Fields 1
Acequias of the San Luis Valley: The Struggle to Preserve Communal Resources in an Arid Land
A THESIS
Presented to
The Southwest Studies Program
The Colorado College
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree
Bachelor of Arts
By
Samuel O. Fields
April/2014
Eric P. Perramond______
Mario Montaño______
Fields 2
Table of Contents
Section Page
Abstract 3
Introduction 5
History and Background of Acequias 5
Acequias of the San Luis Valley 9
Development of Colorado Water Law 10
Acequia Recognition Law 12
Research Methods & Sources 12
Results & Discussion 14
Economic and Cultural Pressures 14
Legal Issues 19
Flood Irrigation and Environmental Considerations 24
Conclusion 31
Acknowledgements 34
Appendix 36
Pictorial Essay 36
Bibliography 41
Fields 3
Abstract
Water is the most important resource for maintaining life, the importance of which is magnified in the arid Southwestern United States. Due to scarce rainfall, hot temperatures, and a sparse landscape, initial human development in the region was limited to areas where water could be easily harnessed (Rivera 2002:1). During the early 1500’s, Spanish conquistadors in
Mexico pushed north into modern day New Mexico and Colorado. Familiar with the dry climate,
Hispano settlers began building widespread irrigation systems to cultivate the once unusable arid lands (Hicks et al. 2003:410). Water resources were shared equitably among the community via a canal system, and anyone that wanted water had an opportunity to use this common-pool resource. The canal system as well as the social institution that governs the administration of water among the community of irrigators is referred to as an “acequia”
(Rodriguez 2006:2). Many of the acequia communities of New Mexico and Colorado have proven to be very durable and are still functioning today (Hicks and Peña 2003:411). However, the privatization of water rights under modern United States water laws and the emerging water markets have put great stress on acequias (Rivera 1998:171).
As municipalities, large agribusinesses, recreation interests, and expanding industrial users have increased the demand for water in Colorado, some acequia communities have faced pressure to forgo their water management practices (Rodriguez 2006:1; Rivera 1998:171).
When faced with daunting challenges to their water rights, the relatively poor communities often are unable to defend their interest (Rivera 1998:157). In addition, some younger members of acequia communities do not have the strong cultural ties to the land and are tempted by outside interests to sell their water rights or pursue alternate employment Fields 4 opportunities (Jacquez 2014). The Colorado Acequia Recognition Law, passed in 2009 and amended in 2013, addresses some of the factors that are undermining the effectiveness of acequias and gives needed recognition to these historically and culturally significant communities (Colorado Revised Statutes § 7-42-101.5 (2013) (amending Colo. Rev. Stat. § 7-42-
101.5 (2009)).
In light of the pressures facing acequia communities, I undertook research on the status of acequias in the San Luis Valley of Southern Colorado and the interaction between acequia water management practices in the Valley and current Colorado water law, including the
Acequia Recognition Law. This study is conducted with the awareness that Colorado water law must address the needs and concerns of many different interests. With this understanding, my examination focuses on the viability of acequias in the San Luis Valley.
Fields 5
The San Luis Valley of South-Central Colorado
Introduction
History and Background of Acequias
Acequias are a system of irrigation ditches regularly flooded during the growing season in order to cultivate farmland. The system has been described as, “[a] Canal Structure and a social institution whereby river water is diverted and distributed via gravity flow among a community of irrigators or water right user-owners called parciantes” (Rodriguez 2006:2). Each parciante is part of the “water democracy” whereby they receive one vote per farm on issues concerning the acequias (Hicks and Peña 2003:402). Head gates on the riverbank are built to control water flow entering the acequia madre (main community irrigation canal). Individual Fields 6 parciantes (acequia stakeholders) divert their allotment of communal water from the acequia madre via private ditches lining their vara strip. Vara strips are long rectangular shaped plots of land that extend from the upper forests all the way down to the lower elevation desagües
(drainages). These long narrow plots guarantee each parciante access to timber, firewood, and grazing land in addition to farmland (Fernald et al. 2012:3000). During the spring and summer months, water floods the vara strips irrigating plants, infiltrating into the aquifers, and evaporating into the atmosphere (Fernald et al. 2012:3002). Any remaining surface runoff flows off the fields and back into the river through the desagües (Guillet 2006:308-309). Acequias require large amounts of water to flood croplands, but very little water is actually consumed by the plants (Fernald 2010:831).
Historically, under Mexican water law, if a parciante owned lands located on a ditch, it was assumed that the water necessary to cultivate the farmlands would be diverted. The only restriction on water diversion was in years of drought when the scarce water would be allocated equitably among the parciantes (Hicks and Peña 2003:401). Depending on regional regulations, water is now allocated to the individual parciantes following two universally recognized models. Under the first system, Yemenite, water is allocated on a fixed, time-release basis, and under the second, Syrian, water is allocated in proportion to the amount of land under irrigation (Rodriguez 2006:4). Regional acequia communities typically employ a Yemenite type system, but parciantes favor the Syrian distribution model during years of abundance
(Rodriguez 2006:4). Regardless of which model, every acequia system has an elected president called the mayordomo. Each mayordomo presides over community meetings, resolves disputes, maintains ditches, allocates water among the community, and monitors the acequia madre’s Fields 7 head gate (Rivera 1998:55-57). “Today’s parciantes describe mayordomos of a generation or two ago as powerful, authoritarian figures regarded with a mixture of respect, trust, and fear”
(Rodriguez 2007:8). Now, many associations struggle to find qualified candidates in their community who are willing to accept the obligations of a mayordomo. Meager wages, long hours, and physically demanding work discourage most people from accepting the position
(Crawford 1988). In addition to the mayordomo, parciantes also elect a comisión which is a commission of three parciantes that act as assistants in everyday activities and community meetings. The comisión is important as a balance of power to ensure that the mayordomo cannot abuse his powers as the leader (Rivera 1998:59). This commission is also charged with the duty of enforcing the district Repartimientos de Agua (repartos). Specific repartos vary from village to village, but essentially they are a series of local laws and traditions set forth for the proper maintenance of an acequia system. Anthropologist Sylvia Rodriguez’s book, Acequia:
Water Sharing, Sanctity, and Place, perfectly explains the process of how repartos are practiced:
“Customs varying from place to place, are locally accepted and obeyed, and for officials
to enforce them, the custom must be clear, contain reasonable and immemorial
practices not contradictory to each other, and lastly they must be continuous and
remain undisputed” (Rodriguez 2006:4).
Still, certain customs such as “la saca” (annual spring ditch cleaning) are found universally throughout acequias. Each spring before the ditches can be opened for irrigation, all loose debris and weeds must be removed. Weeds, invasive species, and other undesirable phreatophytes are removed from the ditches because they will diminish the water flow. The Fields 8 community’s elected mayordomo supervises the ditch cleaning and labor is provided by the parciantes depending on the amount of irrigated lands they control. Historically, each irrigator would send members of their family, piones, to perform la saca duties, but many parciantes today have turned to hiring outsiders for help (Rodriguez 2006:7).
Historically, religion, specifically Catholicism, and acequia practice in the southwestern
United States have been inextricably entwined (Rodriguez 2007:104). “Out of 15 active churches and chapels in the Taos basin, at least 9 are dedicated to holy patrons associated in one way or another with water” (Rodriguez 2007:110). Two of the most beloved saints associated with irrigation waters are San Isidro, the patron saint for farmers, and San Antonio, the protector of animals, and many acequia communities honor these saints with processions
(Rodriguez 2007:110). Similar to many aspects of acequias, particular religious events vary between the localities, but a nine day prayer ceremony called the “novena” is usually observed.
Novena begins during the first week of May, and each night, a different community member holds a grand feast at their home. During this ceremony, parciantes come together in order to bless the water and pray for a productive growing season ahead. During the final nights of novena, parciantes bless their acequias by carrying “bultos” (figurines depicting saints) down to the water and throughout the fields (Rodriguez 2007:84). Today, in some acequias communities in the southwest, the religious aspects entwined with farming have declined, but the importance of religion in the culture of acequias cannot be understated (Rodriquez
2007:111).
Fields 9
Acequias in the San Luis Valley
In the Culebra Creek watershed, there are 23 acequia communities and approximately
270 families within those communities irrigating approximately 24,000 acres of farm and pasture land with acequia water (Hicks and Peña 2003:395). Water for these farms comes from the Sangre de Cristo mountain range. The diversity of crops includes potatoes, chilis, bolitas, alfalfa, maize, chicos del horno, several varieties of beans, squash, other heirloom vegetables, and grass-fed beef (Jacquez 2014). The community saves seeds from each year’s harvest and these seeds are shared and replanted for next year’s crops providing the community with a wide-variety of seeds that are adapted to the harsh climate (Jacquez 2014). “The practice of heirloom seed saving is one of the most significant cultural traditions among acequia farmers of the Culebra watershed” (Hicks and Peña 2003:458).
In San Luis Valley, there is a strong acequia consciousness, and the people are proud and protective of their culture and way of life (Peña 2014). When acequia meetings occur, Spanish is the predominant language. Eugene Jacquez, a local acequia farmer in Chama, Colorado, implied that the San Luis Valley acequia communities identify heavily with their Spanish roots
(Jacquez 2014). Religion plays an important role in the lives of the residents of these communities as evidenced by the prominence of Stations of the Cross shrine and religious artifacts in homes and commercial buildings.
The communities in the San Luis Valley have depended on the irrigation waters and community structure of acequias for over 100 years. The acequias are an important element of life in the Valley, but outside pressures such as declining water supplies, other job opportunities, and competing interests for water rights have stressed the communities Fields 10
(Ferrigno 2013:10). Some acequia farmers in the community are no longer able to support their families by farming their land (Jacquez 2014; Ferrigno 2013:10).
Development of Colorado Water Law
As part of the Treaty of Guadalupe del Hidalgo, the United States government recognized pre-existing water rights and laws, but in the 1860’s, a Colorado Territorial Supreme
Court case would forever change water law in the west. “Yunker v. Nichols was the Territorial
Supreme Court’s first major water law decision. The court held that water could be diverted from the stream, and ditches could be built across public and private land to convey water to its place of beneficial use” (Hobbs 2010:1). In the years following this precedent case, Colorado enacted a set of laws regarding water usage and land ownership that is now known as the
“Colorado Doctrine” (Vranesh 1987:62). Surrounding arid western states, such as New Mexico and Utah, soon followed by instating doctrines almost identical to those set forth in Colorado
(Vranesh 1987:62). These various state laws collectively form the western water law that is colloquially referred to as the “United States prior appropriation system.”
Under the prior appropriation system, water rights are appropriated to users according to the principles of priority and beneficial use. Priority means “first in time, first in right,” or in other words, water rights are chronologically ordered from oldest to newest (CDWR 2013). The
State of Colorado statutorily defines beneficial use as, “the use of a reasonable amount of water necessary to accomplish the purpose of the appropriation, without waste” (CDWR 2013).
Guided by these principles, early water rights were allocated primarily to mining companies and other emerging businesses, but most of the early miners abandoned their rights as the United
States developed their large-scale agricultural interests in the West. (Tarlock 2001:2). After Fields 11 several years of non-use, a water right is declared abandoned by a water court and redistributed according to the prior appropriation system (Hobbs 2002). This leaves many acequias or long-standing agricultural communities with the most senior or oldest water rights in the region. “These two populations [local acequia associations and the Rio Grande Pueblos] are historically the oldest and economically the poorest owners of scarce and precious rights to river water” (Rodriguez 2007:9).
Since the adoption of the prior appropriation system in the late 1800s, this has been the method of water allotment in western states, but states and federal regulatory agencies have adopted more detailed regulations in response to the growing scarcity of water (Hobbs 2002:3).
In Colorado, for example, there are seven water courts and a State Engineer that are responsible for overseeing the transfer of water rights (Baumann 2001). In New Mexico, the
State Engineer requires each individual parciante to defend their water rights in a court process called “water adjudication.” “The purpose of each case … is to determine the nature and extent of all water right claims on the Upper Rio Grande and its tributaries, as well as those of other river systems (including groundwater) located in the state” (Rodriguez 2007:5). With a growing demand for water and a limited supply available, the states are determined to quantify and prioritize all the water rights. (Rodriguez 2006:5; Cox 2014:215). During this process, farmers must provide sufficient evidence indicating how much water they use, how it is used, and why they need the particular amount of water (the “duty”) they are requesting. Conducting adjudications on every New Mexican water right is an extremely lengthy process, and there are approximately 65,000 individuals currently defending their water rights in court (Perramond
2012:64). Fields 12
Acequia Recognition Law
Both Colorado and New Mexico have created regulations that are intended to help protect the acequias’ community water rights and their parciantes. In New Mexico, acequias are considered a political subdivision of the state (73-2-28 NMSA 1978). Similarly, Colorado’s
Acequia Recognition Law, adopted in 2009 and further amended in 2013, allows acequia communities located in Costilla, Conejos, Huerfano, and Las Animas counties to organize themselves as corporations, and they are accorded some rights which allow them to govern themselves and have some control over the management of the acequia waters. (Colorado
Revised Statutes § 7-42-101.5 (2013) (amending Colo. Rev. Stat. § 7-42-101.5 (2009)). These recognition acts acknowledge the history of acequias and legitimize their water management practice. In addition, the acts give the acequias some ability to prevent the transfer of water rights out of the acequias. Under the Colorado Acequia Recognition Law, if a parciante wishes to sell his water right, he is required to inform the acequia community, and the acequia community is entitled to purchase the right before it can be offered to the public. The amendment to the Colorado Acequia Recognition Law passed in 2013 allows the acequias to incorporate and adopt by-laws which further protects the integrity and functioning of these communities.
Research: Methods & Sources
My thesis research combines qualitative and quantitative methods to get a better understanding of acequia communities in the San Luis Valley of Colorado and how they function within the system of modern United States water law and under societal and cultural pressures. Fields 13
Interviews and field observations comprise the majority of methods employed during data collection.
Scientific methods are very helpful, but the core of my field research was centered on interviews and field observations. As a relative stranger to acequia practices, interviews proved to be the most useful tool to appreciate and interpret the daily life and struggles of acequia parciantes. Colorado College has an excellent collection of scholarly information regarding acequias, but there is a lack of first hand narratives that are useful for understanding local acequia populations. I visited San Luis Valley for three days to interview various individuals and study the infrastructure of a typical acequia farm. In addition, I visited the Colorado
Department of Water Resources’ Alamosa Office, a local coffee shop to get the flavor of the community, Stations of the Holy Cross Shrine, R&R Market (longest running business in
Colorado) and San Luis Town Hall.
I spoke with Steve Harris, a Colorado attorney who has litigated various cases in the San
Luis Valley and is an expert on local and regional water law. A conversation with Mr. Harris helped clarify how water is allotted in the San Luis Valley under the prior appropriation system.
An interview with Professor Devon Peña, a respected anthropologist and leading scholar on acequia communities surrounding San Luis, provided valuable information regarding the current and historical status of the San Luis Valley acequias. In addition, he explained the importance of the Acequia Recognition Law. Eugene Jacquez is a farmer in Chama, Colorado, who draws water from Culebra Creek via an acequia diversion system. He provided first-hand knowledge of the daily life on an acequia and the day-to-day struggles of an average acequia farmer. Felix Romero is the owner of R&R Market in San Luis, and he owns property and water Fields 14 rights on the San Luis People’s Ditch. He gave valuable insight into how the acequia communities have changed throughout his lifetime. Professor Mario Montaño is a Professor of
Anthropology at Colorado College and board member of the Acequia Institute. As a Colorado
College professor, he gave me professional advice on my thesis and insight into the Rio Grande watershed.
Instead of examining the water efficiency at the individual farm level, I examined the watershed as a whole. By using the percolation rate for flood irrigation established by
Alexander Fernald and determining the average discharge in Culebra Creek during the 2013 irrigation season, I was able to show how irrigation waters helped to refill the local aquifer.
Looking as a watershed as a whole is a unique and relatively new approach to examining the irrigation efficiency of a specific type of farming (Guillet 2006:305).
After discussing the issues facing the acequias of the San Luis Valley with the various parties, investigating the operations of an acequia farm, exploring the San Luis Valley region to gain an understanding of the culture and history, and researching hydraulic data from one of the ditches that provide water for the area, I made conclusions about the viability of the acequias in the valley. In addition, I made recommendations as to measures that will help insure the continuity of these communities. My research built upon the studies and reports published by many other individuals and cited herein.
Results and Discussion
Economic and Cultural Pressures
In February, 2014, I travelled to the San Luis Valley of Colorado, specifically to Costilla and Alamosa Counties, for three days to see the area and meet with residents. Unfortunately, Fields 15 this is a time period that is relatively quiet on the farm. However, touring the area, visiting local retail establishments and historically significant sites, and talking with residents and shopkeepers afforded me the opportunity to experience the culture and develop a connection with the area.
The climate is arid, and even in winter, this is apparent. There is little in the way of vegetation other than low, woody brush, except the areas abutting a water source are able to support willow shrubs, cottonwood trees and tall grasses. The San Luis Valley is a high-altitude, flat basin surrounded by the Sangre de Cristo Range and San Juan Mountains. This valley is the highest altitude agricultural area in the United States, but the valley floor receives only 7 to 8 inches of precipitation annually (Smith 2013:22). In this area of the valley, the Sangre de Cristo
Mountains are seemingly quite close and impressive. At this time of year, they are snow- covered, and the snowpack feeds Culebra Creek which provides the irrigation waters for the
San Luis Valley acequia communities.
The towns in this area tend to be small with a localized commercial center (if one at all) surrounded by residential areas and farms. I had the opportunity to spend time in the towns of
San Luis, Chama and Alamosa. The distance between most the towns is quite far, and the area as agricultural and rural. The commercial establishments consist of “bare essentials” in San Luis with some enterprises geared toward the tourist industry. At this time of year, several were closed. San Luis is the county seat for Costilla County. Chama had no commercial zone. Alamosa is the largest town in San Luis Valley with a population of 9,000 plus people, and it is fairly typical of a small city with some nods to suburbia with a Wal-Mart and several strip malls. The area is not wealthy as evidenced by the type of stores, the relative modest homes, and the Fields 16 state of disrepair seen in some of the homes as well as commercial buildings. The per capita income is well below the state average making the valley one of the poorest areas in Colorado
(Smith 2013:23). Religion plays an important role in the lives of many of the San Luis Valley residents as shown by the numerous churches in the area, most notably Stations of the Cross
Shrine which is one of the most famous sites in the valley perched on a hill overlooking San Luis.
In addition, I noticed several religious artifacts in the stores I entered and in the one home I visited.
When I visited the San Luis Valley, I met with Eugene Jacquez, a farmer on the
Cerro Ditch in the Rio Culebra watershed and a member of the #11 Acequia. I was able to tour his farm, inspect the irrigation ditches, see his seed collection, and discuss his experience of being an acequia farmer. Eugene is approximately 60 years old and was raised in the San Luis
Valley on a nearby cattle ranch. The majority of his farm is used to cultivate alfalfa which he sells as feed for elk in New Mexico. After the last cut of alfalfa, Eugene’s cousin brings cattle to the farm to consume the remaining grass and lay manure on the fields. In addition to the alfalfa, Eugene grows many heirloom varieties of beans including bolita, pinto, and fava beans, as well as squash, maize, cucumbers, tomatoes, sweet peas, and radishes. The vegetables are for Eugene’s own use, but anything over his needs he sells to the Rio Culebra Cooperative. In an effort to extend his growing season for vegetables, Eugene purchased a hoop house with funds from a Natural Resources Conservation Services grant.
Eugene is able to support his family on his acequia farm, but he acknowledged that it is difficult for many in the community to do so. He stated that many acequia members are moving to urban areas for more desirable occupations or for life in a city. In addition, Eugene Fields 17 fears losing water rights to Anglos because they have enough money to fund expensive litigation. His acequia was forced to install a concrete-lined ditch because a farmer downstream brought a case against the acequia when the downstream farmer’s water flow diminished
(Jacquez 2014). Eugene’s concerns are legitimate. It is documented that some acequia farmers in the San Luis Valley are no longer able to support their families by farming their land (Ferrigno
2013:10).
Eugene is a typical acequia farmer in that he is passionate about his farm and the community. He is concerned that some of the younger generations are not embracing the lifestyle, and he sees that as a serious problem facing acequia communities (Jacquez 2014). This concern is voiced by others in the San Luis Valley as well (Peña 2014). It is very important that the community and other organizations make an effort to educate future generations not only about the history of acequias but about water issues in general. Not only must the younger generations want to continue with the farming practices of their ancestors, but they must also understand the environmental issues surrounding the water they desperately need. Water conservation measures must be taught to survive drought periods, methods to protect the watershed from development and abuse are crucial, and soil maintenance and enhancement are important. “We need to get kids and community members to buy into the process of resource management. By helping them see a broader picture, they’ll understand that these things are more than just sound bites” (Poppleton 2013:9).
The health of the acequia communities in the Taos Valley of northern New Mexico was recently studied by Assistant Professor Michael Cox of Dartmouth College (Cox 2014). He found that societal and economic pressures have led to a decline in the productivity of these Fields 18 communities. In addition, he extrapolated his findings to state that this decline is likely to be reflected in acequias located in other regions.
“The acequias are producing less than they have in the past and have mostly lost their
common-property-based livestock pasturing system. While some of these changes can
be attributed to similar declines in water availability, much of the change results from
social drivers including demographic changes, regional-to-global market forces, and
public policies. Overall the shift of the acequias to their current state is a result of their
integration into a much larger-scale set of social and economic forces than they have
experienced in the past. This shift will be very difficult to reverse, meaning the acequia
farmers must adapt to the current condition. It is likely that these themes are common
across many community-based resource management systems in many locations” (Cox
2014:213).
To protect the acequias, efforts to either combat the “social drivers” that Cox refers to or adapt to the new conditions must be made.
In the San Luis Valley, an important program that is solely devoted to the issues surrounding acequias is the Colorado Congreso de Acequias (The Acequia Institute). The first annual gathering was held in 2012 and was organized by the Sangre de Cristo Acequia
Association and held in San Luis. This gathering is important because it brings a diverse group of people together for the unique purpose of discussing acequias in Colorado. This meeting brings the attendees up to speed on current happenings within the local acequia communities and provides a venue to explore problems facing the acequias and present possible solutions. It is opportunities such as this that can strengthen the communities and educate acequia members Fields 19 on how to adapt to changing circumstances while protecting their interests.
Additionally, there are several organizations in the San Luis Valley that are focused on water issues and protecting this natural resource so crucial to the continued success of acequias in this region. The Rio Grande Watershed Conservation and Education Initiative is a program funded and supported by several organizations involved with water conservation as well as several acequia communities (Poppleton 2013:9). The initiative has been operating for more than twenty years with the mission of educating the public, including school children, about soil and water conservation. In recent years, the breadth of its programs has expanded, reaching even more of the San Luis Valley community (Poppleton 2013:9). Even though this initiative does not specifically deal with educating the public about acequias and their issues, outreach methods such as this are crucial to strengthening the community’s understanding of water and soil issues and their importance to the success of the acequia farming.
Legal Issues
An outsider might assume that acequia associations are in favor of the prior appropriation system because of the high priority they are given. In reality, this method of allocation contradicts their basic water allotment strategies. “Parciantes believe that water should be shared according to need and equity rather than owned exclusively, based on a principle of prior appropriation” (Rodriguez 2007:5). If each parciante owns an adjudicated right to water then they have the individual ability to sell a fraction of what has traditionally been considered a communal resource. Once the water right has been sold, it becomes unlawful for the community to divert that particular amount of water from the river (Rodriquez 2006:3). Fields 20
Municipalities with growing water needs specifically target agricultural interests, such as acequia communities, because these communities often hold the most senior and valuable water rights (Rivera 1998:159). “Population growth in the region is creating pressures to convert agricultural land and irrigation water to urban and other uses” (Fernald 2007:147).
Unfortunately, younger generations in the acequia communities might not be interested in a pastoral lifestyle, and therefore, do not receive a proper acequia management education (Peña
2014). The younger generations lack a connection with the land, and once they inherit the familial water rights, they may be tempted to sell these interests. In these poor communities, acequia water rights might be the most valuable asset acquired through inheritance. The cultural and generational significance of these rights is lost because of the immense dollar value of water in the Southwest (Rivera 1998:194). When the water is sold to distant locations, the community loses that irrigation water and valuable aquifer recharge water and fragile riparian ecosystems are harmed in the process as well (Fernald 2004:5). With each sale of water rights, the acequia community is degraded because they lose a portion of a communal resource that will never be returned and the community now has a farm that is unproductive (Fernald
2004:5). The community shrinks as well with the loss of the parciante, and the maintenance work of the ditches becomes more of a burden on the remaining members (Rivera 1998:194). If state and federal policymakers had taken a more inclusive approach in the development of prior appropriation law, then possibly a more dynamic and effective water policy would have been created that reflected the specific management requirements necessary for a unique location.
The Colorado Acequia Recognition Law acknowledges that acequias are historically and Fields 21 economically important to the locales in which the acequias are located and therefore are worthy of protection and support. In addition, the law recognizes that acequia water management methods are an alternative to prior appropriation law and that these methods have been successful in irrigating the land and creating a cohesive community for over 150 years in some cases. (Colorado Revised Statutes § 7-42-101.5 (2013) (amending Colo. Rev. Stat.
§ 7-42-101.5 (2009)). Among other things, Section 2 of the act allows acequias to incorporate, and in doing so, the acequia corporation can set forth bylaws that will further protect the fundamental nature of the acequia. This section of the act can help to prevent parciantes from transferring the water rights accorded to them under the prior appropriation system to parties outside their acequia community (Colo. Rev. Stat. 7-42-101.5(4)(d)). Technically, under the
Acequia Recognition Law, the acequia corporation has the right of first refusal if a member of the acequia wishes to sell their water right. In practice, this allows the acequias to either purchase the water right in question or make the transfer so costly and unattractive that neither party involved will be interested in completing the transaction (Peña 2014). In terms of purchasing the water right, it is difficult for these poor communities to fund such a purchase
(Peña 2014). Therefore, the more logical method of preventing the sale of a water right is to employ market mechanisms and make the price of the water right uneconomical (Peña 2014).
An individual water right within an acequia community is invaluable to the community. Sarah
Parmar, program director for the Sangre de Cristo Acequia Association stated, “For a cooperatively managed, gravity-fed ditch, the loss of water could be disastrous” (Ferrigno
2013:10). In pricing the water right, one must take into consideration the cost of retrofitting the ditch system for diminished water flow. Engineering reports will need to be completed, head Fields 22 gates replaced, and ditches rebuilt to insure the gravity-driven system will function adequately.
These costs will make the price of the water right in question exorbitant thereby preventing a transfer outside the community (Peña 2014).
While the Acequia Recognition Law is a step towards protecting historic acequias in the
San Luis Valley, it is very difficult to reconcile modern water policies with ancient traditions and practices so that all interested parties are satisfied and protected and no constitutional issues are raised. By acknowledging and giving some powers to the acequia corporations, the law restores some of the most significant features of acequia management. However, the law does not allow acequias to outright prohibit the sale or transfer of water out of the community (Peña
2010:27). This is a very important point because under acequia water management practices, water is a community asset owned by the acequia, not by each individual parciante. If the law were to fully protect the acequias, then it would allow an acequia corporation to block a sale of a water interest. Therefore, although the Acequia Recognition Law has set forth legal means to help preserve the acequia communities, to truly protect the water supply of an acequia, additional safeguards are needed (Peña 2014). The difficult issue is how to implement such a regulation and not run afoul of the constitutional requirements of the prior appropriation system.
One method to accomplish the goal of water protection is through the bylaws of an incorporated acequia. In New Mexico, acequias are statutorily recognized as political subdivisions of the State of New Mexico and can draft laws and govern themselves accordingly
(73-2-28 NMSA 1978). In Colorado, pursuant to the Acequia Recognition Law, acequias of the
San Luis Valley (specifically, Acequias located in Costilla, Conejos, Huerfano, and Las Animas Fields 23 counties) can incorporate and set forth rules and regulations in the form of bylaws to govern the acequia (Colorado Revised Statutes § 7-42-101.5 (2013) (amending Colo. Rev. Stat. § 7-42-
101.5 (2009)). Some acequias, such as Acequia de los Alamos los Gallegos in New Mexico, have drafted bylaws that do not allow transfer of water rights outside the community without the approval of the governing body within the acequia (Acequia de los Alamos los Gallegos
2008:Art. 9, Sec. 3). This rule serves to return the customary norms of the acequias by establishing that the water is a community resource and the community may determine the fate of a water interest. Colorado acequia corporations may draft bylaws to regulate the sale of water rights and may impose conditions on the sale that can be onerous and dissuade parciantes from selling, but they cannot prohibit the selling of a water interest (Peña 2010).
In the San Luis Valley, there are only three incorporated acequias (Ferrigno 2013:10).
The unincorporated acequias do not have the protection that bylaws can afford. This is not because the communities are opposed to incorporation, but often because they lack the manpower, legal knowledge, and funding to do so (Jacquez 2014; Rivera 1998:192 ). The
Acequia Assistance Project which is a joint program between the University of Colorado Law
School, the Sangre de Cristo Acequia Association, and Colorado Open Lands, is committed to providing educational materials and low or no-cost legal assistance to Acequia communities
(Acequia Assistance Project 2013). Law students, guided by professionals in the field of water rights, are drafting a Legal Handbook for Colorado Acequias that will guide acequias through the process of incorporating and adopting bylaws. The Acequia Assistance Project is most active in Costilla County (Ferrigno 2013:10). Hopefully, this will lessen the burden of incorporation, and other acequias in the San Luis Valley will take the measures necessary to Fields 24 incorporate thereby protecting the acequias’ way of life.
One acequia in Costilla County that is incorporated is the San Luis People’s Ditch. The members of this incorporated acequia are a very active, acequia-conscious community. They are nearly unanimous in their agreement that the water is communal property and should remain with the acequia, and they are actively seeking ways to codify this beyond the protection afforded by incorporation (Peña 2014). How they can make this a binding law for their community is the question.
Flood Irrigation and Environmental Considerations
Acequia farming practices involve an irrigation method known as flood or surface irrigation (Rivera 1998:3-4). Because of the large amount of water needed to irrigate fields using flood irrigation techniques, acequia water management practices have been criticized as an inefficient use of water producing only marginal economic returns (Rivera 1998:190).
However, a report published by the Water Task Force at New Mexico State University states that,
“researchers are now beginning to understand that unlined acequia water delivery
systems may be beneficial from an overall river and floodplain management
perspective. Previous and ongoing field study results indicate that the seepage
associated with acequias increases recharge to shallow aquifers, enhances riparian
vegetation and wildlife habitat along ditches, and improves water quality” (Fernald
2004:1).
My primary objectives for gathering hydraulic data from the acequias of the San Luis Fields 25
Valley were the following:
1) Understand the local hydrology such as ditch and stream flows,
2) Compile information regarding crop cover and land use by interviewing growers and observing the cultivated lands firsthand
3) Compare acequia flood irrigation percolation rates with those from farms that use contemporary irrigation systems (i.e. center pivot), and
4) Calculate the amount of water percolating into the aquifer from the acequias on Culebra
Creek by using a standard rate of percolation that has been established for the region.
Gathering this data required research and some fieldwork. I was able to gather streamflow information for Culebra Creek because it is monitored and recorded online by local governmental agencies. Field observations helped me understand the cultural landscape and provided additional land use information.
Alexander Fernald, Professor of Watershed Management at New Mexico State
University, authored a paper entitled, "River Hydrograph Retransmission Functions of Irrigated
Valley Surface Water–Groundwater Interactions," that explores the relationship between shallow aquifers and flood irrigation methods (Fernald 2010). When flood irrigation water is applied to the cropland, it either percolates into the soil and aquifer, is lost through evapotranspiration (water that is consumed by a combination of evaporation and transpiration processes), or is returned to the river system via ditch return flows and surface runoff from the fields (Fernald 2010).
Fields 26
General Hydraulics of an Acequia Irrigation System
Fernald’s study was essential to constructing my study because I extrapolated the rate of percolation he calculated to be a standard for regional acequias, including those in the San
Luis Valley. Fernald’s study was conducted in Northern New Mexico where the climate is very similar to the San Luis Valley, and acequia communities in the two areas function very similarly.
Finding a percolation rate for the Culebra Creek acequias was necessary because with it I could establish the approximate amount of water contributed to local aquifers through flood irrigation methods. The study conducted by Fernald uncovered that approximately one-third of all flood irrigation water percolates into the aquifer, seven percent is lost to evapotranspiration, and the remaining water is returned to the river via field runoff and ditch return flows (Fernand
2010:831).
The Culebra Creek watershed comprises Water District 24 of Division 3 of the Colorado
Division of Water Resources (CDWR: Div. Offices). From the Division of Water Resources website, I gathered Culebra Creek’s 2013 discharge records set forth in the chart below (CDWR:
CDSS). The Culebra Creek gauging station is located above the San Luis People’s Ditch diversion headgates on the section of river that flows through downtown San Luis. Fields 27
The Colorado Revised Statutes requires the State Engineer to establish the yearly beginning and ending irrigation dates for Water District 3 (Colorado Revised Statutes § 37-92-
501(4)(b)(II) (2009). The irrigation season for District 3, including Culebra Creek, is presumptively April 1 to November 1, or 214 days (CDWR: Irrigation Season). From the above chart, I specifically used the measurement numbers 286 - 297, which represent the 2013 irrigation season.
With the discharge data, the dates of irrigation, and Fernald’s established percolation rate, I was able to calculate the approximate amount of water lost to percolation in cubic feet per second (hence recharging the local aquifer) from flood irrigation on Culebra Creek in 2013. Fields 28
All of these calculations are based on the assumption that 100 percent of Culebra Creek’s water is diverted for flood irrigation purposes. Admittedly, this assumption likely is inaccurate because some water from the creek is probably used for purposes other than flood irrigation.
However, because data on the exact amount of water used for irrigation is not readily available, my calculations are a gross estimate of the amount of water percolated into the aquifer.
My methodology was as follows and calculations can be seen on the chart below:
1) Obtained the data for water discharged in cubic feet per second (cfs) for the 12 measurements recorded by the Division of Water Resources during the 2013 irrigation season.
(Measurement Nos. 286 - 297 in above chart),
2) Calculated the number of days between each measurement date,
3) Multiplied the number of days for each period by the discharge measurement to obtain a total discharge in cfs for the time period,
4) Added the total discharge figures and divided by the number of irrigation days to obtain an average discharge in cfs for the 2013 irrigation season, and
5) Divided the average discharge for 2013 by Fernald’s percolation rate of ⅓ to obtain the amount of water in cfs that was lost to percolation from flood irrigation on Culebra Creek in
2013.
Date Range (2013) # of Days Discharge (cfs) Total Discharge (cfs)
4/1 to 4/15 15 13.1 196.5
4/15 to 5/14 29 10.1 292.9
5/14 to 5/28 14 47.4 664
5/28 to 6/6 9 51.4 462.6 Fields 29
6/6 to 6/24 18 56.9 1,024.20
6/24 to 7/16 22 47.7 1042.8
7/16 to 8/5 20 63.1 1,262
8/5 to 8/27 22 36.4 800.8
8/27 to 9/17 20 39.4 788
9/17 to 10/8 21 29.4 617.4
10/8 to 10/29 21 39.5 829.5
10/29 to 11/1 3 20.9 62.7
Totals 214 8043
AVERAGE DISCHARGE DURING IRRIGATION SEASON: 8043/214=37.6 cfs
AVERAGE PERCOLATION: 37.6/3=12.5 cfs
Based on my calculations and assumptions, the approximate amount of water that percolated into the aquifer during the 2013 irrigation season from Culebra Creek was 12.5 cubic feet per second. By determining the amount of water percolated, I established a relationship between the rising levels of local fluvial aquifers and the flood irrigation waters diverted from
Culebra Creek. I recognize the value I obtained is an average and based on only 12 discharge measurements over the entire irrigation season of 214 days. Therefore, the value could be off by a significant amount. However, my research shows that the old adage, “One person’s waste is another person’s water supply,” holds true regarding water management practices utilized by
San Luis Valley acequia communities (Colorado Agricultural Water Alliance 2008:4). Fields 30
While my study shows that acequia farmers in San Luis Valley using flood irrigation methods contribute a significant amount of water to the aquifer through percolation, many of the larger industrial farmers in the valley using center pivot irrigation return very little to the water system (Colorado Agricultural Water Alliance 2008:10). In the San Luis Valley, center pivot irrigation started replacing flood irrigation in the 1960s (Baumann 2001). Center pivot irrigation is a method of pumping groundwater through a sprinkler mechanism that rotates 360 degrees irrigating a circle of land. This method of irrigation is considered more efficient than flood irrigation in that it uses a more precise amount of water to nourish the plants (Baumann
2001). The efficiencies of this method, however, mean the amount of water added to the aquifer is reduced. As a result, the surface irrigation methods used by the acequias serve to replenish the aquifer while center pivot farming has caused the San Luis Valley unconfined aquifer to be depleted by over one million acre-feet (Smith 2013:21).
In addition to replenishing the aquifer, percolation from surface irrigation into surrounding habitats plays an important role in supporting those habitats and biodiversity in the San Luis Valley (Colorado Agricultural Water Alliance 2008:9; Rivera 1998:194). Fernald
(2007:167) suggests that the riparian habitats are created because shallow aquifers can rise up to one meter during flood irrigation periods. The habitats produced by flood irrigation support a variety of species that would otherwise not exist and thus are dependent on the fragile ecosystem created by this type of irrigation. While the acequia water management practices tend to improve the environment by replenishing the aquifer and supporting biodiversity, the very nature of acequia communities and the web of social relationships that are created by the sharing of common water tend to produce “an ethic of environmental care” (Bakker 2010:173). Fields 31
The positive environmental consequences of acequia farming have created an interesting coalition of supporters. Many diverse groups are interested in protecting the water resources of Southern Colorado. An example of this is the Rio Grande Basin Roundtable whose membership represents all reaches of the agricultural, recreational, and conservation sectors.
One of the roundtable priorities is to sustain health aquifer levels and ensure the San Luis
Valley’s water needs (CWCB:2014). Because acequia farms are sustainable systems that contribute valuable water to the aquifer, have minimal impact on the area’s water crisis, and support important habitats for a variety of riparian species, they have the backing of many water rights groups, such as the Rio Grande Basin Roundtable.
When the legislative and judicial systems consider issues involving water rights, factors beyond the quantity of water used and how it should be legally allocated need to be taken into consideration. How can it be of benefit to curtail the water rights of acequia farmers when proportionally they return far more water to the aquifer than any other farmers and their irrigation processes help maintain essential habitats and stream flows? “When considering changes to water resources management in agricultural corridors, it is important to analyze all potential impacts of changes and to have an understanding of the many factors that influence the hydrologic cycle of irrigated agriculture” (Fernald 2004:1).
Conclusion
Historically, acequias have been maintained by generations of Hispano farmers that originally settled on Mexican Land Grants prior to the Treaty of Guadalupe del Hidalgo in 1848.
For over one hundred years, the acequia communities successfully managed their communal water resources without the intervention of government. The modern United States prior Fields 32 appropriation system has developed through the years into a complicated series of federal regulations, multi-state river compacts, state laws, and case law that now regulates the water available to the acequias. These laws and precedents of water management were developed with an eye towards industrializing the Western United States so the full potential of our country’s resources could be harnessed (Tarlock 2002:769-770). Modern water law essentially ignored acequias until widespread droughts and growing demand for water forced western states to adjudicate and quantify this natural resource. It was the first intersection of modern
United States resource management and traditional Hispanic communal administration of water.
“Sovereign authority grounded in the U.S. Nation-state has tended to produce political
ecologies based on the privatization and large-scale, commercial extraction of
resources; while sovereign authority grounded in Mexican law, the Treaty of Guadalupe
Hidalgo, and the spatial practices of the land grant system has tended to foster political
ecologies grounded in collective resource governance and small-scale livelihood
provisioning” (Lindner 2013: 12).
Acequias always have functioned around the concept of communal water sharing, but the prior appropriation law allocates private water rights to each individual. The passage of the Acequia
Recognition Law in Colorado was a much-needed step towards addressing the differences between the historic and traditionally recognized communal water concepts of acequia communities and the private water rights guaranteed under law, but efforts must continue to protect the acequias under changing modern water law. Ideally, the Colorado state legislature would amend the Acequia Recognition Law to allow an acequia to block the transfer of water Fields 33 interests to parties outside the acequia community, as was done in New Mexico in 2004, thus preserving communal nature of the water allocated to the acequia.
The San Luis Valley communities are small but passionate about their lifestyle and protecting their acequia heritage. This pride and resiliency is common among resource-sharing communities where the resource, here being water, is more than an exploitable commodity but rather a binding force within the community (Bakker 2010:173). The three acequia farmers I spoke with, Eugene Jacquez, Felix Romero and Devon Peña, are supporters of the water management practices of the acequias, and they all recognize that they cannot be complacent about protecting their way of life. These communities have survived for over a century farming their land under the acequia system of water management, and there is every reason to believe they can continue to farm and survive under the current Colorado water laws. However, as the water supplies in Colorado grow scarcer, the pressure on acequia communities will increase.
They need to be prepared to fight off lobbying efforts by outside interests to protect their water resources. To do this, there needs to be education within their communities as to the historical importance of acequias to the southwest and the benefits of community farming.
Advances need to be made in stressing the importance of the concept of communal water as opposed to private water rights. As stated earlier, regulations need to be written, either in the form of a legislative act or a directive at the local level, to protect the water as a community asset and not allow transfers of water rights out of the acequia. In addition, efforts need to be undertaken to protect the quality and quantity of water available to the acequias. The communities need to join together with other organizations that all share the common goal of preserving this natural resource and promote conservation measures and watershed Fields 34 protection. Lobbying efforts need to be undertaken to bring the causes important to acequias to attention of politicians as well as the residents of Colorado. While this movement is fairly well organized at the local level, this does not necessarily translate into attention at the higher levels of government in Colorado or in the greater Colorado region.
Acequia irrigation waters of Southern Colorado transform the desolate landscape into a fruitful and productive environment. In addition to providing water to the historic agriculture communities, the acequia ditches also support fragile riparian ecosystems in the arid regions
(Colorado Agricultural Water Alliance 2008:9). Balancing the historic and cultural use of water in the San Luis Valley with the water needs of a growing population in other areas of Colorado as well as industrial farming is necessary to maintain acequias and the traditional farming communities they support.
“People cherish and defend the surviving Acequia systems … not because they are a
dead artifact from an archaic past, but because they continue to function, in ever-
changing yet persistent form, fulfilling a range of contemporary material and social
needs” (Rodriguez 2007:128).
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank several people that made this research study and accompanying paper possible, including Devon Peña, Steve Harris, Eugene Jacquez, and Felix Romero. All of these people enlightened my research with amazing professional insights and without them my thesis would have lacked a first-hand narrative. In addition, Professor Mario Montaño was instrumental in guiding my research and giving final input to my paper. I would like to thank my Fields 35 family for support and great third party input. Finally, most of all, I appreciate the Southwest
Studies program at Colorado College for providing me with great resources, support, and an amazingly unique education that has come to define part of who I am. Professors Eric Leonard and Eric Perramond were essential to my study and research paper, and without these wonderful and resourceful professors, nothing would have been possible. Thank you again to everyone involved. I am forever grateful for your efforts.
Fields 36
Appendix B. Pictorial Essay of San Luis Valley
This is the Stations of the Holy Cross Shrine, which is a small church with many statutes depicting the story of Jesus’ crucifixion and monuments celebrating the lives of other religious martyrs and saints. The church is set on top of a small knoll that rises out of the town center of San Luis. Religion, especially Catholicism, is very important to the longtime Acequia farmers and Hispanic descendents of the original San Luis settlers.
Cows grazing on what is left from last year’s alfalfa harvest. San Luis People’s Ditch just west of San Luis, CO.
Fields 37
Ditches, lined with willows, spread across the fields in a grid system that ensures an even distribution of water. Eventually, the ditches flow back into Culebra Creek and the creek converges with the Rio Grande, but only during extremely wet years. The pictured vara strips are irrigated with water from the San Luis People’s Ditch.
The fields directly past the town of San Luis are called La Vega. These fields are privately owned, but descendents of the original Hispanic settlers in San Luis are allowed access. In a pivotal court case the State of Colorado awarded the descendants of the original Sangre de Cristo land grant settlers grazing rights on La Vega. Fields 38
These are the Sangre de Cristo Mountains. Acequia farmers of San Luis depend primarily on the winter snowpack in these mountains for irrigation water throughout the spring and summer.
This is Culebra Creek as it flows through the town of San Luis. The creek provides water for the many Acequia farms, including Eugene Jacquez’s vara strip, that surround the area. Fields 39
This is the very small downtown area of San Luis.
This is where the San Luis People’s Ditch flows through town. At the time of this photo the ditch was overgrown with willows and weeds, but these plants are cleared out during “la saca” at the beginning of each irrigation season. Fields 40
These beans were cultivated on Eugene Jacquez’s vara strip in Chama, CO. There are a variety of bolita, pinto, and fava beans mixed together in these pictures.
This is Eugene Jacquez’s vara strip in Chama, CO. Like many of the local vara strips, Eugene’s is narrow but very long end-to-end. Similar to many Acequia farmers Eugene cultivates a variety of crops, but the majority of land is used for growing alfalfa. Fields 41
Bibliography
"Acequia Assistance Project." University of Colorado Boulder. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Mar. 2014.
about-center/acequia-assistance-project>. "The Acequia Institute." The Acequia Institute. N.p., n.d. Web. 3 Apr. 2014. "Bylaws of Acequia De Los Alamos Los Gallegos." N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Mar. 2014. Bakker, Karen J. 2010. Privatizing Water: Governance Failure and the World's Urban Water Crisis. Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP. Baumann, Paul. Dry Land and Water: San Luis Valley, CO. State Univ. of NY, College at Oneonta, 2001. Web. 02 Apr. 2014. Dry_Land_Water/Dry_Land_Water.htm>. Colorado Agricultural Water Alliance. Sept. 2008. “Meeting Colorado’s Future Water Supply Needs: Opportunities and Challenges Associated with Potential Agricultural Water Conservation Measures.” Colorado Division of Water Resources. http://water.state.co.us/Home/Pages/default.aspx. Colorado Division of Water Resources. Colorado's Decision Support Systems. N.p., n.d. Web. 3 Apr. 2014. http://cdss.state.co.us/onlineTools/Pages/StreamflowStations.aspx. Colorado Division of Water Resources. Discharge Measurements. N.p., n.d. Web. 3 Apr. 2014. http://www.dwr.state.co.us/Surfacewater/data/dischargemeasurement.aspx ?ID=CULSANCO&MTYPE=DISCHRG. Colorado Division of Water Resources. Irrigation Season. N.p., n.d. Web. 3 Apr. 2014. http://water.state.co.us/DWRIPub/Documents/div3Policy2010_1_IrrigationSeason.pdf. Fields 42 Colorado Revised Statutes § 7-42-101.5 (2013) (amending Colo. Rev. Stat. § 7-42-101.5 (2009)). Colorado Revised Statutes § 37-92-501(4)(b)(II) (2009). Colorado Water Conservation Board. Rio Grande Basin Roundtable. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Mar. 2014. http://cwcb.state.co.us/water-management/basin-roundtables/Pages/ RioGrandeBasinRoundtable.aspx. Cox, Michael. 2014. "Modern disturbances to a long-lasting community-based resource management system: The Taos Valley acequias." Global Environmental Change, 213-222. Crawford, S. 1988. Mayordomo: Chronicle of an Acequia in Northern New Mexico. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, NM. DeBuys, William Eno. 2011. A Great Aridness: Climate Change and the Future of the American Southwest. New York: Oxford UP. Print. DeWalt, B.R. & DeWalt, K.M. 2001. Participant observation: a guide for fieldworkers. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, CA, pp. 1-34. Available from: The Hulbert Center for Southwest Studies at Colorado College. Fernald, Alexander, Tidwell, Vincent, Rivera, José, Rodríguez, Sylvia, Guldan, Steven Steele, Caitriana, Ochoa, Carlos et al. 2012. "Modeling Sustainability of Water, Environment, Livelihood, and Culture in Traditional Irrigation Communities and Their Linked Watersheds." Sustainability 4, no. 11: 2998-3022. Fernald, Alexander G., Cevik, S.Y., Ochoa, Carlos G., Tidwell, Vincent C., King, J. Phillip, and Guldan, Steven J. 2010. "River Hydrograph Retransmission Functions of Irrigated Valley Surface Water–Groundwater Interactions." Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Fields 43 Engineering 136.12: 823. Print. Fernald, A.G., Baker, T.T. & Guldan, S.J. 2007. “Hydrologic, riparian, and agroecosystem functions of traditional acequia irrigation systems.” Journal of Sustainable Agriculture. vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 147-168. Available from: New Mexico State University: College of Agricultural, Consumer, and Environmental Sciences. (http://aces.nmsu.edu/). Fernald, Alexander G.& Guldan, Steven J. 2004. “River, Acequia and Shallow Groundwater Interactions.” Water Task Force, New Mexico State University: College of Agriculture and Home Economics. Fernald, Alexander G., and Steven J. Guldan. "Surface water–groundwater interactions between irrigation ditches, alluvial aquifers, and streams." Reviews in Fisheries Science 14.1-2 (2006): 79-89. Ferrigno, Bea. Summer 2013. “A Community Resource.” Headwaters: Colorado Foundation for Water Education. Gomez, B; & Jones, J.P., III. 2010. “Research Methods in Geography.” Blackwell Publishing Ltd., West Sussex, United Kingdom. Guillet, David. 2006. "Rethinking irrigation efficiency: chain irrigation in northwestern Spain." Human Ecology 34, no. 3: 305-329. Harris, Steve. February 6, 2014. Interview by author, Colorado Springs, Colorado. Hicks, Gregory A., and Devon G. Peña. Spring 2003. "Community Acequias in Colorado's Rio Culebra Watershed: A Customary Commons in the Domain of Prior Appropriation." University of Colorado Law Review, 74 U.Colo.L.Rev.387-486. Print. Fields 44 Hobbs, G.J. Jr. 2002. “Priority: the most misunderstood stick in the bundle.” Environmental Law, vol. 32, no. 37. Available from: The Hulbert Center for Southwest Studies at Colorado College. Jacquez, Eugene. February 25, 2012. Interview by author, Chama, Colorado. Katel, P. 2011. ‘Water crisis in the west’, CQ Researcher, vol. 21, no. 43, pp. 1025-1048. Lindner, Keith W. 2013. “The struggle for La Sierra: sovereignty, property, and rights in the San Luis Valley.” Political Geography, vol. 33, pp. 11-20. Lindner, Keith W. 2012. "Geographies of Struggle in the San Luis Valley*." Geographical Review 102, no. 3: 372-381. Mayagoitia, Laura, Hurd, Brian, Rivera, José and Guldan, Steve. 2012. "Rural Community Perspectives on Preparedness and Adaptation to Climate‐Change and Demographic Pressure." Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education 147, no. 1: 49-62. New Mexico State Code 73-2-28 NMSA 1978. Ortiz, Marquita, et al. 2007. "Land use change impacts on acequia water resources in northern New Mexico." Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education 137.1: 47-54. Peña, Devon. March 22, 2014. Phone interview by author. Peña, Devon. 2010. “Colorado’s 2009 Acequia Recognition Law: Punching a Hole in Prior.” Lecture to Water Center. https://digital.lib.washington.edu/xmlui/handle/1773/16401. Peña, Devon. 2009. "Testimony on Acequias Before Colorado State Legislature." Web log post. Environmental and Food Justice. Blogspot.com, 20 June 2009. Web. 22 Mar. 2014. Peña, D.G. 1998. Chicano Culture, Ecology, Politics: Subversive Kin. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ. Perramond, Eric P. 2012. "The Politics of Scaling Water Governance and Adjudication in New Mexico." Water Alternatives 5, no. 1. Poppleton, Jayla. Summer 2013. “Hands-On Water Education.” Headwaters: Colorado Foundation for Water Education. Rivera, José A. 2006. "The Community Irrigation Ditches of the Upper Rio Grande: Development History and Contemporary Issues." In 52nd Congreso Internacional de Americanistas, pp. 17-21. Rivera, José A. 1998. Acequia Culture: Water, Land, and Community in the Southwest. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico. Print. Rivera, José A., and Glick, Thomas F. 2002. "The Iberian Origins of New Mexico’s Community Acequias." Unpublished manuscript. http://www.newmexicohistory.org. Retrieved Oct. 28, 2011. Rodríguez, S. 2006. Acequia: water-sharing, sanctity, and place. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, NM. Romero, Felix. March 14, 2014. Phone interview by author. Schorr, D. 2012. The Colorado doctrine: water rights, corporations, and distributive justice on the American frontier. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. Smith, Jerd. Summer 2013. “Free Fall: The San Luis Valley’s Race to Rebalance its Overdrawn Groundwater Supply.” Headwaters: Colorado Foundation for Water Education. Tarlock, D. 2001. “The future of prior appropriation in the new west.” Natural Resources Fields 46 Journal, vol. 41, pp. 769-793. Available from: The Hulbert Center for Southwest Studies at Colorado College. van Halsema, Gerardo E. and Linden, Vincent. 2012. "Efficiency and productivity terms for water management: A matter of contextual relativism versus general absolutism." Agricultural Water Management 108: 9-15. Vranesh, George. 1987. Colorado Water Law, Volume 1. Boulder, Colorado: Vranesh Publications. www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/olls/sl2009a/sl_168.htm; House Bill 09-1233, 67th General Assembly.