.A. Kaehler, Geohydrology and Simulation of Ground-Water Flow in the Mesilla Basin, Dona Ana County, New Mexico, and El Paso County, Texas, U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report 88-305, 1990.

Gates, J.S., D.E. White, and E.R. Leggat, Preliminary Study of the Aquifers of the Lower Mesilla Valley in Texas and New Mexico by Model Simulation, U.S. Geological Survey, Water-Resources Investigations Report 84-4317, 1984.

Giacinto, J.F., An Analysis of Proposed Pumpage Effects on the Upper Aquifer of the Mesilla Valley, New Mexico, Masters Thesis, Department of Hydrology and Water Resources, University of Arizona, 1988.

Harris, L.G., R.C. Czemiak, R.A. Earl, and W.J. Gribb, Whose Water Is It, Anyway? - Anatomy of the Water Battle between El Paso, Texas and New Mexico, October 1990.

Hawley, J.W. and R.P. Lozinsky, Hydrogeologic Framework of the Mesilla Basin in New Mexico and Western Texas, New Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, Socorro, New Mexico, Open File Report 323, 1992. 289 International Boundary and Water Commission, Flow of the Rio Grande and Related Data from Elephant Butte Dam, New Mexico, to the Gulf of Mexico,Data for Gaging Station at El Paso for years 1932 through 1990,Water Bulletin Nos. 1-46.

International Boundary and Water Commission, Flow of the Rio Grande and Related Data from Elephant Butte Dam, New Mexico, to the Gulf of Mexico,Rainfall Data at Las Cruces Station for Years 1986 through 1990,Water Bulletin Nos. 1-46.

Khaleel, R., M.R. Palumbo, D.M. Peterson, and J.W. Hawley, Numerical Modeling of Ground-Water Flow in the Lower Rio Grande Basin, New Mexico, New Mexico Water Resources Research Institute, Project completion Report, Project No. 1-3- 45645, 1983.

King, W.E., J.W. Hawley, A.M. Taylor, and R.P. Wilson, Geology and Ground- Water Resources of Central and Western Dona Ana County, New Mexico, Water Resources Research Institute, Hydrologic Report 1, 1971.

Lee, W.T., Water Resources of the Rio Grande Valley in New Mexico and their Development, U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 188,1907.

Leggat, E.R., M.E. Lowry, and J.W. Hood, Ground-Water Resources of the Lower Mesilla Valley, Texas and New Mexico, Texas Water Commission Bulletin 6203, 1962.

Maddock, T.M., and Wright Water Engineers, Inc., An Investigation of the Effects of Proposed Pumping in the Lower Rio Grande Declared Basin, December 1987.

McDonald, M.G. and A.W. Harbaugh, A Modular Three Dimensional Finite- Difference Ground-Water Flow Model, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 83- 875, 1984.

McDonald, M.G. and A.W. Harbaugh, A Modular Three Dimensional Finite- Difference Ground-Water Flow Model, U.S. Geological Survey TWI 6-Al,1988.

Meyer, W.R. and J.D. Gordon, Water-Budget Studies of Lower Mesilla Valley and El Paso Valley, El Paso County, Texas, United States Department of the Interior Geological Survey, Water Resources Division Texas District, Administrative Report, July 1972. 290 Meyers, R.G. and B.R. Orr, Geohydrology of the Aquifer in the Santa Fe Group, Northern West Mesa of the Mesilla Basin Near Las Graces, New Mexico, U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigations Report 84-4190, 1985.

Miller, R.S., User's Guide for RIV2—A Package for Routing and Accounting of River Discharge for a Modular, Three-Dimensional, Finite-Difference, Ground-Water Flow Model, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Rqwrt 88-345, 1988.

New Mexico State Engineers Office, Las Cruces, New Mexico, Municipal and Industrial Pumping Totals for Mesilla Basin, 1992.

Nickerson, E.L., Aquifer Tests in the Flood-Plain Alluvium and Santa Fe Group at the Rio Grande Near Canutillo, El Paso County, Texas, U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 89-4011, 1989.

Nickerson, E.L., Selected Geohydrologic Data for the Mesilla Basin, Dona Ana County, New Mexico, and El Paso County, Texas, U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 86-75, 1986.

Peterson, D.M., R. Khaleel, and John W. Hawley, Quasi-Three-Dimensional Modeling of Ground-Water Flow in the Mesilla Bolson, New Mexico and Texas, Technical Completion Report Project No. 1-3-45645, October 1984.

Prudic D.E., Documentation of a Computer Program to Simulate Stream-Aquifer Relations using a Modular, Finite-difference, Groundwater Flow Model, U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report 88-729,1989.

Sax, J.L., and R.H. Abrams, Legal Control of Water Resources -Cases and Materials, American Casebook Series, West Publishing Co., St. Paul, Minnesota, 1986.

El Paso Water Suit Settlement Agreement,March 6,1991.

Slichter, C.S., Observations on the Ground Waters of the Rio Grande Valley, Water Supply and Irrigation Paper No. 141, 1905.

Spiegel, Z., Analysis of Data from ASARCO La Mesa Test Production Water Well (T. 25 S.,R.l E., Section 16, NWNE), Consultant Report, Santa Fe, New Mexico, 1972. 291

Trescott, P.C., and S.P. Larson, Documentation of finite-difference model for simulation of three-dimensional ground-water flow (Supplement to Open-File report 75-438), U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report 76-591, 1976.

U.S. Geological Survey, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Data on Flow Past Leasburg for Years 1914 through 1986, personal communication (unpublished document), 1992.

U.S. Geological Survey, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Data on Rio Grande River Return Flows for 1975 through 1986, personal communication (unpublished document), 1992.

U.S. Geological Survey, Depth to Water Records, Select Years, 1992.

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Project Data Book Excerpt, 1983?.

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Rio Grande Project NM-TX Annual Operating Plan, 1985 Operations and 1986 Outlook, Rio Grande Project-New Mexico/Texas, 1985.

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Rio Grande Project NM-TX Annual Operating Plan, 1989 Operations Data and 1990 Operations Forecast, Rio Grande Project-New Mexico/Texas, 1990.

Updegraff, C.D. and L.W. Gelhar, Parameter Estimation for a Lumped-Parameter Ground-Water Model of the Mesilla Valley, New Mexico, New Mexico Water Resources Institute, October 1977.

Van der Leeden, F., F.L. Troise, and D.K. Todd, The Water Encyclopedia, Second Edition, Lewis Publishers, Michigan, 1991.

Wilson, C.A. and R.R. White, Geohydrology of the Central Mesilla Valley, Dona Ana County, New Mexico, U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 82-555, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 1984.

Wilson, C.A., R.R. White, B.R. Orr, G.G. Roybal, Water Resources of the Rincon and Mesilla Valleys and Adjacent Areas, New Mexico, New Mexico State Engineer, Technical Report 43, 1981.

Wilson, L.G., K.J. DeCook, and S.P. Neuman, Regional Recharge Research For Southwest Alluvial Basins, Water Resources Research Center,University of Arizona, Final Report, June 1980. Table 7: Spreadsheet for estimating net irrigation flux (modified after Frenzel, 1992).

A. B. c. D. E. G. H. I. J.

Precipitation Effective Precipitation Adjusted Evapo- Project Total Evapo- net Growing Annual Argricul- Non-agri- transpi- Irrigated Irrigated Transpi- Irr Year diversion Season tural cultural ration rate Acreage Acreage ration (acre/ft) (inches) (inches) (acre/ft) (acre/ft) (feet) (acres) (acres) (acre/ft) (a

>19 126000 6.3 8.4 20790 8960 2.4 44000 44000 105600 - —Average for stress period 1 - - - >26 190000 6.3 8.4 21735 8680 2.4 46000 46000 110400 •Average for stress- period• 1 t~~~A 1927 359000 6.3 9.6 35438 5280 2.4 75000 75000 180000 1928 359000 6.3 9.4 35438 5170 2.4 75000 75000 180000 1929 359000 6.3 9.3 35438 5115 2.4 75000 75000 180000 1930 374000 6.3 6.86 36086 3627 2.4 76373 76373 183295 1931 263000 8.92 13.26 51327 6912 2.4 76722 76722 184133 1932 398000 6.92 8.83 39812 4605 2.4 76709 76709 184102 1934 401000 3.39 4.62 17443 3033 2.4 68605 68605 164652 1935 276000 10.52 12.67 49056 9677 2.4 62175 62175 149220 1936 361000 6.31 9.5 35405 5255 2.4 74813 74813 179551 1937 356000 5.42 7.01 31548 3551 2.4 77610 77610 186264 1938 366000 7.75 9.42 42721 5417 2.4 73499 73499 176398 1939 410000 4.29 6.1 23820 3453 2.4 74034 74034 177682 1940 371000 6.08 7.6 34372 4132 2.4 75377 75377 180905 •Average for stress period• i o* 1941 346000 11.61 15.17 68668 7367 2.4 78861 78861 189266 1942 408000 8.07 10.03 49157 4477 2.4 81217 81217 194921 1943 435000 4.42 6.37 27397 2692 2.4 82645 82645 198348 1944 436000 7.79 10.44 48402 4377 2.4 82845 82845 198828 1945 473000 5.64 6.66 35224 2745 2.4 83271 83271 199850 1946 458000 4.66 6.54 29327 2626 2.4 83911 83911 201386 1947 430000 3.92 6.6 24814 2596 2.4 84401 84401 202562 • • m •Average for stress 1948 423000 3.73 3.76 23274 1554 2.4 83197 83197 199673 1949 425000 6.56 9.24 41666 3590 2.38 84686 84686 201553 1950 408000 5.87 6.47 - 37231 2527 2.43 84567 84567 205498 Average for stress period 5

ion flux

K. L. N.

U.S.G.S. Current Ivapo- Net Net Model Study inspf - Irrigation Irrigation Flux Flux 'at ion Flux Flux (B+E+F-J/114,000) (E+F-J/114,000) •e/ft) (acre/ft) (ft*3/sec) (ft) (ft)

I05600 50150 69 .68,0.30 -.82,.30* 110400 110015 152 0.97 -0.70 0.97 -0.70 180000 219717 303 1.93 -1.22 I80000 219607 303 1.93 -1.22 I80000 219552 303 1.93 -1.22 183295 230418 318 2.02 -1.26 184133 137107 189 1.2 -1.10 184102 258319 357 2.27 -1.23 I64652 256824 355 2.25 -1.26 I49220 185513 256 1.63 -0.79 179551 222109 307 1.95 -1.22 186264 204835 283 1.8 -1.33 176398 237740 328 2.09 -1.13 177682 259592 358 2.28 -1.32 180905 228599 316 2.01 -1.25 1.94 -1.20 189266 232769 321 2.04 -0.99 194921 266713 368 2.34 -1.24 198348 266741 368 2.34 -1.48 198828 289951 400 2.54 -1.28 199850 311118 429 2.73 -1.42 201386 288566 398 2.53 -1.49 202562 254847 352 2.24 -1.54 2.39 -1.35 248156 343 2.18 -1.53 268703 371 2.36 -1.37 242260 334 2.13 -1.45 2.22 -1.45

Susan Lynne Hamilton M.S. Water Resources Administration Department of Hydrology and Water Resources Application of a Ground-Water Flow Model to the Mesilla Basin, New Mexico and Texas August 1993

Table 7 (continued) : Spreadsheet for estimating net irrigat: (modified after Frenzel, 1992).

A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K.

Precipitation Effective Precipitation Adjusted Evapo- Project Total Evapo- Net net Growing Annual Argricul- Non-agri- transpi- Irrigated Irrigated Transpi- Irrigati Year diversion Season tural cultural ration rate Acreage Acreage ration Flux (acre/ft) (inches) (inches) (acre/ft) (acre/ft) (feet) (acres) (acres) (acre/ft) (acre/f

1951 246000 2.77 4.4 17495 1745 2.37 84210 84210 199578 646 1952 254000 5.99 8.22 38090 3180 2.41 84785 84785 204332 909 1953 256000 3.67 4.8 23581 1786 2.43 85672 85672 208183 731 - --Average for stress period 6 1954 119000 6.56 6.98 38739 3404 2.49 78738 78738 196058 -349 1955 82000 6.71 7.87 39572 3852 2.52 78633 78633 198155 -727 1956 89000 3.46 4.73 19404 2619 2.52 74775 74775 188433 -774 1957 155000 7.98 9.99 45108 5433 2.45 75369 75369 184654 203 -Average for stress period 7 - - - 1958 348000 10.35 14.45 61826 6828 2.47 76647 79647 196728 2199 1959 344000 4.79 5.82 28659 2738 2.41 76775 79775 192258 1831! 1960 375000 4.08 6.34 24362 2999 2.45 76614 79614 195054 2073i Average for stress period 8 - - 1961 332000 3.24 7.97 31304 3765 2.45 76654 79654 195152 1719 - Average for stress period 9 - 1962 366000 6.2 8.25 37705 3701 2.4 78085 81085 194604 21281 1963 284000 3.79 4.65 23235 2035 2.37 78742 81742 193729 1155- --Average for stress period 10 1964 83000 3.22 4.8 19347 2231 2.38 77113 80113 190669 -860< - Average for stress period 11 — - 1965 205000 4.37 6.81 25523 3419 2.41 74874 77874 187676 462< 1966 276000 8.77 9.84 49804 5294 2.38 72719 75719 180211 1508J Average for stress period 12 1967 227000 5.29 6.49 29150 3735 2.32 70471 73471 170453 8942 1968 263000 7.25 11.41 42070 5825 2.25 74370 77370 174083 13681 Average for stress period 13

ig net irrigation flux 192).

J. K. I. N. N.

U.S.G.S. Current vapo- Net Net Model Study nspi- Irrigation Irrigation Flux Flux ation Flux Flux (B+E+F-J/114,000) (E+F-J/114,000) e/ft) (acre/ft) (ft"3/sec) (ft) (ft)

99578 64662 91 0.58 -1.58 04332 90938 126 0.8 -1.43 08183 73184 101 0.64 -1.60 0.67 1.54 96058 -34914 -48 -0.31 -1.35 98155 -72731 -100 -0.64 -1.36 38433 -77410 -107 -0.68 -1.46 34654 20887 29 0.18 -1.18 0.36 1.34 96728 219926 304 1.93 -1.12 92258 183139 253 1.61 -1.41 >5054 207307 286 1.82 -1.47 1.79 1.34 >5152 171917 237 1.51 -1.40 - 1.51 1.40 74604 212801 294 1.87 -1.34 >3729 115542 159 1.01 -1.48 1.44 1.41 >0669 -86091 -119 -0.76 -1.48 0.76 1.48 17676 46266 64 0.41 -1.39 10211 150887 208 1.32 -1.10 0.86 1.24 '0453 89432 123 0.78 -1.21 '4083 136812 189 1.2 -1.11 0.99 1.16

Susan Lynne Hamilton M.S. Water Resources Administration Department of Hydrology and Water Resources Application of a Ground-Water Flow Model to the Mesilla Basin, New Mexico and Texas August 1993

Table 7 (continued) : Spreadsheet for estimating net irrigation (modified after Frenzel, 1992).

A. B. C. D. F. G. H.

Precipitation Effective Precipitation Adjusted Evapo- Project Total Evapo- net Growing Annual Agricul Non-agri transpi- Irrigated Irrigated T ranspi- Year diversion Season tural cultural ration rate Acreage Acreage ration (acre/ft) (inches) (inches) (acre/ft) (acre/ft) (feet) (acres) (acres) (acre/ft)

1969 365000 7.36 9.31 43406 4557 2.29 75634 78634 180072 2328 1970 365000 3.62 4.62 21415 2242 2.33 75877 78877 183783 2048 1971 259000 5.64 6.73 32695 3444 2.38 74293 77293 183957 1111 - - Average for stress period 14 1972 122000 11.97 12.93 67101 7167 2.38 71744 74744 177891 183 • Average for stress period 15 1973 313000 5.18 8.04 30226 4046 2.23 74803 77803 173501 1737 1974 332000 11.46 13.4 67162 6669 2.4 75141 78141 187538 2182 1975 323000 4.23 5.74 24808 2851 2.35 75197 78197 183763 1668 • - Average for stress period 16 1976 387495 7.15 8.61 41925 4279 2.32 75182 78182 181382 2523 - Average for stress period 17 1977 217116 6.05 7.24 34981 3729 2.39 74093 77093 184252 715; 1978 142524 8.62 11.86 48619 6483 2.38 72203 75203 178983 1891 — Average for stress period 18 1979 254939 6.6 8.94 37779 4720 2.46 73322 76322 187752 10961 1980 328041 6.24 7.96 36358 4022 2.46 74687 77687 191110 1773' - Average for stress period 19 1981 280766 7.42 8.99 43599 4443 2.46 75345 78345 192729 13601 1982 296607 4.86 6.58 26986 3725 2.47 71035 74035 182866 1444: - - - - -Average for stress period 20 1983 361701 3.39 5.48 17925 3425 2.49 67500 70500 175545 2075C 1984 331631 9.85 12.51 54284 7197 2.51 70481 73481 184437 2086/ Average for stress period 21 1985 311328 7.67 9.12 41575 5431 2.51 69273 72273 181405 17692 - Average for stress period 22

net irrigation flux 2).

J. K. L. M. N.

U.S.G.S. Current Evapo- Net Net Model Study ranspi- Irrigation Irrigation Flux Flux ration Flux Flux (B+E+F-J/114,000) (E+F-J/114,000) cre/ft) (acre/ft) (ft"3/sec) (ft) (ft)

180072 232891 321 2.04 -1.16 183783 204874 283 1.8 -1.40 183957 111182 153 0.98 -1.30 1.61 1.29 177891 18377 25 0.16 -0.91 0.16 -0.91 173501 173772 240 1.52 -1.22 187538 218292 301 1.91 -1.00 183763 166896 230 1.46 -1.37 1.63 -1.20 181382 252317 348 2.21 -1.19 2.21 -1.19 184252 71574 99 0.63 -1.28 178983 18983 26 0.16 -1.09 0.4 -1.18 187752 109686 151 0.96 -1.27 191110 177310 245 1.56 -1.32 1.26 -1.30 192729 136080 188 1.19 -1.27 182866 144451 199 1.27 -1.33 1.23 -1.30 175545 207506 286 1.82 -1.35 184437 208675 288 1.83 -1.08 1.83 1.22 181405 176928 244 1.55 -1.18 1.55 1.18

Susan Lynne Hamilton M.S. Water Resources Administration Department of Hydrology and Water Resources Application of a Ground-Water Flow Model to the Mesilla Basin, New Mexico and Texas August 1993

Table 7 (continued) : Spreadsheet for estimating net irriga (modified after Frenzel, 1992).

A. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J.

Precipitation Effective Precipitation Adjusted Evapo- Project Total Evapo- net Growing Annual Argricul- Non-agri- transpi- Irrigated Irrigated Transpi- Irr Year diversion Season tural cultural ration rate Acreage Acreage ration I (acre/ft) (inches) (inches) (acre/ft) (acre/ft) (feet) (acres) (acres) (acre/ft) (ai

1986 10.78 15.58 53768 10515 2.51 63504 66504 166925 Average for stress period 23 1987 8.51 10.88 41902 7498 2.51 62651 65651 164784 Average for stress period 24 1988 9.36 12.24 46737 8246 2.51 63577 66577 167108 Average for stress period 25 1989 2.75 4.59 13965 3006 2.51 64711 67711 169955 Average for stress period 26 1990 7.32 8.98 37229 5865 2.51 64812 67812 170208 Average for stress period 27

*-Net diversion term for north of Anthony; below anthony:only precip. on nonag. land included as per Frenzel and Kaehler (1990). Above Anthony, approx. 84000 acres of model blocks. Below Anthony, approx. 30,000 acres of model blocks.

Growing season precipitation and annual precipitation for 1986 thru 1990 is from Las Cruces Station of IBUC (International Boundary and Water Commission).

Total irrigated acreage for 1986 through 1990 is from Elephant Butte Irrigation District crop records for New Mexico and Texas.

Current Study Flux (E+F-J/114,000) (ft)

-0.90

-1.01

-0.98

-1.34

-1.12

Susan Lynne Hamilton M.S. Water Resources Administration Department of Hydrology and Water Resources Application of a Ground-Water Flow Model to the Mesilla Basin, New Mexico and Texas August 1993

OOWC8*

UOtWUMW.

JtAowme

ROWS

Figure 36: FINITE-DIFFERENCE GRID ON BASE MAP BY LEE (1907)

.^oJZZZ-l

ANTA

?:(

4—U~X

COLUMNS

1907)

ROWS

Susan Lynne Hamilton M.S. Water Resources Administration Department of Hydrology and Water Resources Application of a Ground-Water Flow Model to the Mesilla Basin, New Mexico and Texas August 1993

131 LAS CRUCES 3 ST5. MAIN LEASBURG

LEASBURG DR.Vp MESILLA

SELDEN DE MESILLA DR EAST

DEL RIO PR

AO f^l- 13 1G

RIO GRANDE Lis, CHAMBERING DR PICACHO DR

LA MESA DR.

RIVER •

CANALS AND LATERALS

Figure 41: Mesilla Valley River System: DRAINS

river, canals, and drains CANAL AND RIVER SEGMENT designated in the model END MARKERS $ (not to scale).

3 STS. LAT. 3 STS. MAIN

2.2,

35, EAST DR

47 ANTHONY DR. 39 45

CHAMBERINO DR

NEMEXAS DR.

LA UNION EAST

LA UNION MAIN LA UNION WEST

WEST DR

!IVER SEGMENT NUMBERS CANALS AND LATERALS (T) LATERALS DRAINS DRAINS RIVER © ER SEGMENT WASTE WATER OUTFALL 1^6 ND MARKERS $

Susan Lynne Hamilton M.S. Water Resources Administration Department of Hydrology and Water Resources Application of a Ground-Water Flow Model to the Mesilla Basin, New Mexico and Texas August 1993

SNwmoo

SNIVl YDOW N3Q13S

Rii-'NiS

u>a>M

\ynBSV31 r* lVl >03dC ieia DllV i

. , .", i \tt"a '*»**• HOlSStfi , >

iiNin

5I MH T WOO

t*\JF TO!

.Station kcoiw

TU 1 \ V _ "* •

« H 'l«»X0-i5-O C/l/M 11-=--=^' •

RAfrS

GARDNER LAA (BI3.6-3.il

'•'

-fr 1-7*-O-l f.rr/j

CftCHQ r'EAK

Figure 42: FINITE-DIFFERENCE GRID ON BA NORTH HALF r»v/' TORTUGAS MOUNTAIN MES I LL A VALL DISTRICT UNIT NO. EPHANT BUTTE I RRIGATION

T7^ t Mexico

fA^OECASAU^ squite

HOQ6HTQM -&KE-OB. mis&zM. I /uAxe n,r) Flllmor^/ LATjBjJlCn J^U/rWT^Zier.n s?C // \ 5F?^^ V_ UPPER

i~2eiPCr/

//}*$$ i i u«/a * -2 ~?G // f -1 y | rvt^r^1' 11 • . J,

s rrc»iN6 <• 1—U~- 1JtOOfuai&L&T- ' —J */V-)\ / VTCSTB) -JZpscortriiiGJeci [/• rif^T/^£. ^ppuRJse o/f± _L/ I J ,4 fv #^%=sT ^\£22»«iaj: (C s.o-oi

-• xV ; x. J 3» I .-»-'i_SAMXQ_IQMAS L —V i 1 /> CRATERatt o ' 4&S- i X •f

\ 40 35 30

Figure 42: FINITE-DIFFERENCE GRID ON BASE MAP, NORTH HALF LL A VALL ELEPHANT BUTTE IRRIGATION DISTRICT ;ADO V *••'£ \ HILL

\y "

i*? CANAL squite

FPtHO UPPER

LA MfiSA ROWS //; *$ (CS.O-O.2) coupe/am

WALLACE <;inF\ ACANAL

7>^tJfL'sP ofLL 3=0.- ML OirO.&K-• . p. W^b^r 'r\B^U£r res. m #-v . ^

*-y, q^NTH TO MAS " CRATER

X~ c

Susan Lynne Hamilton M.S. Water Resources Administration Department of Hydrology and Water Resources Application of a Ground-Water Flow Model to the Mesilla Basin, New Mexico and Texas August 1993

Figure 43: FINITE-DIFFERENCE GRID ON BASE MAP, SOUTH HALF VALL ELEPHANT BUTTE I RRIGATION DISTRIC /ADO \ HLLUL_i

L f)

. ^fASl}stO£CANAL& esQUiW

UtT »<° V" W.W.* TAKE-OB. •LLAKE

UPPER •gesms.

LA NIES^^^-^ ROWS j*rs>«i

•sjJsdL Jr . 7 i. -

IRQ#*I AT (GG.V'U.^w.OA' . 'Spis/* *'ZS^^r(CS.O-O.^, . -U / A- ?(- / SAHX J rt'•*rf cu RATER \ Jr

w N E £ X LX XX t. 15 K \ ~7 35 30

UN T

CL PASO Old Berlno <$J ,-jL——*—K£ s4 V-

am 1 t* CANAL A \j—(f ct^T '

Berlno

LAT.(C!t.4

WLAT. m?rb>

p^rTCi >Zc

7M -^r O'l.SJ * •~p 7 /

ELEPHA IRR1GATION DIS

LUMNS

LEGEND Main Conat* Mctn Lateral E K A Sub Loterem I Drans S«ca Riter Cnonne ^—p*\ Strti ? With Levees

ill

COUNTY WA . IMPROVEMENT DISTRIC

fetas'

LATfCIHt 1* 2

* V»RlrCl

JK'.'if-'

_iem.o BUTTE N DISTRICT

trfct Boundor mtt of Irrigable Areas Main Roods & Highways Secondary Roads # Strfti Eit—P-ASO

F-R-a N K L I N M 0 I. N T A I N S

O. P £)

wtt«r \\ r»$£ w

Scale of Miles f vmmrmm DEPARTMENT OF THE MTERtOft BUREAU OF RECLAMATION RIO GRANDE PROJECT- NEW MEXICO- TEXAS ELEPHANT BUTTE IRRIGATION DISTRICT MESILLA VALLEY UNIT

OfUmH. stt\ SUBMITTED

T»\m JH. RCCOMtiSt&ED

CHCC^D^^C..._ APPROVED.

^ PA^ri, TEXAS 2-to-G6.\23-503-7239

Susan Lynne Hamilton M.S. Water Resources Administration Department of Hydrology and Water Resources Application of a Ground-Water Flow Model to the Mesilla Basin, New Mexico and Texas August 1993