Contact
AG plays fast and loose with Southern NM water
Esslinger on a recent tour of the EBID system. (Courtesy photo)
New Mexico is suing to have less water for its upstate constituents; this is just politicized hydrology
Gary King is in the very enviable position of a blustery riverboat gambler at a big poker game. The only thing is, he’s irresponsibly gambling with someone else’s chips – the water that Southern New Mexico farm families rely on for their way of life and business.
King has filed suit against the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) attacking the “operating agreement” negotiated among the Elephant Butte Irrigation District, the El Paso County Water Improvement District #1, and the BOR. This is unfortunate because one of the key ingredients in this valid and well-thought-out compromise is the fact that it protects New Mexico farmers and their right to pump underground water during times of severe drought, just as we are currently experiencing.
That is called conjunctive management. If not for the operating agreement, you can be assured that your ability to pump and grow crops for food, feed and fiber, and potentially fuel, would be tied up in litigation and many farmers would be out of business. In the case of litigation over water such as this, the U.S. Supreme Court will end up with the case and there’s no telling what that body may do.
Alleviating the unnecessary risk involved with such litigation is the very reason farmers in this valley took control of their own destiny and constructed the operating agreement.
So, if this lawsuit is not in the best interests of Southern New Mexico and its productive farm families, why is King pursing this irresponsible course? Could it be that there is reckless gambling going on in the Casino Hydrologico? That would be a good question to ask him as he tries to sell this lawsuit via press release and too-little, too-late “public” meetings.
The cost to Southern New Mexican farmers if and when King loses his wild game of poker is lost groundwater access and lost business, neither of which anyone can afford to lose.
Clearly politically motivated
Our Rio Grande Project and Compact have worked well recently and for 100 years without the interference of a politician who only has his sites on a higher office, instead of having any real basis for interfering with and dictating our way of life. The implications of King’s philosophy in filing this recent lawsuit – that Southern New Mexico cannot adequately look out for our own interest – is offensive and condescending.
The timing of King’s complaint is clearly politically motivated. It is too late to do anything about 2011 releases from Elephant Butte, but just in time to, in the words of his late father, “Open a whole box of Pandoras.”
The bottom line is that the way the BOR has operated the Rio Grande Project does not reduce New Mexico’s water. In fact, on Jan. 1, 2012, Upstate New Mexico (above Elephant Butte Dam) will have more water than if BOR had accounted as New Mexico is insisting that they should.
New Mexico is suing to have less water for its upstate constituents. This is just politicized hydrology.
It has long been said colloquially that “whiskey is for drinking and water is for fighting over.” Our farm families and the thousands of businesses and consumers that benefit from agriculture in these green valleys will fight for their water and associated rights, and are perfectly capable of protecting themselves.
But they want a fair fight in which one of our own state officials is not using our water to irrigate his personal political career.
Esslinger is the Elephant Butte Irrigation District treasurer-manager.
9 comments so far. Scroll down to submit your own comment.
Leave a response
You must be logged in to post a comment.
For the record:
Water rights depend on the existence of an equal amount of water to that which has been granted under the authority of law. Problems begin to occur when there is a deficit between what has been granted, and what actually exists.
I really doubt that the AG is playing fast and loose. Consider the following:
EBID management has been slowly cutting the water allocation for me and
other small tract holders over the last 5 or 6 years. Our historical full
allocation of water was 9 flood irrigations, with each one being charged 4
acre inches instead of the farm rate of 6 ac/in. Our area contains many
structures and paved areas which are not watered, as do most flat rate
holdings. On the basis of no, or inadequate, metering information this was
changed to 6 acre inches/watering by EBID on the advice of their consultant,
Dr. Philip King.
The 2008 agreement between EBID, EP #1 and the Interstate Stream Commission
may have well served the parties who agreed to the allocation of surface
water among themselves, but it left the small irrigators with little water
and even less recourse. Those holdings which cannot afford $100,000 pumps
and distribution systems are left with little to show for their annual water
fees to EBID. The lead time in permitting and drilling a well is now around
6 to 8 month with an emergency application, due to driller lead times and
documentation requirements. The Office of the State Engineer apparently
agrees as stated in their letter:
2011-05-16-jrd-to-JamesSalopek-EBID.pdf that the following allocations
for this year represent the direct result of the 2008 agreement:
IF THE AGREEMENT DID NOT EXIST, 2011 DISTRIBUTIONS WOULD HAVE BEEN:
EBID=172,500af
EP No.1= 130,200af
Mexico=18,500af
BECAUSE OF THE 2008 AGREEMENT, OUR PRESENT 2011 DISTRIBUTION:
EBID= 49,800af
EP No.1=246,700af
Mexico=18,500af
In summary, our 4″ allocation this year would have been approximately 13″ if
the 2008 agreement were not in effect, or if the water allocation were to
have been based strictly on water righted acreage.
The party agreeing on our behalf (EBID) appears to represent primarily the
interests of the board of directors of EBID, whose large farms can easily
support the infrastructure required to pump ground water in sufficient
quantities to offset the lack of surface water availability. It seems
apparent that a tradeoff was made in order to avoid a threatened lawsuit
from EP No.1, presumably over excessive farmer pumping from the Mesilla
aquifer.
Everyone who has grown up in the valley knows water is not a problem for local farmers. The pecan farms that have been here for generations knew how to exploit water before anyone was smart enough to even know anything was wrong. All these pecan farms sit ten feet below the water Tabel and the root systems of theses trees have been tapped into the water table for years. The true question is how is it so the second largest pecan producer in the world sits in the middle of an arid desert. millions of gallons of illegally acquire water.
“It’s been four years since someone happened to spot a legal notice in the newspaper: an application from the Augustin Plains Ranch, LLC to the Office of the State Engineer for permission to drill 37 rather hefty water wells out in the San Augustin Plains.
The plan was to extract 54,000 acre-feet of ground water per year. That’s 17.5 billion gallons of water every year or 545.5 gallons every second! Some (or most) of this water was to be provided to the state of New Mexico so that it might meet its Rio Grande Compact deliveries to the state of Texas. The water would be piped down U.S. 60 and dumped into the Rio Grande at Elephant Butte. That sounded very clever and altruistic, if not at least profitable.
It only took a few moments of reflection to conclude that this would seriously affect the living conditions and the environment for all of us out here in western Socorro and Catron counties. The legal notice (now yellow with age) said that we could object to this application within 10 days after its last publication. We had to be prepared to show that this plan would be detrimental to our water rights, that it would be contrary to the conservation of water within the state, or that it would be detrimental to the public welfare.”
t’s been four years since someone happened to spot a legal notice in the newspaper: an application from the Augustin Plains Ranch, LLC to the Office of the State Engineer for permission to drill 37 rather hefty water wells out in the San Augustin Plains.
http://www.dchieftain.com/dc/index.php/opinion/3923-san-augustin-water-grab-needs-your-attention.html
Why doesn’t Gary Johnson protect the aquifer of the San Augustine Plain?
http://dchieftain.com/dc/index.php/news/3356-fighting-for-their-water-rights.html
I attended a conference earlier this spring dealing with Rio Grande water law. The afternoon of the last day of the conference was dedicated to the EBID-El Paso #1 2008 Operating Agreement. The first speaker was a representative of EP #1. He stated that they loved the agreement. The second speaker was an attorney from the State Engineers Office who demonstrated that since the agreement southern New Mexico farmers received much less surface water. The third speaker was from the Interstrate Stream Commission. This speaker also demonstrated that since the agreement was signed by EBID the surface water available to southern NM farmers was greatly reduced. At the conclusion of the presentations a question was asked of the presenters and attendees, what does EBID think of the agreement? Intrestingly enough, Mr. Eslinger, Mr. Phil King (engineer for EBID), and Mr. Steve Hernandez (attorney for EBID) left immediately before the presentations. No one from EBID was present to answer the question. I did make the comment that as a member of EBID I had paid thousands of dollars to them and only received one irrigation. I am certainly not happy with the agreement but have not studied it in depth of was privy to the
It was pointed out by the Office of The State Engineer, Interstate Stream Commission and Mr. Gary King who was in attendance, that EBID never conferred with them prior to signing the agreement. Something is fishy but perhaps the stink is not in Santa Fe. I challenge an investigative reporter to dig deep on this subject.
I think it is well past the time the US Department of Justice look into New Mexico Attorney General Gary King’s operations in that Office.
Below I have provided a link to a news story in which the Office tries to defend itself from criticism. The article was written months ago. Questions still remain, questions that involve the well being of the citizenry and in particular voters:
http://www.nmpolitics.net/index/2011/06/criticism-is-off-the-mark-ag-spokesman-says/
Please take the time to read the links provided in the comment thread under the article if you desire to see a fuller picture of what I and others believe is a very dire situation in New Mexico.
One might wish to see who the lobbyst is on the other side of this deal…I wonder if any politicians ….perhaps a former governor…maybe just might show up in the mix…? I don’t know for sure… but perhaps a background check is on order. Could be interesting if one has the time to dig into this a bit… Keep digging.
You know the saying he who controls the water controls the world.
“AG plays fast and loose…” is a gross understatement about his involvement with water. However the saying can be extended to everything King does for his or his family personal gain.